March 19, 2008
Two Questions for Sen. Obama (Lanny Davis)
I read Sen. Barack Obama's (D-Ill.) recent speech on race and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright in Philadelphia several times and very carefully. It was a great, even brilliant, speech. I appreciate Sen. Obama's willingness to tackle a difficult subject and to explain his complex reactions to some of the Rev. Wright's sermons.
I personally regarded many of the Rev. Wright's sermons as filled with hate words and bigoted generalizations based on race (in this case, all whites). One could even call them racist. His remarks post-Sept. 11 were nothing short of reckless and unforgivable.
I am convinced that there isn't a shred in Sen. Obama's being that shares these hateful or bigoted feelings. And I respect his strong words denouncing the views of a man for whom he has deep and genuine feelings of affection and loyalty, which I also respect.
But many people, including Obama supporters, may still have two questions that Sen. Obama's speech did not sufficiently answer, at least in my opinion. And, for any Democrat whose priority it is to win back the White House in 2008, they need to be answered now — because, if Sen. Obama ends up the party's nominee (I am a supporter of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's, D-N.Y.) — Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) will assuredly insist they be answered in the fall.
These two questions are:
1. If a white minister preached sermons to his congregation and had used the "N" word and employed rhetoric and words similar to that used by members of the Ku Klux Klan, would you support a Democratic presidential candidate who decided to continue to be a member of that congregation?
2. Would you support that candidate if, after knowing of or hearing those sermons, he or she still appointed that minister to serve on his or her campaign’s "Religious Advisory Committee"?
I hope my message gets to someone in the Obama campaign — or to a reporter traveling with the senator — who can persuade him to answer these questions directly. As I just wrote, he will have to do so — either now or perhaps in the fall.
Permalink TrackBack EMail This Post
Share this post
What's This 53 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Mr. Davis;
I must profoundly disagree with your post. It was your candidate that started on this path that Sen. Obama had to address and I feel, along with many others, that he did a very good job of facing it head on. At this point, lights and the singing of Angels wouldn't convince you of his sincerity but for me and many others that heard his speech, it is time to chart a new path for this country. Whether you're a part of it or not doesn't matter.
Comment by Mike Coleman — March 19, 2008 @ 10:18 am
I really think the pundits need to move on past Rev. Wright. There are much bigger issues (Econmy, Iraq war etc..) in America than the ramblings of an old black preacher.
Move on Media!
Comment by John — March 19, 2008 @ 11:03 am
Lanny: Your questions, particularly number one, are prescient. You will be hit with allegations of racism, but it's true. The problem with the Obama hypothesis is that not everyone in America is attending meetings and chanting and participating in racist and anti-America chants. The public will not buy into his explanation even though two bit political hacks like Rachael Maddow were tripping all over themselves to exclaim what a brilliant speech he gave. The real problem is that many of these pundits are anti-American too and that's why they like Obama and his anti-American rhetoric.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — March 19, 2008 @ 12:01 pm
I think that if Rev Wright feels that way about America maybe he should go back to Africa.G- Damn Rev Wright He is a Racist
Comment by j Ray — March 19, 2008 @ 12:08 pm
Lanny, were your forefathers brought in to this country in shackels and chains? I believe you are comparing apples to oranges. You won't find many bloggers buying your DLC rhetoric.
Comment by Lester — March 19, 2008 @ 12:15 pm
No, it's not a time to "move on" to other issues! Implementing solutions on economy, Iraq, health care, etc. involves enormous complexity that ordinary folks simply cannot comprehend and don't have much time to study their impact. We need leaders we can trust. That's the reason we need to have trust in the integrity of party's nominee even if we disagree on their stand on issues. Until 2 days ago, Barak had Rev. Wright's picture on his website's front page. Knowing how Rev. Wright wants to destroy our country, what does it tell us about Barak? Would anyone feel comfortable having an Al-Qaeda sympathizer among President's advisers when "moving on to much bigger issue like Iraq"?
Comment by Misha F — March 19, 2008 @ 12:22 pm
Let's cut to the chase. Anybody who comes from Hawaii to Chicago in search of his black identity and political success, and for whatever reason picks this mad clown running the church of hate to be his friend, spiritual adviser, and street cred builder isn't fit to be President by any stretch of the imagination.
Comment by Igor R. — March 19, 2008 @ 12:48 pm
Sen. Obama has based his whole campaign on the one speech he made against the war with Iraq. He gives himself enormous credit for his judgment. The issue of his relationship with Rev. Wright goes to the same issue of "judgment". How can Sen. Obama follow Rev. Wright for 20 years, make him such an important part of his life, and claim to have good judgment?
Comment by Amar — March 19, 2008 @ 1:02 pm
Yes, you guys are right Rev. Wright a former America Marine is out to destroy America. Case Close! Now, lets go lynch him for daring to speak his narrow view in America. I mean this Negro thought American Free speech applied to him.
Right after I finish listening to my Jerry Farwell tapes. We can got track Old black Senile Rev. Wright down and teach him a lesson about how unracist America is. Damn that Boy!
Comment by John — March 19, 2008 @ 1:03 pm
Misha F;
Al-Qaeda sympathizer! Back that up with proof or be label a f**king lier. You are some of the people that the speech targeted. You can't get over your own hate and you try to project it on to other people. What Lanny did today was a disservice to us all that would like to move this country forward. If you want to wallow in your own hate and prejudices, do that but let it be known, you will wallow with you fellow bigots.
Comment by Mike Coleman — March 19, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
Obama is a likeable type and very articulate and charisamitic. So what? So was Hitler, David Duke ect. Those are not reasons to vote for somebody. Nor is an out-of-control preacher a reason to disregard Obama as a candiate. There are many reasons not to vote for the most liberal Senatoe in Congress but his preacher should not be one of them.
Comment by Rock — March 19, 2008 @ 3:01 pm
John–I laughed out loud…Thanks.
I am continually amazed at the numbers that come out with uninformed diatribes about a culture they know nothing about and do not make even a small effort to know.
Sen. Obama has not made one statement to indicate he believes or is in sympathy with the divisive statements of Mr. Wright. He condemns the words but not the man–as it says in the bible.
Poor Lanny must do his job..otherwise he might not have access to what the clintons promised him!!!
Comment by Docb — March 19, 2008 @ 5:28 pm
Mike Coleman; How about "God damn America!" comment by Rev. Wright? For additional proof, you'd have to ask Barak since it was him attending services at that church for 20 years, not me. Yes, I do hate folks who want to destroy America.
Comment by Misha F — March 19, 2008 @ 6:19 pm
Mike, Obama wants for the US to withdraw from Iraq immediately, and so do Al Qaeda and Iran. Just because Obama wants to do it to please left-wing nuts like you and AQ and Iran want to do it for their jihadist purposes is besides the point. Same goals, same result. Elect Obama and help Al Qaeda. It's that simple.
Comment by Igor R. — March 19, 2008 @ 6:32 pm
Look as far as I'm concern Senator Obama showed poor judgment choosing this Minister, as his preacher, He certainly is no Billy Graham.
Look, we also know choosing Rezko as a friend, showed poor judgment.
Let's face it folks, we choose a President and good judgment is one of the most important if not the most important prerequisite when chooing a President.
Of course there is honesty, kindness and a person that is not a divider.
Going to this Church certainly takes away the ability Obama said he had, in fact the major reason we should elect him President, was his ability to unify. I do believe he lost that ability by attending Minister Wright's Church.
Comment by diane b — March 19, 2008 @ 6:49 pm
Unfortunately cable news media today encourages the public to suspend critical thinking with its biased panels of commentators, cleverly perpetuating their opinions as fact (without themselves performing any cursory research into the issues), along with increasing pressures to present the news in shorter and shorter time intervals. For example, the venom being hurled against Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. and re-enforced by supposedly professional journalists emanate solely from the carefully created FOX News clips of incendiary remarks made by the pastor.
Have any of these commentators viewed any of the sermons in their entirety that they are passing judgments on, or are we the public to continue to suffer from the results of this dishonest journalism?
Anyone in the news media who had access to these sermons (i.e. Christmas day 2007 - the Hillary comment), which BTW can be acquired from Trinity Church of Christ also had the opportunity to view them in their entirety. I remember that Christmas day service, via the Internet from NJ and to verify what I had seen resulting from the FOX created controversy; I recently pulled it down from Trinity’s web site to review. A sermon entitled “The Message, The Messiah and The Manger,” which was about the myth of the act of Christmas gift giving being divorced from the gift of Jesus Christ, through a story of Rev. Wrights growing up in a bi-cultural setting. What I find most appalling is that had the clip included the twenty seconds prior to the Hillary clip, it would have been viewed in an entirely different context. Failing to review the whole sermon is bad enough, but after viewing it and then having the gall to create an unrepresentative caricature of the Rev. Wright is an insult to everything good and descent.
Since Barack Obama has represented those clips as being unrepresentative of Rev. Wright, doesn’t it seem logical for the other news media to verify FOX News concocted claim by attempting to understand who the pastor, the congregation and black churches at large are? Recordings of these services go back many years. Fairness and simple decency demand the other News Media outlets, which are more representative of “fair and balanced” (unlike FOX News) reveal to “we the people” results of that research and more importantly to encourage we the people to do some of our own research and critical thinking instead of continuing to be spoon-fed like immature secondary school students – and we wonder why America continues to sink on all the global academic achievement lists.
If the other media outlets do not verify the substance of those clips, then they become complicit in a cover-up that will only exacerbate racial relationships in a larger way then you realize; while allowing the false assertion that Barack Obama made race an issue to continue.
Comment by RonP — March 19, 2008 @ 9:40 pm
Is this a nation full of amnesiacs?For heaven's sake.Geaorge Bush was the recovered alcoholic America would rather have a beer with!So more than half of you voted for that idiot.Please stop this people.We are hiring the CEO of the world's largest military,the world's most affluent society,and the world's most influential society.I don't care if you hate someone or love someone hire them for their ability to do the job for the next 4 years.
I worked on a campaign for a candidate I really personally did not like but I beleived that person was better than the 6 term incumbent they were running against.I liked the incumbent so much personally I actually went out of my way and bought him a cup of hot coffee on a cold day when I saw him campaigning.Did I vote for him -hell NO!
The person that won has done more for vterans and envoirmental issues in one term than the nice guy they beat did in 6 terms.
Jack Welsh was hated at GE by alot of the people in corporate headquarters that he made millions for in their bulging 401k's during his realm as CEO.
Grow up and stop voting like it is for prom king or queen.This is the big leagues.Do it for my children if you don't care enough about yourselves to hire the best qualified overall.
Comment by Linda M — March 19, 2008 @ 9:48 pm
Misguided critique.
First, Obama spoke about his white mother from Kansas, noting her occasional biased words. Now, should he disassociate himself from his mother because she used the "N" word? Should we not vote for him because of it? The reason you hesistate to answer the question is exactly what Obama spoke to - it's just not that simple. The positive reaction to his speech speak to people's respect for this. Life does not occur in a vacuum of hypothetical questions.
Second, if your theory washed at all, then what about Sen. George Allen's 'macaca' comments? Where was the voter recall?
No. Racial issues are much more complex and that, essentially, was Obama's point. And those people open to the message seemed to have get it.
The fairer question that could have been framed is whether enough people could get this message or whether it would be lost among the inflamatory politicking. And that may very well be true.
Lastly, Klu Klux Klan? Hitler? People. Comparing a controversial preacher to a group or individual who committed premeditated genocide - murdered people, these are NOT the same thing and it degards all of us that it is being suggested and is entertained.
There are many fair critiques. Be reasonable. Be respectable, folks.
Comment by WM — March 20, 2008 @ 3:47 am
I've got two questions for Lanny Davis that need answering:
1) How did such a weakminded twit ever get a media platform, even one this insignificant?
2) If you're not satisfied that Sen. Obama has repudiated Wright's offensive statements, what more would it take. You want him to go around groveling and apologizing before all white people, you first?
You're a joke, and your candidate's done.
Comment by lowellfield — March 20, 2008 @ 9:31 am
God Bless America, my birthplace, my native land.
1.Since 1933(am now 86)I remember dropping a coin in a Christian Church plate 'for our missions in Africa.
2.I spend my young days fighting the enemies of America in New Guinea and the Philippines from 1941 to 1945.
I will DAMN ANY ONE WHO DAMNS AMERICA.Anyone,black or white, who sits and listens to such garbage and does nothing does
not deserve to be President of
this country!
If there be anything wrong (and there is plenty) it is people,like the kkk and those UN AMERICAN pastors who preach hate instead Christ's love!
I damn all who damn America!
Digenis Akritas, Houston Texas
Comment by Digenis Akritas — March 20, 2008 @ 9:50 am
The problem is Lanny, Bill Clinton started the race card. Bill Clinto campaigned for his wife as if she were a Republican, with the politics of fear. Obama supporters will STAY HOME if Hillary is the nominee. And Bill Clinton is doing nothing to fix his racial attitudes. Pathetic Lanny.
Comment by Gary Anderson — March 20, 2008 @ 9:56 am
Igor, maybe you should settle for an angry old man with his finger on the nuke trigger to be your choice for President. I guarantee you that if McCain is president gas will be 7 dollars a gallon. You can count on it because we will go to war with Iran. If you can afford the 7 dollars then go for it. Otherwise you can vote for a guy who is reasoned, calm and not like that pastor guy, who can see both sides of an argument.
Comment by Gary Anderson — March 20, 2008 @ 9:59 am
I'll take the candidate who appeals to my better nature.
I'll take Obama.
Comment by Will — March 20, 2008 @ 10:53 am
The Clinton camp, including L.Davis, is turning up the heat on O'Bama by using the black card.
The Ferraro 'incident' was part of this. The continuing harping on Rev. Wright is a mere continuation of the campaign and we can expect the Clintons to intensify their use of the black card in their strategy of harvesting Archie-Bunker votes.
If the Clintons should be successful in these cynically unDemocratic tactics, they will surely lose to McCain in the Fall. Four more years of the Bush catastrophe - what a prospect.
Comment by B. Blogman — March 20, 2008 @ 12:42 pm
For someone who read the speech transcript to carefully, a major foundational point is missing. The controversial comments from Pastor Wright were cherry picked from how many years worth of sermons? Yes, they are deplorable. Yes, he is spewing forth the results of his past wounds as a Black man in America; yes his words hurt us all.
But as for Barack Obama - he spent over 20 years as a member of the church and these few select snippets are not the defining character of his church. You shamefully missed the part about all the community service this church has provided over the years, with much benefit to the people in that deprived neighborhood. CONTEXT
Comment by DinSea — March 20, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
For someone who says he read the speech transcript carefully, a major foundational point is missing. The controversial comments from Pastor Wright were cherry picked from how many years worth of sermons? Yes, they are deplorable. Yes, he is spewing forth the results of his past wounds as a Black man in America; yes his words hurt us all and are squarely repudiated.
But as for Barack Obama - he spent over 20 years as a member of the church and these few select snippets are not the defining character of his church. You shamefully missed the part about all the community service this church has provided over the years, with much benefit to the people in that deprived neighborhood.
CONTEXT matters!
This is what frustrates TRUTH seekers - all the red herrings and bush fires that are constantly doused with the gasoline of selected comments. Not insignificantly, this is part of the clever Clinton strategy - throw out a little matchstick on one of these gas-soaked spots and let the protracted debates begin. It's part of their "kitchen sink" and "scorched earth" strategy and even if it is effective, it is severely damaging. The Clintons don't care - they just want to win no matter how much damage is done or who gets thrown under which bus!
On the good side - Obama is adept at taking a hot topic and using it as a springboard to showcase his leadership brilliance, communicate openly with the American people, explain what is happening, and take us in a *NEW* progressive direction. Those who refuse to move forward are the same people who would rather stay behind and vandalize the building while the rest of us are gathering together and planning problem solutions.
Comment by DinSea — March 20, 2008 @ 1:38 pm
Lanny Davis,
Stop it, stop it, stop it! Stop trying to destroy Obama. What for! The Clintons had their time in the WH, its over, stop it!
How I wish you could face up to the fact that Democrats like myself will abandon the party if you succeed in nominating Clinton. This is a fact. How many Democrats like myself are there? Too many. You are gambling with the possibility that we are few, but you are wrong. You are deluding yourself that when faced with the Republican candidate we will rally around Clinton. Never! Nader, or a write-in instead.
If the Democrats cannot deliver a groundbreaking, gifted candidate such as Obama has proven himself to be, then who needs the Democrats. The thought of a third term for the Clintons is simply appalling.
Wake up, stop trying to destroy the Obama. You will only succeed in destroying the Democratic party.
Comment by Ken From Katonah NY — March 20, 2008 @ 2:58 pm
Surprised st the sermon? I would bet most Blacks were not.
This was done by a frustrated old man who served his country as a Marine and is nothing compared to what's out there. You should be worried.
Comment by Rick — March 20, 2008 @ 3:21 pm
There was nothing wrong with the sermon except that it scared white people. And while nowadays they don't run out and hang the first negro they see….uh, uh Barack is pretty visible.
Comment by DC — March 20, 2008 @ 3:27 pm
Lanny:
With gas prices at an all time high and still rising, unemployment setting records, the dollar being devalued everyday, people mad about immigration and dvided on global warming, healthcare costs out of control, foreclosures happening everywhere, American jobs shipped to foreing countries, college costs unattainable for the middle class, drugs rampant through ALL levels of our culture, $9.5 Billion spent per month on the "war" in Iraq, a U.S. government that blatantly lies to its people, all this going on and you demand questions be answered about one black minister's anger?
Did you ever stop to wonder what experiences life in America has that would cause any man, white, black or any other color, to say such horrific things about the country he lives in? The country that he served in the Marines for? The country where he preaches Christianity and chose a calling that helps the poor and down trodden? Did you ever try to understand the contradiction and the root of the anger? Did you ever wonder what would have happened if the founding fathers of the United states of America decided it wasn't worth it to question the way the colonies were being ruled by King George?
In the greatest nation on the face of the Earth, do you ever wonder why anyone in America experiences suffering of one kind or another?
Your priorities seem to lie in getting someone elected who will return you the favor and place you in a position in their administration. All these other issues that real Americans genuinely care about don't seem to matter much to you.
Do you reall give a $hit about Americans or just your career with the Clintons?
How about answering those questions.
Comment by E. Jack Hewlitt — March 20, 2008 @ 3:29 pm
Mr. Hewlitt;
Well said and spot on!
Comment by Mike Coleman — March 20, 2008 @ 4:12 pm
To all those folks who were not to vote for Obama anyhow, save you distribe for someone who cares. I don't care what you have to say about Obama or his Pastor because it was just a few weeks ago that you called him an undercover Muslim.
Comment by Mike Coleman — March 20, 2008 @ 4:14 pm
How ironic that Obama supporters are calling for an end to the media about his pastors' bigotry….yet they are stull hung up on some comment Bill Clinton made months ago.
I regret voting for Obama. I wish I could take it back. I feel duped.
If you haven't voted, check out the merchandise before voting.
The comment he made today about his grandmother being a "typical white person" in that she would avoid blacks is really a slap in the face to a white person.
Comment by Lou Ann Dobbs — March 20, 2008 @ 7:58 pm
Will Hillary Clinton renounce Rev. Jesse Jackson for spewing hate about the Jewish community (remember Hymie town?)? Wasn't he the Clinton "spiritual advisor" during the Clinton infidelity disclosures? Shouldn't the Clintons repudiate and renounce Jackson's words and his immorality at fathering two illegitimate children during this same period? Why is forgiveness available to some not to all?
Comment by M. Carruth — March 20, 2008 @ 8:03 pm
Do you really want to aid Hillary Clinton in bringing down the democratic party? She has already caused Bill Clinton's legacy to suffer,she has already put many of her congressional supporters' political lives in jeopardy(ie. Stubbs,Jackson-Lee)and and still she clings to some pathetic notion of being "ready on day one".Ready for what,ready to help put McCain into the white house so that she only has to wait 4 years to run again instead of 8 years? Give me a break! Now that at least some of those Clinton papers have been released we are seeing what we knew all along when it comes to Hillary's "experience",there is no there there.
Comment by madison — March 21, 2008 @ 1:03 pm
Mike, Obama wants to destroy America, pure and simple. I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary. He talks a good game, but a few slips of the tongue and heck of a lot of past associations, as well as his plans for the military, whatever voting record he does have, and whatever economic plans he did reveal point to a committed radical who is trying to tone down his rhetoric just enough to get elected.
Comment by Igor R. — March 21, 2008 @ 2:12 pm
Lou Ann Dobbs:
You totally miss the point Obama makes. Even David Gergen and Carl Bernstein on CNN said Obama spoke the truth about stereotypyes in America whether or not you understand it. Please take the time to try and understand what it is like to be another color besides white in America. It's amazing when you free yourself from prejudice. It can open your eyes, your mind and your heart. Try it.
Comment by E. Jack Hewlitt — March 21, 2008 @ 3:07 pm
I am a middle-aged Jewish white woman who doesn't share your perception of Reverend Wright's words, Mr. Davis. Wright's words are his, and I presume they reflect his experience. I recognize them as reflecting a good many Americans' experience. It's not the U.S. that Wright is God-damning; it's a governing elite that isn't protecting the dream for all Americans.
As the child and grandchild of immigrants, I understand all too well how classism, prejudice and poverty leaves many Americans feeling left out and frustrated. When our forefathers and mothers came to the land that they had heard offered unlimited possibilities if one is willing and able to work hard, they didn't expect to find native-born Americans putting up obstacles for them and a government that looked the other way.
My experience of you, Mr. Davis, is from your appearances on cable during the Clinton impeachment. I formed an impression of you as a lawyer in an uncomfortable position, forced to defend a man who was his own worst enemy because, as a Democrat, he was a lansman. I liked your no-frills legal acumen, and presumed you to be a person of integrity. I presumed many things about you, and Clinton, because you both called yourselves Democrats. Calling yourself one doesn't make it true.
I hadn't realized just how conservative DLC Democrats were until after the 2000 election. Between Democrats' enthusiastic embrace of Bush's policies and willingness to work with Republicans, and appearances by Democratic spokesmen like you on Fox, I realized how duped we (most of the American people, who just so happen to agree with liberal Democratic policies) have been by the DLC.
I see and hear Hillary Clinton now, and Bill Clinton, the divisive language, and I could no sooner vote for her for President (or any office) than I could Tom Delay or Newt Gingrich or any Republican.
Today's comments from Bill Clinton should enrage every citizen, D or R - They sure have infuriated me and my family and friends:
"I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country, And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics."
With his words, it becomes apparent to all that it has been the Clintons who have been behind the fanning of racism in this race.
The spell is broken, between Bill Clinton and his loyal followers, and we just wish you would all (you, Bill and Hillary) would just go away.
Comment by Elaine Ramsdale — March 22, 2008 @ 3:41 am
WHY HILLARY SHOULD WIN NOMINATION! THE MATH
When trying to figure out who best represents the voice of the democratic party and who has a better chance at winning the white house, you need to suggest that your spokes people and political pundits need to be looking at things more stratgeically. You ought to have a analytical discussion of what this election would look like if you threw out ALL RED states from this process… and focused on the blue states and swing states. When you do that, you will be presenting a very different picture to the american publice… of who's ahead strategically and perhaps stands a better chance of winning the white house in November.
If you do the math, you will see that BLUE states prefer CLINTON over Obama by more than 50% — 4,725,901 to 2,174175 (see table below) . Additionally, and more importantly, the SWING STATES — are in favor of Clinton by more than 40%: 2,873,801 to 1,895,501 (obama).
For someone like me, who feels robbed in the 2000 and 2004 elections, by people in red states, I want to make sure that we don't cheat ourselves in the 2008 primary by over-estimating the importance the dem vote in these red states. Red states — are red states.
Should the nomination be stolen from Hillary (the Blue party choice) because of biases by the media and marketing campaigns by moguls like Oprah Winfrey, then my vote and many others will go to McCain.
People discuss the disheartened youth and black america is Obama doesn't win. What about the true "democratic" state voters who have lost the last 2 elections? And, if you do the math — what would be more damaging to the democratics in November — to lose 10% of Clinton supporter to McCain or 10% of Obama's supporters to McCain.
BLUE STATES
WASHINGTON - OBAMA (CAUCUS)
MAINE - oBAMA (CAUCUS)
HAWAII - OBAMA (CAUCUS)
ILLINOIS - OBAMA - 1,301,954
MARYLAND - OBAMA - 464,474
VT - OBAMA - 91,740
CONN - OBAMA - 179,349
DELAWARE - OBAMA -51,124
DC - OBAMA - 85,534
2,174175 (5 STATES)
+ 3 CAUCUS OBAMA
CALIFORNIA HILLARY - 2,306,361
NEW YORK HILLARY - 1,003,623
MASS - HILLARY 704,591
NEW Jersey HILLARY - 602,576
RI - HILLARY - 108,750
4,725,901 (5 STATES) HILLARY
SWING STATES
NEW MEXICO HILLARY - 73,105
OHIO — HILLARY - 1,207,806
MICHIGAN - HILLARY - 328,151
ARKANSAS - HILLARY - 217,313
NH — HILLARY - 112,251
TENNESEE - HILLARY - 332,599
FLORIDA -HILLARY 602,576 NEVADA — HILLARY CAUCUS
2,873,801 (8 STATES) HILLARY
COLORADO — OBAMA - 79,344
MINNISOTA — OBAMA - 141,725
MISSOURI — OBAMA - 405,284
VIRGINA — OBAMA - 623,141
WISCONSIN — OBAMA - 646,007
IOWA — OBAMA (caucus)
1,895,501 (6 STATES) OBAMA
PENN –TBD
INDIANNA –TBD
KENTUCKY –TBD
OREGON –TBD
WEST VIRGINIA –TBD
HILLARY — 7,599,702 POP VOTE
OBAMA — 4,769,302 POP VOTE
Comment by Michael — March 23, 2008 @ 9:25 pm
There's no easy way to break it to Mr. Davis or the other Clinton apologists. I work with a variety of Black and White professionals and Black and White blue collar workers.
Many of them, including me, are lifelong Democrats who favor Obama and, until the race baiting of both Clintons began, were quite satisfied to vote for Senator Clinton if she had proceeded to win.
After Bill's comments and the repugnant Republican-style "I'm a victim of reverse discrimination" by Geraldine Ferraro, many of us will NOT, I repeat, WILL NOT vote for Senator Clinton if she is nominated.
It sickens me that Atwater tactics have been used by the Clintons, and I will not support this.
Many of us feel this way, and we are loyal Dems who are not blindly loyal.
Lanny, I wish you could see why so many Blacks, especially, are deeply offended by what the Clintons have done. We will not "come home" to this rot.
Comment by Evan Hortense — March 25, 2008 @ 12:53 am
Michael, are ya kidding with this silliness? Talk about the Clintons' grasping for straws!
Your reasoning is faulty on several counts.
#1: We're talking about primaries, where Democratic voters will vote for their preferred candidate. Presumably, in the general election, the Democrat voters will vote for whichever candidate get the nomination. Or the vast majority of them will. That's the way it's happened in every election since 1800, and there's no reason to believe that it won't happen this time.
And then, with some Republican crossover votes and/or independent voters, the Democratic candidate will win. Or enough Republicans will stay home because McCain doesn't motivate them to go to the polls. But Hillary sure motivates the Republican voters! Motivates them out of their evangelical churches to vote for anybody but Hillary.
#2: Many of Hillary's votes were from Republicans in open primaries. They voted for her because they think she's easier to beat. Come the general election, they won't be voting for her, but for McCain.
#3: Obama has brought in record numbers of new, young and lapsed voters. If he's not the candidate, they're not likely to vote for Hillary.
I'm not a youth, I'm not black, and I voted for Hillary. If I had my vote back, I'd recast my ballot for Barack. I don't like what she's doing, and I really don't like that since Republicans got their candidate squared away, they've been monkeying in our primaries. But that's how it is.
I wouldn't have worked for Hillary, but I will volunteer for Barack. You might think about doing that, too. After the damage you're doing by helping Hillary destroy the party, you had better figure out a way to make amends.
Comment by Marjorie Post — March 25, 2008 @ 6:21 am
Mr. Davis,
Listening to you justify Hillary Clinton's claim she "misspoke" when recalling on many occassions her Bosnia visit is insulting. You said on Fox News Hillary made a mistake and has corrected it. A mistake? She recalled being under sniper fire when video shows her and her daughter glad-handing local dignitaries. Good grief the woman lied, she made up a story hoping she could get away with another LIE. You must be paid well to do you what you do but that does not alter the name for your line of work.
Comment by Rod — March 25, 2008 @ 5:35 pm
Lanny, baby, nobody much is interested in your opinions ever since you acted as vehement cheerleader and pathetic apologist for Bubba's perjury and obstruction of justice in BimboGate. You destroyed your own credibility.
For you to "ask questions" of Senator Obama is a huge joke.
Billary is a cancer on the American body politic, and should be sent back to Arkansas and oblivion with their legacy of Monica's blue dress. It IS time for change, whether the likes of you, Carville, or the rest of the Klintonistas "get it" or not.
Full disclosure: I am a GOP voter who plans to vote for Obama, IF you DEMS are smart enough to make him your nominee.
Comment by Able Goodman — March 25, 2008 @ 7:39 pm
I in no way condone those words, but Mr. Davis, have you taken the time to listen to all of the sermons in context? I really think more people should do this, before they attempt to judge. This election is too important for Americans not to be fully informed. Unfortunately, the media controls what most people see and hear, and have an undue influence on this election. Each American deserves to be presented these sermons in their original context (in one case, he was quoting a former US ambassador). I don't think that anyone deserves to have an opinion, until they can at least gather the context of the sermon.
Then again, you also have the other argument as well. Rev. Wright is not running for President. Opening up this discussion, can only lead to similar inquiries for Senator Clinton. The Clinton response was dead on wrong, on this issue.
Comment by Robert — March 26, 2008 @ 6:07 pm
Lanny - It can't escape your attention, can it, that most of the posters here, the ones who are cheering you on most enthusiastically, are right wing nuts who clearly want the Democrats to lose, and more than a few of whom are out and out bigots. Does that not tell you something? At some point, loyalty must give way to objectivity. I am a loyal democrat who voted proudly for Clinton, and I admire your defense of his Presidency during the GOP impeachment witchhunt, but I fear that you and Mrs. Clintons are way out of line on this issue, and many others. Mrs Clinton stood by Bill despite the fct that he allowed Monica Lewinsky to fellate him in the Oval Office on multiple occasions, and serially humiliated her — and you have stood by him as well, despite his utter dishonesty to you. You saw the good in the man, as did she, and those of us who love all of you were mor ethan willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, that the complexities of Bill Clinton cannot be summed up so one dimensionally, and Hillary's decision to stick with him should be viewed as more than a purely opportunistic political decision. And yet, you would take the life of Dr. Wright — a 40-year career which included service in the marines, a role in an operation performed on LBJ during his presidency, and 30+ years of devoted ministry to a large Chicago community — and reduce it to the Fox News sound bites? I have watched a good amount of his sermons on You Tube — the vast majority of which are anything but inflammatory or racially charged — and think that for a democrat to reduce the man to hte Fox News version of what White America should be scared of, is reprehensible. Using Conservative talk radio talking points is no way for a Democrat to campaign for President. And consorting with Richard Mellon Scaife, Matt Drudge and Rush Limbaugh, to name a few, Lanny, please help me understand why I should not be teribly disturbed by this?
Comment by Mark T — March 27, 2008 @ 3:49 am
Michael — Like the Clinton campaign itself, you must think we are idiots to make a pitch for her nomination on that basis. By every metric, she's behind, and probably hopelessly so. You can re-define the rules after the fact all you want, but you look like a liar and a thief when you do it, and the arguments you make are insulting to our intelligence. Obama has won more states, including more swing states that will be in play only if he is the candidate — Virginia, Nevada, Missouri, Texas (Texas!!), Colorado. The blue states she beat him in are all states he should do very well in, possibly even better than she she will in a few cases because of crossover and indeendent voting. He has more delegates, more popular vote, and he has run a gracious and positive campaign. he has brought millions of new voters into the party, and he has adopted a 50-state strategy while she is mired in a roadmap to victory that made sense 20 years ago, but is outdated now. The only state where she holds a clear advantage over Obama in November is Florida because of the elderly and Jewish populations where she is very strong — but outside of that, he runs ahead of her, even after the Wright controversy. Virtually every democrat running for office west and south of the northeastern Atlantic seaboard would prefer to have Obama at the head of the ticket.
Please, don't spend all your time on nutty idiotic math reductions which only show that if you ignore enough different facts that cut against you, you can win an otherwise losing argument. Sheesh.
Comment by Mark T — March 27, 2008 @ 4:00 am
Attention black America there is a war going on in the media against our views and opinion's.This is evident when you see how FOX NEWS,CNN and MSNBC have covered Rev. Wrights comments. It is a fact that a lot of black people agree with Rev. Wright and when the media call him wrong or crazy they are disrespecting our views, it is a same how the black opinion is disrespected by the white media. Rev Wright comments have not been disproved and to shun them without investigating its truth, is stupid and unreasonable. The media in this country is against blacks. Everyday on t.v the media disrespects us.
MORE
Some in the democratic party has also disrespects black Americans. People like the Clinton's have bamboozled us for years well in the words of BARACK OBAMA not this time!! Its time all truth fighters come together and join the black out vote movement tell the Democratic party that if they rob OBAMA after he has won more states and votes then we will not vote for Hillary Clinton. For more information listen to WARREN BALLENTINE Mon to Fri on WERE the people station 1490 from 10AM to 1PM.ET
Comment by truth fighter — April 1, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
Barak you just wait a minute. I've worked long and hard in my life and I've never been prejudiced. Have I felt sympathetic for African Americans? Yes….but NO MORE. I have greeted African Americans with genuine care and made it a habit to speak to and listen to all African Americans I meet. I've received hate for the most part and to a small degree received some genuine acceptance and friendliness.
I am NOT IN FAVOR OF YOU, BARAK, PRETENDING TO BE a genuine candidate, honest, forthright but now I see in the pages of your speech and in listening to you that YOU SEEM TO BE USING THIS OPPORTUNITY TO TURN THIS INTO NOTHING MORE THAN A RACIAL ISSUE ALL THE WHILE TELLING YOUR FOLLOWERS "IT'S HILLARY'S FAULT." Hillary and Bill Clinton have done more to help African Americans than any politician in history and this is the way you pay them back!!!! I guess no matter what the issue (EVEN RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES), it seems African Americans will always and forever turn it around and use every opportunity they have to beat white people over the head.
I'M SICK OF BEING AN APOLOGIST…I'M SICK OF AFRICAN AMERICANS TRYING TO MAKE ME FEEL GUILTY…I'M SICK OF AFRICAN AMERICAN UNJUSTIFIED ANGER AT ME AND ALL OTHER WHITE PEOPLE…and remember……I am a woman. So you have no corner on the market for feeling discriminated against.
Africans had some responsibility in being kidnapped and brought to this country and YES those that treated Africans badly and took advantage of slavery have a special place in hell. Why do you have no anger at your countrymen who gathered you up (kidnapped) then sold you to the traders? You call this America's original sin….NO IT IS AFRICAN'S ORIGINAL SIN.
So now, you are going to cost the democrats the White House if you don't get your way. That is the way most Africans behave and it is exactly what Jessie Jackson has taught for so many years. If you don't get your way you simply tear everything up. We are seeing this unfold before us with all the aggression in the Obama workers…they will do anything and everything to gain one more delegate including lying and cheating which happened in my precinct. I've personally experienced it too many times.
There is a huge number of African Americans who have made the life altering decision to "CHOOSE NOT TO BE A VICTIM." When they do this they become successful and they run from all those who insist on continuing to BE VICTIMS. It is a choice for all African Americans to make-and it is overdue for you all to make.
I do not owe you ONE DAMNED THING BARAK except a return of respect. I am really angry at you and at your wife for trying to hoodwink the voters with your smooth words and all your speeches all the while attending a church for twenty years where hating whites is not only acceptable but hating our Country is also preached from the pulpit by your Pastor. You knew this before you put him on an advisory committee. You allow your children to learn this hate. Why isn’t your Pastor teaching your congregation that in 2008 69% of all African Americans are born out of wedlock? Why isn’t your Pastor teaching his congregation that 90% of the occupants in our prisons are African Americans. How can you possibly blame these two issues on white folks?
African Americans owe it to themselves to earn their way just as I've had to earn my way. Just because I am successful does not mean I have been privileged. I have responsibly educated my children even though I was a single parent for many years. I have supported my self and my children and I have not EXPECTED OR DEMANDED THAT ANY OTHER GROUP OF PEOPLE or the government SUPPORT ME, SUPPORT MY CHILDREN, PAY MY WAY NOR HAVE I HATED THEM FOR FAILING TO DO SO.
I am so tired of the behavior of your PASTOR AND THOSE THAT WOULD FOLLOW SUCH A MAN AND KEEP HIM IN THAT POSITION. IF HE IS A TRUE CHRISTIAN THEN HE WOULD PREACH TOLERANCE AND LOVE …… NOT HATE. If you objected to his position then you would encourage him enough to cause him to change or you would have left the church.
STOP FEELING SORRY FOR YOURSELVES AND TAKE ON YOUR OWN RESPONSIBILITIES AND MAKE SURE YOU TEACH THAT TO YOUR CHILDREN AND ALL OTHERS THAT ATTEND YOUR CHURCH.
I am asking you to RESPONSIBLY withdraw from becoming the presidential nominee. You have already failed all Americans except the 15% of our citizens who are African Americans. As we see every day many African Americans in elected and appointed government positions refusing to follow the rules and yes, using their positions to elevate their fellow African Americans unfairly.
You certainly do not represent my best interests and I WILL NOT LIVE IN A COUNTRY WHERE "REVERSE DISCRIMINATION" is not only encouraged but supported by you and those in the church you attend.
A Texas Grandmother
Comment by LaNell Anderson — April 1, 2008 @ 6:25 pm
Lanny, you must have persuaded someone that you are an intelligent man. However, I offer this to you and others. Anyone who REALLY wants to know the truth will go in search of it. Anyone who wants to find a reason to support Hillary or someone else WILL find something negative in everything that the opponent does and thinks. If you cared to find the truth, you would have discovered by now that Rev. Wright was quoting a white military person, William Peck. If you listen to the complete sermon that is spelled out very clearly! To continue to spin this to death is nothing more than a calculated effort by the Clinton Campaign to destroy Obama. On the flip side, more of us should be questioning the reasons why she felt the need to LIE about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire! Had she ever been near sniper fire before? If so, then we can accept her answer of misspeaking or that she was sleep deprived and was confusing Bosnia with another place. But she told this lie more than one time — in at least two different years!
LANNY, you and RENDELL (with his racist @$$) need to get a life. It is obvious that you don't like Obama, will not vote for Obama, and want to tear down Obama.
Give it a rest! WE ARE SMARTER THAN YOU GIVE US CREDIT. I was curious about the sermons, so I listened to them in context. I'm satisfied. I'M SUPPORTING OBAMA!
Comment by Dell — April 2, 2008 @ 1:00 am
Respectfully, Lanny, if you listen to the whole sermon preached after 9/11, 20 minutes into the sermon, you hear Rev Wright quoting US Ambassador to Iraq, Edward Peck. Rev Wright clearly designates a "faith footnote" and at the end of Ed Pecks quote, he ends the "faith footnote." Most of the media and peole who disagree haven't heard the whole sermon. Many who hear it still and always will disagree. Google for Rev Wrights 9/11 sermon and listen. Its worth the effort for Christians so they are not falsly accusing a servant of the Lord wrongly.
Comment by Kathy — April 2, 2008 @ 5:37 pm
Mr. Davis's hypothetical white minister preaching the "N" word is a ridiculous assertion that underscores his Clinton bias and reveals a stunning ignorance of the history of race relations in America. It is impossible for a white man to place himself in the black culture's experience. Senator Obama is uniquely qualified to speak on this subject; not an Ivy League lawyer who has lead a life of privilege and has a history of obfuscating truth issues that revolve around both Clintons. Over the past few months of cable news programs I have never witnessed Mr. Davis directly answer any question. Irritating though it is, I do hope Mr. Davis continues in this condescending approach to the voters, for it increases the likelihood that we as a culture can get beyond these outdated stances and look to a future with the promise that a multi-cultural candidate offers.
Comment by Rob — April 3, 2008 @ 3:00 pm
To the "Texas Grandmother"…I'm a grandmother too and I think my dear, you need to desperately put down the kool aide you're drinking. I have been reading posts for a long time on all sorts of blogs and I have never seen one as utterly without merit as yours.
Obama should quit? They do honey and you can bet your bippy that McCain will gain the West Wing. Hillary will never, ever become president. Mostly because the literally millions of new voters who signed up will never, ever vote for her. You add that to the powerful Right Wing talk show hosts who are gleefully waiting with baited breath to get their hands on her and she doesn't have a prayer. Obama does, and you can take it to the bank that should he get the nomination which he has earned, he will be our next president, whether you like it or not.
Comment by Judy — April 5, 2008 @ 6:02 pm
If the media had done it's job and fully vetted Obama from the beginning, he would not be in this race.
Please see the website.
A new group called "Clinton Supporters Count Too" stands ready to boycott the Democratic Party if Hillary doesn’t win the nomination, and will work against superdelegates who support Obama over Clinton as a means of registering their displeasure with the DNC.
Comment by concerned citizen — May 18, 2008 @ 2:34 am