What I'm looking for in a President is someone who can make a lot of bad decisions in a very small amount of time.

Chait -

1. This sentiment is the exact opposite of what most folks think. It's the Obama campaign that responds quickly. The HRC campaign seems to still believe that we have 24 news cycle (we don't).

2. It took a long time to write that speech that Obama wrote after the first Wright outburst.

Good.  I'm not quite naive enough to believe that this will be the end of it, however.

I dunno, Obama's "3:00 AM call" response ad came out pretty fast.

Anyway, he did it -- I'm not thrilled with how Obama has handled/reacted to the whole Wright thing, but I'm far from disgusted by it either.  THis is not what the election should be about and though it's understandable how "sexy" the issue is, that doesn't mean those who know better can't move on.  Goodness knows I've got other things to carp about with respect to Obama :-)

Terrific response. Is it too optimistic to think the Wrightmare might finally be over? Since he's an incorrigible egomaniac, Wright is probably going to keep talking, but at least now Obama has unequivocally disassociated himself from the guy. Particularly nice to see that he went after the "ridiculous" AIDS conspiracy theory.

Yes, but did he REJECT as well as denounce?  I did not hear a rejection there, only denunciation.  What is Obama hiding?  Isn't it obvious, as some here have suggested, that Obama's failure to REJECT is going to allow him to bring Wright back when the time is right?

From what I've seen of this, I'd say Obama did it exactly right, and much better than the chatterers have done.  Even here he makes no personal attacks--no characterizations of Wright as "loony" or as motivated by egomania.  Obama just says he's wrong, and that the ideas he expressed at the National Press Club in particular are diametrically opposed to those to which he, Obama, has dedicated his life.

I'm puzzled as to why he's supposed to have been "slow" in his response.  Wright's Friday evening encounter with Moyers doesn't seem to have been all that beyond the pale; indeed, it's not clear to me that the NAACP talk [which got him a standing O] was either.  The basic problem seems to be that he did a dreadful job of handling the stuff the media was throwing at him at the NPC--a problem that's not unprecedented at certain presidential "debates" I could name.  That being the case, a 24-hour turnaround doesn't look that bad.

I also take some issue with your suggestion he waited too long here.  After Wright went on his media hurricane this weekend into yesterday, I'd thought the one potential benefit would be that this would make clear that wright clearly isn't closely tied to Obama in a political sense, and vice versa.  Wright's astonishing selfishness, and the obviousness of the damage this could cause Obama would surely make that clear.  I've heard that sentiment trickling out over the last couple days in the media, but I think that did have to play out a bit before Obama could take real advantage.  Wright gave Obama the opportunity to throw him under the bus, to explain how this guy is clearly not the same, or at least a different aspect, then the pastor who brought him to Christianity, to throw in a swipe at Farrakhan and the cooky AIDS thing in the process, and all in a way that would make the many of us who'd respected Obama's principled reluctance to do the politically expedient thing last month retain that respect.  Obama's given this guy every benefit of the doubt and defended him as a fundamentally good man.  Now he has clear reason to make a clean break, and to do it in a way that highlights how Obama's perspective on this country in general, and how to deal with race in particular, is so different from Wright's.  

I'm not sure if Wright hadn't gone out and so spectacularly and unapologetically doubled down on the worst of his comments in the last couple of days that Obama could have made the break so thoroughly and well.

No it has to be a trifecta -- RENOUNCE, REJECT and REPUDIATE!  Preferable with exclamation points, like I just did.

In American politics, if you're on the left, you have to repudiate everything, otherwise The Ordinary American Voter will believe that you don't really mean your renouncing and rejecting.

Conservatives don't have to do that of course.  They just have to say, in the South, at that time, different attitudes, Martin Luther King, blah blah.  They just have to REGRET.

Irony: Southerners, or conservatives, never regret in capitals.  And they always regret that someone misinterpreted something, not that they said it.  Also, anyone criticising conservatives is obviously a foreigner faggot anti-American commie Manchurian candidate class warrior arugula-eating elitist.

Senator Obama wasn't showing this "outrage" yesterday on the tarmac in Wilmington -- just hours after Wright's NPC performance.  Why the outrage lag? For that matter, why wasn't he "outraged" years ago by Wright's offensive tirades? Oh right, I forgot, Barack and Michelle weren't in church any of those days. I suspect Obama ginned up some "outrage" after multiple calls from concerned superdelegates. And perhaps some worrisome tracking poll numbers. Americans will see this performance (Obama's, not Wright's) for what it is.

Did he REJECT, RENOUNCE and REPUDIATE?

Look at the bright side... having Wright out there for 3 days, building in his ego maniacal way was not all bad.  The Moyers interview made him look quite good, reasonable, explanatory... a lot of folks got a fuller and more nuanced picture.

Then came the NAACP speech... a bit tawdry making fun of other's pols speech... an idiotic theory about left brain/right brain dichotomies in races... almost dissing the Irish... but still on balance explainign certain things with a good theme...

And then the over the top buffoonery of the Press Club, arranged by Barbara Reynolds, a fervid Clinton supporter, no less...

He was so obviously trying to destroy the Obama candidacy since its success would strip him of his raison d'etre and then the anger that he was being eclipsed by a mere strippling... oh the wounded narcissism, the ego mania, the buffonery were so palpable...

So obama did what needed to be done.  I'm not sure that having it out there to unfold was all bad... after all the story had a lot of muscular legs.  It was not going to go away.  Wright, oddly enough, gave Obama the opening to do away with him, while trying to close the door on his being able to do it with his pegging obama as a politician who would say anything he had to, while he Wright walks to a higher Spiritual dummer... what a crock.  Laughable to me.  Not to many others.

So let's hope it is providential.  It sure changed the minds of some of my friends who had been resistant to my attempts at persuasion until now.

Lukenanh... Right you are... absolutely... Wright took the rope, played it out and made it possible at long last for Obama to hang him with it... Right timing.  Right tone.  Right pitch.  And the lynch metaphor is intended, because that is exactly what Wright tried to do to Obama and that is truly pathetic... to purposefully go about trying to sabotage a sterling Black/White American politician's so credible reach for POTUS all in the name of his own ego, his own vanity while wrapping himself in a completely bogus cloak of spirituality.  PUKESVILLE.  No Drama Obama pulled off a beaut and if he is corrcet about America it will play well indeed.  It has among those of my acquaintances who until now were deaf to his and my attempts to persuade.

No, no, he must Reject! Renounce! Repudiate!  and now, Revile!

I love ratnerstar's comment.

I don't think Obama moved too slowly. Had he dumped Wright before Wright went on his own campaign (which was understandable) to speak for himself rather than being distorted through soundbites then Obama would rightfully have come off as an opportunist, the antithesis of the image he should be trying to cultivate. Once Wright to his show on the speaking circuit (and it really isn't a bad show at that; it is something the US will have to come to terms with when it is mature enough to have the kind of conversation about "different" versus "deficient," which Wright is raising) Obama had no choice but to distinguish his own message from that of his former pastor.

Bottom line: Obama, as a political candidate, must have the right to define his own message and define himself the public. Rev. Wright was not going to permit Obama to do this. Both men have important, but conflicting, messages they want to get across to the public. The split was inevitable, but was Obama too slow? No. He did the right thing by giving the minister the benefit of the doubt until there was no longer any doubt about the differences between them.

I don't claim there is a conspiracy against Obama. I do see a conflict of interest and the broadcast media can't afford to shut down Primary Industry, Inc. No, he can't provide them with a reply which will shut them up because a day without Obama is a day with poor ratings.

Prove me wrong but I believe for the first time in years Larry King has covered more politics than the prurient. I'm certain that the Obama team concluded that the best and quickest response is not the same, at this time.  That is, any reply will be 'not good enough' so they have to wait until they've absorbed the maximum and then say "OK, enough.".

Thus, I fail to see how any "tactical move" will stifle cable news so long as they can provide a few days to air "the other side". Remember, people don't watch professional wrestling because they believe there will be competition.

Mud wrestling or one more debate? For some networks it would be a tough choice. But I doubt better tactics by Obama will produce different programming. For now, he's the hottest 24/7 ticket out there.

reganad: No, no, no.  porterm has it right.  It's not enough simply to renounce, reject, revile, denounce, deject, defect, defecate, repudiate, abominate and abjure.  He must show OUTRAGE.  Demonstrate it, feel it, fill the air with it.  OUTRAGE or nothing.

The whole Wright thing has gotten beyond silly in terms of the attention it's been getting. Media motormouths just love this sort of thing, and ginning it up is really really really bad for the Democrats, whichever one of these two gets it...and with each day, I feel more and more strongly that neither one of them should get it. Which considering that I felt that way a year ago is pretty scary...

Widdle wiberals got their way -- politically correct choice between a woman and a black. Too bad so much of the country isn't on that page.

"Senator Obama wasn't showing this "outrage" yesterday on the tarmac in Wilmington -- just hours after Wright's NPC performance.  Why the outrage lag?"

Because he had not actually seen the press conference performance (orchestrated by a Clinton supporter, btw).  He was shown a video by his aides last night, according to (I think) Politico, and he was pissed.

Reverend Wright's comments have been grosely misinterpreted by mass media and twisted out of context; I think that must be pointed out because it raises a real problem of credibility for mass media.

But beyond that, Obama, as a political candidate, has the right to define his own message and define himself to the public; he cannot allow someone else (Hillary Clinton, John McCain, or mass media) slap their own definitions on him.

The question now is whether or not Hillary Clinton will have the class to say that she, for one, is satisfied with Obama's answers, and would the media now kindly turn its attention to the issues that matter to the American people, i.e the war in Iraq, the recession, foreclosures, gas prices, health insurance, etc.?

If she doesn't do this she will have missed an opportunity to appear statesman/woman-like.

timteeter: Right.  This is from the actual press conference exchange:

Q: Why the change in tone from yesterday when you spoke to us on the tarmac yesterday --

Barack Obama: I'll be honest with you, because I hadn't seen it yet.

Q: That was the difference?

Obama: Yes.

[...]

What I had heard was that he had given a performance and I thought, at the time, that it would be sufficient to reiterate what I had said in Philadelphia. Upon watching it, what became clear to me was that it was more than just a -- it was more than just him defending himself.

LISAH:  "politically correct choice between a woman and a black. Too bad so much of the country isn't on that page."

Looking at McCain's numbers, I don't think his page is too crowded either.

Well, timteeter, if you're right, Senator Obama was ill-served by his staff. It wouldn't have been too difficult to quickly show the Senator excerpts from streaming video to give him a flavor of Wright's performance. Obama would have been much better served if he had reacted immediately, on-the-spot -- perhaps cancelling or delaying an event to schedule a press availability at which he forcefully demounced Wright. Then the last day's news cycle would have been as much about the Senator's repudiation as about the Wright NPC spectacle. By waiting more than a day, Obama's denunciation looks contrived and more responsive to the political fallout than to the substance of Wright's offensive remarks. I still think I had it right above.

porterm  I would like a copy of every sermon you have ever heard and your detailed reactions to every sermon, in addition if you have ever gone to confession you must list every sin.

What, not my business? Imagine that. Oh, so do we have all the sermons of every one of Hillary's ministers? Or John McCains? What, no? Nobody has had any questions about those?

Separation of church and state. Let everyone private religious life be private, it is what is most precious about our freedom. Is this so hard to fathom?

Or do you believe the Presidency should only go to people who belong to conservative White churches, and maybe Catholic provided they are against abortion (can't let them be seen near that communion wafer if they are pro-choice can we)

And when Kerry was criticized by the mix of church and state, where were you?

I say again and again, I don't give a flying rats ass what religion a candidate is as long as he or she is honorable and has positions I agree with.

I don't care about Rev. Hagee or the sermons of Mike Huckabee or the doctrines of the Mormon Church when I make my determination. Why or why can't you? Yes, I am idealistic in that I believe in freedom of conscience.

"Why or why can't you?"

Because Porterm is a Hillary supporter.  And much like the Clinton campaign, right now it serves them to go after Obama's Pastor, and the strength of Obama's rejection, denunciation, etc. of his own Church.  If Hillary's pastor turns out to be a dickhead, then Porterm will be arguing about the separation of church and state, and how only WOMEN get subjected to this kind of assinine treatment.

Whatever works, eh?

When I was living in China I had an apartment that overlooked a park. Every day members of Falun Gong practiced there, I looked into it and found it nutty but harmless. After a while the Communist party did not and I had to watch as they were beaten and rounded up. My wifes cousin spent two years in prison for being a member (this happened later). These people were condemned for their (admittedly nutty) beliefs. But in America we are so much more refined. We only condemn the congregation for what one minister says. In America you can associate with whomever you want, or believe what you want, but only if it is with the right kind of people, otherwise forget being accepted in society.

No black person can ever be President, no Buddhist, nor Hindu, nor Jew and a Muslim would be shot. For that matter no Mormon, nor Jehovahs witness, nor any Christian sect not approved of. And atheist, never.

Ain't America grand? A nation of Homer Simpsons that believe we are all Ned Flanders.

ironyroad: it's hard to tell now re McCain. But the point is that this year should have been a clear, easy, and obvious Democratic win. Dems may still pull it out -- after all McCain has all kinds of vulnerabilities of his own -- but it's likely not going to be the walkover it could have been.

The federal courts are at stake here. Dems better pull this out, the Senate by a good margin as well as the presidency.

Speaking of tactical Hillary campaign mistakes: She has done Obama a favor by going negative with ads in Indiana and N.C. on the stupid gas-tax holiday "issue."

She has given him an easy pivot into bread-and-butter issues.

"Whatever works, eh?"

I might say the same about Obama's motivation in joining Wright's congregation when he was planning to launch a political career from a South Chicago base. I might say the same about Senator Obama's disingenuous TV ads in which he declared that he, unlike others, took no money from oil companies -- oil company executives, sure, but not their employers.

icarusr, I know you are from Iran, so I know you get this. If church can't be a sanctuary where people are allowed to worship God in whatever way they feel (provided no one is physically hurt) without repercussions then our freedom means nothing. Not a single Hillary supporter will ever address this issue. They are too busy being self-righteous pricks.

What next, shall we bug confessionals? Doesn't the public have a right to know?

porterm, frankly it is none of your goddamn business why anyone joins any religion. Are you God? Are you to be the sole arbiter of what is acceptable or not? Shall we bug confessionals now for the publics right to know?

Church should be a sanctuary where individuals can worship God in the manner they see fit, they need make no explanations to me, nor to you. I don't care as long as no one is being hurt or abused then freedom of conscience must prevail. Obama did not choose to make this an issue, you did.

Or are you against Freedom of Religion?

Answer these questions.

blackton --

2 points:

1.  Senator Obama, himself, conceded (on Fox News this weekend) that his relationship with Rev. Wright was a "legitimate political issue."  He's right.  In the Senator's own writings, he described Wright as a "spiritual mentor," which goes beyond saying "good morning" and shaking the pastor's hand on the front steps as you leave Sunday services.  

2.  No one is denying or criticizing anyone's right to belong to any religion he or she chooses.  But when a leading presidential candidate's "spiritual mentor" of some 20 years holds views as outrageous and repugnant as suggesting U.S. government complicity in developing and spreading the AIDS virus, that's legitimate news.

I have been boycotting the tv MSM for the past 1/2 week, because I am so tired of all the non-issue related coverage, but I lifted my boycott just or today, so that I could see the press conference and so I could see the MSM reaction.

Most of the reaction was positive, you had the ocassional Republic operative doing what they usually do (but not with as much enthusiam I might add).  Suprisingly, the most interesting thing I saw was on Fox News.  The analysis was much the same, the 2 "beltway boys" thought it was about time, but it was still not enought, and Brit Hume and the woman analysis were actually kinda defending Obama.  Anyway, Brit Hume said something in response the one of the "boys" who said what other Republic operatives were saying.  Yes what Wright said Monday is not anything new that he ahd not already said, but in this particular case, Rev Wright was making "directly going after Obama", so maybe this is the straw that broke the camel's back.

of course he can't Blackton.  To answer them properly we'd have to go back a hundred years in terms of our understanding of positive/negative rights and undue the entire civil rights movement.

I think Obama's timing was exquisite.  If he was going to truly dump Wright, he would have to have plenty of obviously good reason to do so, or the black community would excoriate Obama.  The only way Obama could get that "obviously good reason" was if Wright went out and produced it, which he obligingly did.

The only real danger in this to Obama is if a large number of blacks really do identify with Rev. Wright, and therefor object to Obama disrespecting one of their own.  (I'm not predicting that will happen, just wondering if it will or won't).  I think a lot of the "free OJ" crowd will side with Rev. Wright on this one, while there are also a lot of other blacks who are going to basically say that Rev. Wright is a clown (as many blacks say the same thing about Farrakhan) and that it's perfectly OK for Obama to dump Wright.

Obama has already rode the wave of black support to his current status, and if he gets the nomination, can pretty much count on near 100% support from the black community against a Republican.  So he doesn't have that much to risk by losing some black support within the Democratic primary campaign - unless it costs him North Carolina, which would be a stunning defeat were it to happen.  (And again, I'm not predicting it, just saying it COULD happen, if Obama does end up losing a surprising amount of his enthusiasm in the black community).

So if it doesn't cost Obama North Carolina, then I'd say this is absolutely the perfect time for all of this to happen (just like the initial blow-up of the Wright videos, coming several weeks before the next primary, was perfect timing for Obama - unlike, say, having it come out two days before Super Tuesday).

Blackie- my mom's Baha'i; Dad Muslim; grandpa Jewish; cousins ranging from secular to extremist.  I've had to sit through a lot of crap, and I still do, out of respect for parents, relatives, extended family, community, etc.  Year after year after year ... you name the "anti" or the prejudice, I have it all around me.  God forbid someone decides to tape one of these religious or family gatherings.  Now, if I ever ran for politics, would I think it a "legitimate political issue" that I sat there while an uncle or a cousin was spouting vile racist or anti-religious or whatever stuff?

I think anyone who is genuinely "outraged" at OBAMA for what Wright says is either a hypocrite or deluded.

Rinse and Repeat!

Give it a rest already.  You HRC supporters will never be satisfied - just be glad no one's decided to latch onto some of the Clinton's unsavory associations for two solid months.

porterm's an outrage-clinger. Facts don't matter.

lamh31 writes,  "I have been boycotting the tv MSM for the past 1/2 week, because I am so tired of all the non-issue related coverage..."

lamh31, what were the "issues" in the presidential campaign of 1952?  '60?  '92?,  2000?  '04?

Rarely, unless we're in the midst of something extremely dramatic like a crisis over slavery or a devastating depression or maybe gold vs silver, is the election really about the issues.

The election is, like a job interview, about the candidate himself.  Who he is, what his character seems to be.

Since we never truly know what the real issue of the next four years is going to be (who saw 9/11 coming?0 we vote for the man we have the most confidence in.  Presidential elections are about confidence.  You know--con man.

While elections are definitely not about "issues," much as the policy wonks would like it to be, they are also not simply about the candidate or the candidate's character.  

The campaign is about a form of surrogacy.  The electorate doesn't care about policy specifics because people are actually sophisticated enough to understand that anything a candidate says about policy cannot literally be done in office.  What they want to know is whether a given president is likely to do what the individual himself or herself would like to be done under the circumstances presented -- including domestic political opposition, economic threats, foreign threats, etc.  Thus, the decision is based on some combination of the public's assessment of the candidate's abilities, character, and aspirations for the country and its people.  The issues are not the message, they are the medium for the message.  As is the candidate's biography.  A skillful candidate uses issues and elements from his or her own biography to symbolize for the public the aspects of ability, character, and aspiration that the public mood wants.  Depending on the environment, one or the other of these may seem more or less important, but I would say that the winner has to win two out of three and, normally, do well on all.

In the 1992 election, I would say that Clinton swamped Bush I on aspiration (i.e., in matching his aspirations for the country with the electorate's aspirations for itself), lost on character, and edged Bush out on ability.  In 2000, I would say that Gore was MIA on aspiration -- nothing that I can recall to counter "compassionate conservatism," would clearly have been regarded as more able, and had mixed result on character, because of Bill and because he allowed himself to be framed as elitist, the favorite Republican frame these days (an of course therefore something Hillary likes to deploy too, being a Republican and all).  In 2004, Kerry also let himself be framed as effete, elitist, and unwilling to fight.

McCain is going to be swamped on the aspiration dimension, because he has the burden of the Republican party to carry around.  He is going to struggle on ability by comparison to Obama despite Obama's youth.  He is going to hammer character as that is all he's really got -- "I was a POW."  If Obama can avoid the Republican frame of him as "out of touch" and "elitest" and successfully frame McCain as "out of touch" and "past his time," it should be a romp.  

"The electorate doesn't care about policy specifics because people are actually sophisticated enough to understand that anything a candidate says about policy cannot literally be done in office"

You make a lot of good points, roi - I like your triad of aspiration, ability, character - but I'm not sure that policy and ideology will not also play a role this fall. We will have a very clear choice on a couple of huge issues: how to fund health insurance, and how to fix the economic imbalances we have now. On each issue the choice will be framed as more govt intervention and higher taxes vs less. Of course there be the usual FUD-mongering, BS, fairytales etc, but many of the swing voters will indeed be expressing a policy preference in November.

We should be able to defeat McCain in this area as well, provided that we're clever enough not to let this be framed by the GOP as merely a choice between higher and lower taxes.

Obama's job is actually very easy with McCain.  He can keep reminding the public of McCain's age by praising his service in Vietnam.  He can talk about how we cannot remain fixated on the past and the solutions that haven't worked in the past and the culture wars of the past, those who want to drag us back to the past.  Say past about a million times as what we have to move beyond and after a while every time an American brain hears the word "past" the lightbulb that reads "McCain" will go off automatically.  

I don't know, tep.  I have stood before a very highly educated audience trying to talk about policy that would actually affect us likely and watched as everyone's eyes glazed over.  I quickly reduced my stump speech to a collection of just those lines from my policy speech that got a response.  And they I just strung them together without any compelling justification and everyone nodded and was happy.  They didn't want to think about how it would be done.  The just wanted to hear a truthy set of claims about what I wanted to do and be persuaded that I had thought about it enough so that they really didn't have to.  Their view was, why should we think about this stuff?  That's your job.  Do the job.  Don't bore us with the details.

I continue to believe that policy is only useful as a symbol for whose interests you care about.  The voters do not want the content, just the applause lines.