Was Jeremiah Wright's speech set up by a Clinton supporter?
Well, here's a most interesting connection we just came across.
Everybody is talking today about how much the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's latest unrepentant militant remarks hurt his most prominent parishoner, Sen. Barack Obama, and his chances to win the Democratic presidential nomination and the general election. So much so that the Obama camp realized the latent danger overnight and the candidate was forced to speak out publicly a second time today, as The Ticket noted here earlier today.
There was little doubt left in today's remarks by Obama, who recently said he could no more disown Wright than he could the black community. He pretty much disowned Wright today. Obama described himself as "outraged" and "saddened" by "the spectacle of what we saw yesterday."
But now, it turns out, we should have been paying a little less attention to Wright's speech and the histrionics of his ensuing news conference and taken a peek at....
who was sitting next to him at the head table for the National Press Club event.
It was the Rev. Dr. Barbara Reynolds, a former editorial board member of USA Today who teaches at the Howard University School of Divinity. An ordained minister, as New York Dail
y News writer Errol Louis points out in today's column, she was introduced at the press club event as the person "who organized" it.
But guess what? She's also an ardent longtime booster of Obama's sole remaining competitor for the Democratic nomination, none other than Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York. It won't take very much at all for Obama supporters to see in Wright's carefully arranged Washington event that was so damaging to Obama the strategic, nefarious manipulation of the Clintons.
Their supporter, Reynolds, helps arrange a speech by the outspoken and egocentric Wright which receives blanket national coverage to the disadvantage of Clinton's opponent. As Louis writes: "The Rev. Jeremiah Wright couldn't have done more damage to Barack Obama's campaign if he had tried. And you have to wonder if that's just what one friend of Wright wanted."
Reynolds has not returned e-mails or phone calls seeking comment, but Louis notes the obvious conflict between her political allegiance and her press club arrangements. He quotes a February blog entry of Reynolds saying, "My vote for Hillary in the Maryland primary was my way of saying thank you" to Clinton and her husband for his administration's successes.
In another entry, Reynolds notes critically of Obama, "It is a sad testimony that to protect his credentials as a unifier above the fray, the senator is fueling the media characterization that Rev. Dr. Wright is some retiring old uncle in the church basement."
Louis notes himself about the Wright appearance: "It's hard to exaggerate how bad the actual news conference was. Wright, steeped in an honorable, fiery tradition of Bible-based social criticism, cheapened his arguments and his movement by mugging for the cameras, rolling his eyes, heaping scorn on his critics and acting as if nobody in the room was learned enough to ask him a question."
(UPDATE: Sylvia Smith, the press club president, confirmed today that Reynolds is on the club's speakers committee. She told Michael Calderone on Politico.com that she still doesn't know whom Reynolds supports for president, adding, "Rev. Wright is newsworthy, period.")
--Andrew Malcolm
Photo Credit: Getty



How is this worse than Hillary hanging on to her old friend Mark Penn too long, or McCain hanging on to his previous campaign staff buddies who almost bankrupted his campaign this time around? These things happen. The important thing is to recognize the truth and move on - just as Obama has done.
Posted by: Tom J | April 29, 2008 at 06:35 PM
This Obama-Rev. Wright show is just that - a show. They are both in on this act. Obama did not condemn Wright when he had the chance. If he does it now out of the blue he will be seen as doing it for his election. If the reverend keeps on spewing his hate America speech this will give Obama another chance to condemn him claiming now that he has really seen it for himself though he missed it for the last twenty years.
Posted by: Bob | April 29, 2008 at 06:35 PM
Hillary has proven herself to be as lowlife a scumbag as George W Bush. Barack Obama should rightfully let Hillary have it and demand that she withdraw from this race now!
Posted by: J Snow
-----------------------------
obama has reduced you to a prostitute.
he had me looking like fool too - but no more.
do the line down the page test.
THE STUFF ADDS UP, YA KNO WHAT I MEAN?
Posted by: ex-Obama supporter | April 29, 2008 at 06:36 PM
This Obama-Rev. Wright show is just that - a show. They are both in on this act. Obama did not condemn Wright when he had the chance. If he does it now out of the blue he will be seen as doing it for his election. If the reverend keeps on spewing his hate America speech this will give Obama another chance to condemn him claiming now that he has really seen it for himself though he missed it for the last twenty years.
Posted by: Bob | April 29, 2008 at 06:37 PM
I must admit that as an outsider I find the current spat between B.O. and H.R.C. amusing. It just goes to prove that the democratic national party is parinod of everything - first it was GWB and the RNC that have a conservative conspirarcy, then Cheney, and now it is H.R.C. and who knows who or what will be the next target.... Get with guys, the world is a tough place and if you can sort out your own party - how the heck are you gonna sort out the bad guys to America. Get real, Get tough, suck it up and move on to the real battle ground - not with americans, but with the real enemies of the state - foreign nationals and foreign states that want nothing more than to see America degraded by a lack of focus on them...
Posted by: John | April 29, 2008 at 06:38 PM
It doesn't matter who put this man on the stage in front of the cameras... the news reporters should have been investigating this man from the start. But, the fears of being seen as attacking an African American the news reporters and agencies aren’t doing their job. This appears to be a problem with the reporters in the country anymore always afraid to stir up controversy; they won't challenge GWB and his policies so why should they start now.
Obama is blind after 20 years of listening to this man and he refused to distance himself from him years ago makes him a bad choice. What happens if he chooses the wrong people for the important jobs running this country? Look at GWB choices, all friends and friends of the family and where are we now. This country is becoming a third rate nation with incompetence at the helm.
I say this since as a kid I was raised watching Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and Jimmy Swaggart. As I grew up and saw the hate and hypocrisy these men preached I turned from them.
Neither Clinton nor her supporters are at fault here the man at fault is the Rev Wright he preaches hate and distrust and should be shunned by anyone in politics. I don't see him any differently than I do an Islamic minister that preaches hate towards the USA govt. and every American tells the Muslim followers to denounce there ministers.
This is a GREAT country and only will remain great if we continue to keep church and state separated.
Posted by: AL W. | April 29, 2008 at 06:39 PM
you sad, sad, sad people.
WRIGHT IS SAYING THE SAME THING HE SAID BEFORE OBAMA WAS EXPOSED, SO HOW IS IT CLINTON'S FAULT NOW?
GET A GRIP AND FACE FACTS BEFORE YOU GET COMMITTED.
Posted by: POLYGAMIST WIVES IN SESSION | April 29, 2008 at 06:40 PM
dont forget, the judas Rev. Wrong was "on a cruise" and unreachable before his appearance. im sure his hosts used the time well to coach him on his performance
if you were the treacherous reverend, wouldnt you have taken obamas phone call before trying to make a spectacle of yourself? or would you have spurned it like he did?
obama is the right choice for america. we dont need a clinton part II presidency or a bu$h part III one with mccain
Posted by: peabody3000 | April 29, 2008 at 06:40 PM
Why do we have to keep discussing Wright over & over again? It's stupid. I want the Republicans to pay for the last 8 years. We need to attack *them*, because they deserve it.
Posted by: tlsmith1963 | April 29, 2008 at 06:40 PM
Obama HAS NOT LIED , THE CLINTONS HAVE, THIS IS A FACT
Posted by: Jerry | April 29, 2008 at 06:44 PM
hahahaha.... You people make me chuckle. If you would listen to yourselves.
Please, let us all go back to the confederacy. The confederates had the answer in the beginning. States rights. I believe in it now and always. You morons don't realize that the feds are just a form of unionized government pyt in place to protect states rights. Clinton, Obama, nor McfreakinCain can give you anything. Study your history and see what our wise forfathers wanted for this great nation,
Don't misunderstand, I am not pro-slavery or anti-black because I say the confederates had it right. Study your history before you listen to these wolves in sheep's clothing.
Ask yourself before you vote, does clinton, obama, or McCain go to bed at night worried about the well being of the citizens of this great nation. A wise person will automatically have the answer.
It is a fool that thinks that any of these people want to help you. They are in it for numero uno.
WAKE UP AMERICA...
Posted by: Kevin | April 29, 2008 at 06:45 PM
"But my first thought was that it was setup by Obama's campaign, to make it easier to draw a distinction between the two men."
Brilliant.
In addition, the last time someone handed a picture of Obama wearing traditional Somali clothing to the media, it hurted Clinton. Also, heading into a state where the black vote is going to be very significant, it might be in Obama's interest to be put on the defensive on race related issues (remember South Carolina), because, naturally, they will come to his defense in droves.
Finally, why isn't anybody asking him nicely what this whole thing says about his judgement? He has talked a lot about having good judgement, and how that matters more than experience, and went the extra mile in accusing Clinton of bad judgement for voting for giving the president power to take action on Iraq (remember that Clinton did this in a setting where there was an intelligence report supporting the "danger" Iraq posed, and she is the Senator from New York). She made that decisions in that setting and pressure, and the whole thing happened over a matter of months. On the other hand, Mr. Obama attended that guy's church for 15 to 20 years and just realized "who he is"?!
In regards to Tony Rezko, he gets to say his decision was just "a boneheaded one" and gets away with it without significant scrutiny, despite the fact that when the transaction occured, the guy was already being investigated.
He gets better treatment from the media; big time. He should be called to task on his hypocricy.
Posted by: Please LA Times! | April 29, 2008 at 06:46 PM
The supporters of "Sniper Dodging, Duck Hunter" Clinton seem to forget that getting a Democrat elected is crucial to this country. That means the votes of more than just the died in the wool Democratic voter, but also the undecided and "Reagan Democrat" types as well. The whole Clinton era has left such a bad taste in the mouths of those folks that they will never vote for Hillary. If you want the ultimate polarizing figure, nominate her.
As far as basic honesty, Obama is head and shoulders above Hillary, and most people know it. She is the patently phony Washington Insider through and through, and like the Bush's, thinks that there ought to be a Clinton dynasty as well. Only a bunch of Clinton phonies would try to take the words of some bitter old fart and lay them at Obama's feet. Why don't you apply the same outrage to that act as you do to the fact that the Press Conference was arranged by a Clinton supporter. ANS: You are the ultimate double standard types.
Posted by: Trawlerman | April 29, 2008 at 06:47 PM
As we all know, "This is all a part of the vast right-wing consp, oops never mind. It's not time for that yet." Not only are we seeing the real Obama, but also the real Hillary. Hillary will stab you in the back in a nanosecond. Do you like what you see? I don't, both of them well say and do whatever they have to so they can win. That's all that matters! But this is really fun to watch! It is a circular firing squad, LOL!
Posted by: Bob Keller | April 29, 2008 at 06:48 PM
not sure who owns the writer or the paper, but to label it as a clinton manipulation, and have actually ppl that believe it, tells me something about IQ; no wonder this campain has gone so long, w/so little substance; the media farts, and all pretend it smells like roses; u must be a total retard, to believe this bs, ie. clinton did it..only in amerika this bs is actually working...go get a brain...
Posted by: titi | April 29, 2008 at 06:51 PM
this is beautiful. I am loving every minuit of it.
Posted by: bachu | April 29, 2008 at 06:53 PM
Well, okay. I agree with the comment that Obama did not sit in the pews for 20 years. Good to correct that.
I think it's useful to point out further that he did not sit in the pews for 15 years either. The sum total of his time there if you were not absent from church at all would be perhaps 52 hours a year for 15 years. That would be a total of about one month or two months depending on how you calculate it, spread out in small increments over a long period of time. It also assumes there was never another pastor giving a sermon.
And, I would add that sitting in the pews is not a one-to-one face-to-face interaction. What is more, it is clear that while Wright has his issues, he was not throughout the course of every sermon giving the kinds of speech and of making the kinds of comments that he gave on national television this past week, or those that were used as excerpts to make the infamous 1 1/2 minute videotape. Clearly, if he were neither Obama nor any of the other congregation would have remained. Nor would the congregation have grown.
This all needs to be thought about rationally and intelligently. If you do that, and remember that Obama is not Wright and Wright is not Obama, you will see that this has very little to do with Obama's personal philosophy, morals and objectives. I would argue that it also has little to do with the judgment -- do you know your preacher that well? For example, what about all the issues with the Catholic Church and the pedophilia?
At the outset, and given the position that Jeremiah Wright occupied as the leader of his church, Obama would not be trying to "vet" him in case he decided someday to run for president. Why would he do that for someone that has a vibrant and growing congregation of some of the most upstanding people in the Chicago community?
Posted by: Paul | April 29, 2008 at 06:53 PM
Politics is a nefarious game, that has cause so much grief over the centuries. Take for example Julius Caesar's cause of war against the Roman senate particularly Pompeii Magnus. He had Mark Anthony elected as consul of Rome and then he knew that he could have his wishes channeled through Anthony to the Senate. On one hand Cato and Cicero noticed what Caesar was trying to do to their republic so they had the Senate vote for the return of Caesar to Rome, disband his arms and be tried for Treason. The all calculating Cicero thought that with the majority voting for Caesars trial that Mark Anthony would veto it. Caesar on the other hand knew Anthony and he also knew the outcome , that Anthony will not veto the vote being caught up in the moment.
In the end Caesar marched his legions onto Rome forcing Pompeii and his senate supporters to flee because they couldn't raise enough legions in time for the defense of Rome.
The Point of the story is that the Clinton campaign had a calculated move, in having Barbara Reynolds set up Rev.Wright, and having a big ego he couldn't resist this chance of speaking out his mind. Although it might not have been as calculating as Caesar's was, we can see that there was much thought going into this process. It all stinks of politics to those that understand history and love it with a passion.
My only prayer is that America will look beyond this and choose the right person to lead. One that is transparent and true in every fiber of their being. I hope that America will chose Barrack Obama.
Posted by: Zac | April 29, 2008 at 06:53 PM
It's like a Kara Walker...
Posted by: Peter Gallo | April 29, 2008 at 06:56 PM
"I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."
Posted by: Bill | April 29, 2008 at 06:59 PM
Good to see the cabal of white pansy that support Momma Clinton all popping up all over the place. Must be spring. The world is laughing at you people. Just the though of having a saw-off dumb blond as your President, (actually, that does fit AmeriKKKans to a tee), no, too funny to go on. Good luck sailing down that Banana Republic path you folks are on!
Posted by: Larry | April 29, 2008 at 07:04 PM
To "Please LA Times"
Please! Obama has said consistently that he is not a perfect person. People do make mistakes. Even boneheaded ones -- something a bit like your misjudgment in your comments here that are narrowed down to a very small focus on tangential issues.
I posted a bit earlier on my thoughts about how this does not reasonably reflect on Obama's judgment. Do you know your pastor that well?
And, in my view, the press is giving none of this a rest, nor are vacuous blockers like yourself. If you're not on someone's payroll and are a real and thinking person, I suggest you step back and think rationally and consider what I set out in my earlier comments. I suspect you'll come to a different place.
Indeed have a look at yourself and consider how you might want someone to view your boneheaded mistakes over your lifetime. And don't tell me you don't have any. And don't tell me this is different because it concerns someone who might be the next President of the United States -- look at who is there now, although as Obama says, that is a very low bar. I would submit that you would need a very much lower bar than Obama for someone like Clinton.
People, including Presidential material, are only human. They do need to meet a high standard, however, the Main principle of that for me is that they recognize that they are not perfect, but they do make mistakes, and they know how to get advice to avoid and minimize them and to change direction when that is what is the proper course of action. Do not be concerned about looking and feeling embarrassed when they have to do so.
It is so much more difficult when your opposition is waiting in the wings to say -- "flip-flop". But someone capable of doing that is what is needed.
Posted by: Paul | April 29, 2008 at 07:06 PM
LOL, it's good to be a conservative.
Posted by: Steve | April 29, 2008 at 07:07 PM
SADDEST THNG?
here you have peple knowing the facts but here they are trying to make a case for obama.
do they KNOW this man said these things since years ago?
do they know Obama defended him only months ago?
do they know this man insulted Chelsea, Hillary and Bill by name? sure they do.
but their pride is choking them, so its now Hillary's fault.
these people would rather have an incompetant man in charge bedause of what? Rather than admit they were wrong and he's turned out to be a fraud?
or did they get an autograph that might now be worthless?
THIS IS NOTHIG SHORT THAN INSANITY!!!!!!
they are like the polygamist wives who hear the child being raped in the middle of the night then wake up and fix breakfast for the rapist and wishes him a nice day.
this is bizzarre, and INSANE, YES, I AM CALLING YOU OBAMA DENY, DENY, DENY INSANE PEOPLE WHO HAVE LOST YOUR MARBLES!!!!!!!
Posted by: insane? yeah, u could say that | April 29, 2008 at 07:09 PM
Sam Zell's Tribune Company owns the LA Times now, much to this former subscriber's chagrin.
He was overheard referring to Senator Clinton as a "C**T" at a party last year. His Tribune papers across the land have handily endorsed Senator Obama.
However- I am not about to jump from one dot to the next and attribute this sketchy piece of "journalism" and exercise in inaccuracy and fantasy to any Sam Zell conspiracy, even though his rabid, hostile feelings about the Clintons' are no secret to anyone...
Instead I'll place the blame square on the confused writer, Andrew Malcolm.
PS The President of the Nat'l Press Club made a statement that SHE - not the Clinton "operative" Dr. Reynolds- had invited Rev Wright to speak.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20080429/pl_usnw/national_press_club_statement_on_errol_louis_story_in_ny_daily_news
But then I suppose it was Dr. Reynolds who then strapped the Reverend to the chair and injected the microchip into his brain just prior to his taking the stage. You know-- the one Hillary had prepared. It's the same one she had inserted prior to the Moyers show and the NAACP meeting. Oh and of course she had it planted in him years ago as well. It's the reason he thought of all those zany things to say!
Now that's the kind of omnipotent magical woman we need running this country today! Who else could get us out of this mess?
You are lucky Mr Malcolm to have a writing job that has no burden of demand for fact checking or copy edits prior to publishing. Cushy life.
Posted by: ms in la | April 29, 2008 at 07:12 PM