By Alexis Stodghill, BlackVoices.com
When my contact sent me this picture, I was pretty shocked. Yes, that is Rev. Wright, the former pastor of Barack Obama, on the left, shaking Bill Clinton's hand.
And get this:
My contact who sent me these documents is a "Washington Insider." She attends and creates a lot of events in D.C., and knows the kind of people who would come across documents such as these as a part of doing political business.
A friend of my contact sent her these documents with the note:
"President Clinton and Rev. Jeremiah Wright... at White House breakfast during the 'Monica Mess.' I have no problem with Rev. Wright. I do have a problem with Clintonian hypocrisy."
Not just anyone gets invited to a White House breakfast where they can shake the hand of the President. These events are carefully engineered to curry favor with people politicos think can help them.
Hillary may not have chosen Wright to be her pastor, yet her husband chose to cultivate a relationship with Rev. Wright during his presidency. This fact seems to have vanished from Hillary's memory as she delivered her recent round of sound bites, criticizing Obama for his past relationship to Wright.
Sounds very similar to her "I was shot at in Bosnia" way of thinking.
+More on The Assimilated Negro blog
+Political Religion: Hillary Clinton and 'The Family'
+Obama's Impossible Dream?
Comments: (66)
Add a comment
By: Pay attention on 4/01/2008 12:56AM
The Clinton's are liers and they know it!
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: TeYoJe on 3/31/2008 7:15PM
I was looking for something new and exciting; this is O-L-D news!!
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: Martha Davidson on 3/31/2008 7:15PM
I have noted a number of myths amongst the comments here as to why Hillary should stay in the race. Here are ten enduring, kudzu-like myths, with the debunking they sorely need.
Myth: This race is tied.
No, actually, it's not. Obama has the lead in number of states won, in pledged delegates and in overall delegates. Nothing will happen in the remaining primaries to substantially change that. As to the one thing Hillary does lead in, superdelegates, her quickly shrinking margin is among DNC personnel only. When you look at the elected superdelegates, Congressman, Senators and Governors (i.e. people who actually work with both Obama and Clinton) Obama leads there, too.
Myth: Okay, the popular vote is tied.
There are people who claim that because of the 3% separation, that Obama's lead in the popular vote is a "statistical tie." This is a myth because, when you can actually count things, there's no need of statistics and no such thing as a margin of error. The popular vote is not an estimate based on a sampling, like a poll. Like the general election, there are winners and losers and, so far, Obama is the winner.
Myth: Fine, but what if we count electoral votes? NOW Hillary is ahead!
Not so much. The proportions of electoral votes to population versus delegates to population are pretty comparable. So if you allocated electors proportionally in the same manner that you allocate delegates, Obama is still ahead. If you allocate them on a winner-take-all basis, then that would be the same as allocating the delegates on a winner-take-all basis, so why bring electors into it?
Myth: But if we did do it like the Electoral College, that proves Hillary is more electable than Obama, because of states like California.
This is perhaps the saddest little myth of all. It's ridiculous to suggest that Obama will lose New York and California to McCain because Clinton won them in the primaries. No, come November, those states will join with Obama's Illinois to provide 40% of the electors necessary for him to win.
Myth: Very well, then, Mr. Smarty-Math. But if we counted Michigan and Florida, THEN Hillary would be winning!
Nooo, she wouldn't. The margin would depend on how you allocate the delegates, but Obama would still be ahead. And he'd still be about 100,000 ahead in the popular vote, too, despite not even being on the ballot in Michigan. However, it would enhance Hillary's chances of catching up in the remaining races.
Myth: Ah HA! So Dean is keeping them out just to help Obama! And Obama is keeping them out.
That's two myths, but I'll treat it like one. The only people who can come up with a solution to this problem are the states themselves, to be presented to the Rules and Regulations Committee of the DNC for ratification. It was Rules and Regs, not Howard Dean, who ruled that Florida and Michigan were breaking the rules when they presented their original primary plans. If the two states cannot come up with a plan to reselect delegates, they can try to seat whatever delegates were chosen in the discounted primaries by appealing to the Democratic Convention's Credentialing Committee, which includes many members from Rules and Bylaws.
Myth: If they don't get seated until the convention but a nominee is selected before these poor people get counted then these states are disenfranchised.
There are two ways to debunk this myth: semantically and practically. The first is based on the word "disenfranchised:" these people have not been deprived of their right to vote. Through the actions of their states, their votes don't impact the outcome. Now, you may say that that is specious semantics (Myth: I do say that!) but practically speaking, this is the usual effect of the nominating process, anyway. All of the Republican primaries since McCain clinched the nomination have been meaningless, but those voters are not disenfranchised.
Florida and Michigan tried to become more relevant in the process by breaking the rules. They risked becoming irrelevant instead.
Myth: Well, I say they are disenfranchised, and Hillary Clinton is their champion.
Only when it suits her. Last fall, when the decision was first made to flush 100% of Michigan and Florida delegates, Clinton firmly ratified it. That was because the typical punishment of only 50% representation also kept the candidates from raising money in those states. Figuring that she would wrap up the nomination handily anyway, the clear front-runner agreed with all the other candidates - including Obama - to completely "disenfranchise" those two states.
Myth: Well, never mind 2007. She's doing more now to bring them in.
Not really. Recent stories in the St. Petersburg Times political blog said that 1) the Obama camp has reached out to the Florida Democratic party about a compromise and that 2) the Clinton camp will discuss nothing else but re-votes, which are legally, practically and politically dead.
Myth: Whatever! Hillary can still win! I know she can! She and her 37% positive rating will sweep through the remaining primaries and Michigan and Florida, winning 70% of everything and superdelegates will flock to her banner and Barack Obama will personally nominate her at the Convention and John McCain will give up and George Bush will even quit early so she can take over and... and... and... can I have a glass of water?
Yes, and you should lie down, too.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: Charden on 3/31/2008 7:44PM
This Wright guy is like the P Diddy of ministry. He's such an opportunist it ain't even funny.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: Natalia on 3/31/2008 8:16PM
Obama will be our PRESIDENT!!!
Jeweled Sandals at http://executees.net
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: Ms. Unique on 3/31/2008 9:21PM
This comment is for Charden #3.
You said;
"This Wright guy is like the P Diddy of ministry. He's such an opportunist it ain't even funny".
Hey Mr. WRONG GUY", why don't you show "RESPECT"! The name is Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.! You are so IGNORANT and not FUNNY! Don't be mad because the TRUTH is right THERE IN FRONT YOUR @@! I'm sure there will be more things coming out of "CLINTON'S ClOSET"!
This is a good time, to share with the media and put the CLINTONS in their place! It's a shame, we don't hear too much about the so-called war "Hillary" was supposed to have been in? That is probably why, Hillary didn't want to make that comment about Rev Wright when the question was first asked to her at the beginning? She probably thought, "Hell, I am loosing and by me making a comment people will forget this whole "Bosnia Mistake"? NOT! You can't fool us "Hillary" and "Bill"!
Hillary, "DO US ALL A FAVOR AND STEP DOWN"!
It just goes to show you what the CLINTONS are MADE of! A BUNCH OF LIES!
"OBAMA 2008"
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: Jarobie Anderson on 3/31/2008 9:50PM
The same thing happened when she put Barack on blast about his association with the Slum Lord Antoin "Tony'' Rezko. First she put him down for doing business with him and then a picture surfaces of the two of them having dinner.
http://www.blacknews4us.com/
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: Barbara on 4/01/2008 7:54AM
Rev King died for change. Our world has fallen apart because we will not unite. You alwaya hear if you don't vote don't complain, so when we do vote it still doesn't count if our president can be chosen by stuffed collars and elected officials. The trend has been Bush/Bush/Clinton/Bush, and look where we are, so why do we want more of the same. Hillary and Obama are both good candidates and I am proud to be apart of this process, but let's be fair, if we don't be fair then the Republicians will win again. So when we vote let our vote count!
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: ROSE MARY on 4/01/2008 9:51AM
Subject: A Black Columnist on Barak Obama
> Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 23:33:51 -0700
>
> A point of view by one man.You decide!!
> >>
> >> This one can't be proven false or true as it is one man's
> >> opinion and the man is Ken Blackwell, a columnist for the New York Sun.
> >> He
> >> is also black which doesn't really shouldn't make a difference...
> >>
> >> It's an amazing time to be alive in America. We're in a
> >> year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman
> >> candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate
> >> who
> >> is the first frontrunning freedom fighter over 70. The next president of
> >> America will be a first.
> >> We won't truly be in an election of firsts, however, until
> >> we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won't arrive where we
> >> should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender. Now that
> >> Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop
> >> talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his
> >> politics.
> >> The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a
> >> nomin ee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is
> >> now
> >> the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at
> >> him.
> >> Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy.
> >> He's
> >> not. He's the next George McGovern. And it's time people learned the
> >> facts.
> >> Because the truth is, Mr. Obama is the single most liberal
> >> senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy,
> >> Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton. Never in my life have I seen a
> >> presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his
> >> record.
> >> Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern
> >> promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a
> >> liberal
> >> domestic agenda, and he lost.
> >> Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he's not
> >> behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he
> >> were in a beauty pageant. Mr. Obama talks about getting past party,
> >> getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America. But
> >> let's
> >> look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this
> >> superficial
> >> 'beauty.'
> >> Start with national security, since the president's most
> >> important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama
> >> talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons;
> >> meeting
> >> without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy
> >> Israel
> >> and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and
> >> starving
> >> his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table
> >> against
> >> terrorists - something no president has ever taken off the table since we
> >> created nuclear weapons in the 1940s.
> >> Even Democrats who have worked in national security
> >> condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who
> >> would put our national security at risk.
> >> Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our
> >> health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade
> >> agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made
> >> more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live
> >> a
> >> life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to
> >> raise
> >> taxes on 'the rich.' How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix
> >> Medicare? Raise taxe s. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college?
> >> Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything
> >> is
> >> to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your
> >> paycheck.
> >> Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the
> >> audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, 'All praise and glory to
> >> God!'
> >> but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have
> >> 'hijacked' - hijacked - Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion,
> >> and
> >> promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction
> >> on
> >> it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion vie ws of Margaret Sanger,
> >> one
> >> of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders
> >> endorse
> >> homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois, he
> >> refused to vote against a statewide ban - ban - on all handguns in the
> >> state. These are radical left, Hollywood, and San
> >> Francisco values, not Middle America values.
> >> The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general
> >> election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win
> >> if
> >> people don't start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His
> >> vision of 'bringing America together' means saying that those who
> >> disagree
> >> with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the
> >> country
> >> means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting
> >> beliefs.
> >> < /P>
> >> But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a
> >> speaker he is and - yes - they're talking about his race. Those should
> >> never
> >> be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama's
> >> radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left
> >> of
> >> Mrs. Clinton.
> >> It's time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an
> >> election of firsts, let's first make sure we elect the person who is
> >> qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global
> >> civilizational war.
> >> According to The Book of Revelations the anti-christ is:
> >> The anti-christ will be a man, in his 40s, of MUSLIM descent,
> >> who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE
> >> Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people will flock to him and
> >> he
> >> will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will
> >> destroy everything. Is it OBAMA??
> >> I STRONGLY URGE each one of you to repost this as many
> >> times
> >> as you can! Each opportunity that you have to send it to a friend or
> >> media
> >> outlet ... do it!
> >> If you think I am crazy. I'm sorry but I refuse to take a
> >> chance on the 'unknown' candidate.
> >>
> >>
>
>
=
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: may on 4/01/2008 6:11PM
rose mary you are the biggest fool. go to God and repent and ask forgiveness.
Reply to this Comment | Report This