This is Casey's way of doing two things

1- Sticking it to the Clintons for denying his father the 1992 speaking slot because he and Daddy are anti-choice and Bill Clinton decided you know as Democrats we are the pro-choice party

2- Being as relevant as Ed Rendell who absolutlely destroyed him in the 2002 Democratic primary for Governor

At what does this become a religious test for office?

Can't belong to Trinity, because... well you know...

Can't be a Catholic, because... well you know...

Can't be Jewish, because... well you know...

Seems to me this is a slippery slope. I recognize that Jerome is only pointing out that there is a defacto religious test, but should we legitimize it?

probably has a lot to do with the simple fact that the primary is still ongoing on our side, because it's affected Hillary as well. McCain's been allowed to remain essentially unchallenged and to solidify his party support, while our two are thrashing one another.

Once the Democratic primary is resolved, our nominee will be able to do the reaching out necessary to bridge the divides and turn their attention to the broader electorate. The playing field for us is still uniquely favorable, the issues matrix favors us, and all that jazz.

Long story short, we'll be fine.

Casey sounds like someone with a chip on his shoulder. Holding onto such grievences is typical of people stuck in the old politics of old Washington.

Clinton moved beyond that long ago.

Too bad the shiny new shiny shiny new Obama hasn't.

THIS is a worth a read for context!

I find that Pastor Wright is still very much the talk of the town on right wing blogs and Jerome's posts.

Casey is serious about putting a Democrat in the White House this Fall.

TUCC is not some fringe church - it's one of the largest congregations in Chicago.

It's part of a mainstream denomination and is a significant fixture on the south side of Chicago.  You could easily levy the same attacks against say.... St. Sabina and Father Michael Pfleger.  St. Sabina is a historic and large Roman Catholic church on the south side... Father Pfleger has likewise been known to say things a bit controversial... Louis Farrakhan has spoken at St. Sabina.

Frankly, I find it a bit distasteful to read a supposedly progressive blogger using similar lines of attack against Obama that we're seeing from Sean Hannity and company.

The dismissive nature of what you write about the church - a church that I'd venture to wager you've never visited, a congregation which I'd wager you know not a single member, an 'opinion' which I bet comes from no more than sound bites and cherry-picked 'factoids' - ought to be beneath you.

I am a pro-choce in politics and an ethnic Irish Catholic by birth. Some of the above comments disgust me. Way to go -- if the Clintonistas antagonize people like me, the Senator doesn't stand a change in the GE. The refusal of the Clintons to allow Casey, Sr to speak in 1992 was a blot on the party and a pander to the Emily List - NARAL groups that vetoed it.

Why to go, Bob Junior.

Neither Casey nor Murtha will change that. But PA is not the new IA. It does not change the dynamic of the race for Sen. Clinton. Not enough delegates there, although its a big state. Unless she wins by more than  30 points which is unlikely. Even then she will be way behind.

She has no path to the nomination left. Sen. Clinton must concede so that we can concentrate on McCain.

A Superdelegate coming out for Obama every day until the PA primary? If that happens that would be cool.

We all know that Clinton's writing off so many small to midsized states was a huge factor in enabling Obama to roll to such a big lead in pledged delegates.  

The Obama camp has to be at least as aware of this as we are.  I don't believe for a second that they're writing PA off.

They may fully believe they'll lose the state overall, both in votes and in delegates.  But they know this isn't winner-take-all, so they're not throwing in the towel.  

If they lose PA by 8-10%, that's no big deal.  Losing PA by 20 would be another story, and they know it.  So they've got every reason to not write off PA.  Winning PA may not be in the cards, but a big chunk of its electorate and delegates certainly is up for grabs.

I'll believe they're writing off PA when they go dark in PA.  I bet that doesn't happen between now and 4/21.

The only people who can bring the current  madness to an end are the SuperDelegates. Time to write to them and get them to make up their minds. demconwatch.blogspot.com has a list of uncommitted SDs. Any way to start a petition to them?

Even if some come out for Clinton, the faster they decide the better for the Party. Of course, being politicians they would like to hold on to their vote as much as possible. They need to be lobbied by the grassroots.

This will affect the heavily ethnic vote in Pennsylvania.  

The national media has had their anti-Hillary week; now we may see an anti-Barack week as the "garlic nose" story makes the rounds in the MSM.  A typical story:  http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section =news/local&id=6047006

More controversial comments from Senator Barack Obama's former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright have come to light.
The comments are in an article published in the Trumpet magazine. Wright is listed as the magazine's chief executive officer, and his daughter is listed as publisher.
In the December 2007 issue, Wright describes the crucifixion of Jesus as a public lynching Italian style. He also writes about the "garlic noses" of Italians.
The Italian American Human Relations Foundation of Chicago condemned the comments.

The Newsday piece said:

http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/lo ngisland/politics/blog/2008/03/rev_wrigh ts_italian_job_hold_t.html

The irrepressible Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. is at it again, this time taking aim at Italians -- expounding a two millenium grudge against the sons and daughters of Rome -- and their (allegedly) breath-altering prediliction for scampi and pesto.

Jake Tapper at ABC let it all hang out (maybe he reads MyDD):  http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/ 2008/03/more-wright-stu.html

More Wright Stuff
March 27, 2008 7:54 PM
Some more controversial, even offensive, material emanating from Sen. Obama's church, Trinity United Church of Christ in the South Side of Chicago, and Rev. Jeremiah Wright. This material attacks Israel, Italians, and the US government.
1) ISRAEL BUILT AN ETHNIC BOMB TO KILL ARABS
The June 10, 2007 church newsletter on the Pastor's Page includes some rather incendiary charges -- made by an Arab-American activists -- claiming that Israel worked with South Africa to develop an "ethnic bomb that kills Blacks and Arabs."
2) SLURRING ITALIANS
New York Newsday reports that in the Dec. 2007 edition of the Trumpet magazine, published by Rev. Wright's daughter, the pastor in a eulogy for Asa Hilliard wrote that Jesus's "enemies had their opinion about Him... The Italians for the most part looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans." He calls the crucifixion "a public lynching Italian style" executed in "Apartheid Rome."
3) THE US GOVERNMENT IS RUN BY WHITE SUPREMACISTS
In that same eulogy Wright says that the US "government runs everything from the White House to the schoolhouse, from the Capitol to the Klan, white supremacy is clearly in charge, but Asa, like Jesus, refused to be defined by an oppressive government because Asa got his identity from an Omnipotent God."
3) HAMAS OP-ED
Bizzyblog has published the July 22, 2007 church newsletter in which Wright reprints an article by Mousa Abu Marzook, deputy of the political bureau of Hamas, which the US government named a terrorist organization in 1995.
Marzook was named a Specially Designated Terrorist by the Treasury Department In 2004, the Justice Department indicted Marzook for conspiring to violate U.S. laws that prohibit dealings in terrorist funds.

As we move on to Pennsylvania,  let's remember the classic line uttered by Bette Davis as the imperious Margo Channing in "All About Eve:" "Fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy night!"

Following in the footsteps of Richardson and everyone else who has endorsed Obama.

Ah, this is more like the Jerome we have come to know and "love" the last couple of months. Sadly yesterday's slight impartiality was but a blip on the radar screen and now back to the screeds. It was nice while it lasted.

you guys here are really getting pathetic....another day, another front page story dedicated to wright

this is just as bad as the RNC and Faux News

The Casey  "didn't endorse and couldn't speak" explanation was a canard. At the time, everyone knew what the deal was -- NARAL and other pro-choice groups threatened to pitch a fit. It was the Clintons (and Gore to be honest) at their shabbiest. I linked to an account below.  To be fair, some very quietly pro-life dems like John
Breaux were allowed to speak. Casey was singled out because he was so publically pro-life.  Every religion has its clergy we would rather not be in the public eye (e.g the Catholic pedophile priests and the higherups who covered up for them).
We just cannot be bashing any religion no matter how impassioned one is. It's just ignorant.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS /stories/08/17/latimes.abortion/index.ht ml

I suspect that one of the reasons the Wright thing isn't a bigger flack is that the ones who both would be likely to vote for Obama and not be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt are disproportionately church goers.  

People who regularly attend church know that the pastor and church bulletins don't always agree with them and they know that there are reasons to stay in the church - friends, good works, family history, a connection to their God - that remain important even if they don't like a sermon or two.  

Notice how much slack Huckabee was giving to Wright.  I don't think that people who go to a church want to be judged by the outsider perception of it, and they'd be willing to cut Obama slack for that reason.

And yes, I knocked on wood after typing this.

Who's Pushing The "Wright Is Homophobic" Smear?

Bueller?
Bueller?
Bueller?

...who HAS endorsed Barack that isn't:

1) a fool

2) has it out for the Clintons

3) worth a personal attack?

The problem with attacking them ALL, is that it makes it look like Hillary's people are suffering from sour grapes, rather than intellectually relvant discourse.  

Of the recent endorsements for ANY  of our candidates, this is by far the best one, with the most impact.  Richardson is ofcourse a nclose second.

Hillary has her share of great endorsements too, but folks...ripping on a SD after they make the endorsement is kinda transparent.

about Wright.  Me thinks you are desperate to attack Obama.  Poorly written - no coherent theme.

I thought after the nationally televised  endorsement of Obama by Ted Kennedy that Hillary was toast. I was wrong. Now I know the electorate generally makes up its own mind and that it's the endorsement of Governors more so than Senators that matter. Governors inherently have the infrastructural ground network necessary to boost a campaign and get voters out.

Hillary won MA by double digits in spite of Ted Kennedy.

to change anything.

There have been many statewide polls though, which show a continued slide against McCain, which is probably why Obama continues to try and figure out a way to end the story.

First, a "continued slide" would require multiple polls in a state.  The only states with multiple polls in them since the Wright scandal are PA and NC, both of which have shown Obama with a more advantageous position in the primary(smaller deficit or larger lead) than before the Wright scandal.

Second, what states are those?  You linked several the other day that showed no such thing as they were  all red states that showed no significant movement.  California, Connecticut, Nevada, Washington, MN, NY, MA, WI etc all have Obama outperforming Hillary (and McCain) in the latest polls.  There is no evidence of a slide over Wright, let alone a 'continued slide'.  Obama still outperforms Hillary Clinton in the general election as well as the Democratic primary.  

What the "progressive" reaction would be if an anti-choice, pro Roberts and Alito Democrat had endorsed Hillary...

No criticism I'm sure...

Hey Jerome, perhaps you'd like to take some time out of your front page to tell Bill Clinton to stop reinforcing McCain's image as a "Moderate".

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/ 2008/03/clinton-praises.html

Considering the Republicans are going to continue to talk about how "liberal" our candidates are (no matter who wins the nomination), do we really want to cede this "moderate" term to McCain?  I think we should instead be talking about how he's no different than Bush: just a right-wing ideologue.

It's strange watching progressives willingly take part in the Republican Echo Chamber to slander Democratic candidates.

"...continues to try and figure out a way to end the story."

Classic example of the tactic there.

Saddle up Obama supporters and lets finish this fight.

Let all the people vote, let all their votes count and then it will be over.

I would not mind Casey's pro life stance if it also applied to the death penalty.  It does not, and I think that makes his "pro-lifeness" total hypocrisy.

Actually, I am having problems with both Democrats about this issue.  They are both fairly strong supporters of the DP.  I remember when being a Democrat was automatically opposing capital punishment, and wonder about the utter cowardice by our current candidates on that score.  It was one of the reasons I supported John Kerry so strongly; he did not reinvent himself on the issues to run for office.  Ted Kennedy is also opposed, and my state is one of, I think 13 or 14 where it doesn't exist.  

I would vote for a Republican at this point, who opposed the DP over a Dem who did not, I believe it is that strong a descriptor of our culture (not going to happen, they are not going to take risks on this either).  It would be nice to see our party take the lead in bringing us in line with the rest of the West on this issue.

who cares about the Bullshit Wright stuff.

Wright admitted plenty of times that his comments were divisive. Just not while apologizing for himself on tv. He told Obama, he told his congregants, I'm pretty sure he's said so in interviews I've read. He fully understands that what he says is both unpopular and extremely divisive.

I can't imagine a 6 day bus tour of PA with a moderately popular PA senator(along with a significant ad buy and significant negative coverage of his opponent) will have zero beneficial impact for Obama.  He may get a bump in polling there in the next couple weeks.  

Last time around, the negative media and negative attacks largely hit in the last week before the primaries in OH/TX.  This time around, most of the negative stuff has come out weeks beforehand, and Obama has plenty of time to deal with it and build his brand ID there.  

I expect they will roll out one major endorser every Friday between now and 4/22.  Ideally the last one(on 4/18) would be the biggest, though I think there's only about 2 or 3 SDs who qualify...

lets have an argument on these lies:

"We have had Senator Obama said his parents met and joined -- got together at the Selma March, and that led to them being together and him being born. Well, he was born four years before the Selma March.

He claimed to be a constitutional law professor, and turned out not to be.

Claimed to speak fluent Indonesia as a child. His schoolteacher said that was not the case.

He claimed to be involved in an asbestos campaign in public housing in his book, and it turned out not to be the case.

More...

He claimed that he had a racial awakening at the age of 9 by reading a LIFE magazine article about an African-American man was scarred physically and mentally by trying to make himself look more white. LIFE magazine and Ebony magazine never published such an article.

Senator Obama said, I didn't have much of a relationship with Rezko. He didn't raise me much money. This is the guy under indictment in Chicago. We didn't have a very serious relationship. And then refused to give interviews to The Chicago Tribune and The Chicago Sun-Times to answer their questions.

Well, when the Reverend Williams (ph) story broke, when there was all that bad news about Reverend Williams (ph), Senator Obama called up on a Friday, the same day that the Williams (ph) stuff was boiling hot, called up The Sun-Times and The Trib, and said, I'll give you those interviews now about Rezko, in which he said, yes I had a deeper, longer, more significant relationship with him.

He raised me a lot more money and the real estate deal was just as stinky as you thought it was, but nobody in America -- or very few people in America saw that because those stories ran at a time when our focus was on something else, Reverend Wright and his extreme comments."

Hannity and Armstrong are vying for the title of who can focus on Reverand Wright the most.

They are in lockstep,I guess. Working together.
Must make Jerome so proud.

Marsh,Armstrong and Hannity..All Great Americans.

The diarist starts off with analysis of the PA race, then meanders off into pushing the Wright story, then misrepresents the poll numbers: his link is broken, but pollster has the spread at 12%, not 16%, down from 19% a couple week ago.

If this is a site for political junkies, why not just put aside the bias and call the thing straight, without the ill-concealed hope that a hashed-out scandal will bloom again?

What are the facts? The facts are that Clinton's lead in PA has narrowed significantly, but remains in the double digits. The facts are that despite Wright, Obama's national numbers are back where they were in late Feb. The facts are that Obama is outspending Clinton three to one in PA and just embarked on a bus tour of the state, to which Clinton will answer with her own tour next week.

PA looks like a win for HRC, but there's a lot of road between there and here. Would-be analysts, front-page and otherwise, would shed more light if they offered less partisan heat.

I'm sure Jerome will want to update his analysis of the impact of the Wright story with the news that Obama put up his biggest lead in Gallup's daily tracking poll ever; up by eight points, a fifteen-point swing since The Speech. /snark

this allegedly terrible problem for Obama doesn't seem to be reflected in the Hillary-Obama polls, which show Obama surging ahead.  He's up by a large margin in Gallup and for the first time moved ahead in Rasmussen.  All the momentum is with Obama now.  Democratic primary voters simply aren't afraid of black churches, and aren't willing to play the guilt by association game.

Go ahead Jerome, see if you can ride white backlash against black anger all the way to the White House.  

Oh, wait a minute that strategy was already tried by ...... by Richard M Nixon.  

Yeah baby, you are really crashing the gates now.

I honestly feel like if Jerome reads all of these comments and all of the arguments and factoids, he must come to the conclusion that the majority of those who frequent his blog find his use of Pastor Wright's sound-bites reductive and harmful.

Jerome- do you read us?

Enough is enough.  

Obama is a great man, but he is only plausible as an aracial, or trans-racial candidate.  Every speech he has to give about race, no matter how eloquent or worthy of comparison to the Gettysburg Address, is a loss for him among the general electorate, and mostly likely is a loss for Democratic prospects.

I know Casey, have met Casey and campaigned for Casey. He only won because he is his father's son and Rendell propped him up.

He's not very bright, a bad campaigner, and is uncomfortable around LGBT people.

The Casey endorsement will help Obama most because of Casey's signature distinction, that of a pro-life Democrat. Casey helps draw attention to Obama's ambiguity on choice (one of those divisive 'culture issues' Obama doesn't want to fight over), and may draw some conservative, otherwise Republican, anti-choice Catholic voters into Obama's camp.

Just one small comment - about Rev. Wright, what he said on The View was that had Rev. Wright not expressed any regret/sadness for what had happened, then he might have left.  But Obama also said that he spoke with Rev. Wright recently about what happened and that Rev. Wright had expressed sadness, etc.  So there's nothing inconsistent about what he's said there - it's just poor headline writing by various sites online.

(By the way, though I support Obama, at first I was upset that he might have waffled, but when I saw the View I realized that he hadn't.)

Since when are private religious church bulletins part of "the public discourse"?

Man, the Clinton campaign gets more whack by the day.