Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Left Masthead
August 27, 2015
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!

When Robots Run the Show

Truthdig Bazaar more items

A/V Booth
Print this item

Clinton Comments on Rev. Wright

Posted on Mar 25, 2008

Hillary Clinton says she would have left her church, were she in Barack Obama’s position, because “We have a choice when it comes to our pastors.”

Needless to say, Team Obama was disappointed “to see Hillary Clinton’s campaign sink to this low.”

You can read Clinton’s original statement here, and watch her defend the comment here.

The Obama campaign’s response can be found here.


Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By hinnis, March 25, 2008 at 8:02 pm Link to this comment

If Hillary had been going to a “white centered” church for 20 years; the fundamental theology of the church was one of white versus black; the pastor of the church often made racist remarks against blacks; the pastor of the church gave David Duke a lifetime achievement award; and Hillary considered this pastor her “mentor and spiritual adviser”; would you give her the pass that you are giving Obama.  I doubt you could answer this question honestly, so I’ll tell you what would happen:  The righteous indignation of Obama and the media would rise up, the demand would be made that Hillary withdraw from the nomination process immediately, and Hillary’s political career would be over, period.  The double standards and hypocrisy must stop.

Report this

By cyrena, March 25, 2008 at 7:58 pm Link to this comment

•  “Hillary Clinton’s whopper about braving sniper fire in Bosnia is perhaps most troubling because it’s not an isolated case. She’s been “misspeaking” about both domestic and foreign issues, often in the context of attacking her chief rival or puffing up her record.”

Why Is Hillary Clinton Lying?
By Robert Parry
March 26, 2008

Two weeks ago, I wrote a story that observed a disturbing trend in Hillary Clinton’s campaign – her growing tendency to stretch the truth, twist what her chief rival was saying and then rely on her supporters to go on the offensive against you if you spoke up.

These tendencies were troubling, in part, because they mirrored what had become so common during George W. Bush’s years: to declare that a fantasy is the truth and then to attack the patriotism or sanity of anyone who thinks otherwise. I wrote:
“Throughout history, it’s been common for politicians to shade the truth when caught in a tight spot. But sometimes politicians push the limits, crossing the line into an Orwellian world where up is down, where bullies are victims, where people objecting to the lies are shouted down.”
The article cited a number of examples of Clinton turning reality inside out and repeating false attack lines against Barack Obama, such as claiming that he wanted to “bomb Pakistan” when he really advocated attacking al-Qaeda targets inside Pakistan if the government there refused to act. [See “Clinton’s Up-Is-Down World.”]

week later, I cited a report in the Boston Globe about Clinton exaggerating her behind-the-scenes support for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program – which was fashioned and passed by a bipartisan congressional effort led by Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. I noted that Clinton had transformed her peripheral role into a central theme of her campaign.
“In Clinton’s narrative, she picked herself up from her failed health-care plan, learned some lessons, and then pushed through a slimmed-down measure (S-CHIP) that has produced important results for millions of American families,” my story said. [See “Clinton’s Child-Health Hype.”]

Not surprisingly, these articles questioning Clinton’s truthfulness drew furious reactions from Clinton’s supporters who seem on perpetual alert to any criticism of their candidate, so it can be repudiated as an example of “sexism,” “Hillary bashing” or membership in some “Barack Obama cult.”
The Clinton campaign seems to have concluded that the only way to react to negative comments is by going on the attack. Some Clinton supporters have boasted of this strategy as the only way to beat the Republicans at their own game – even if the broadsides now are aimed at fellow Democrats and journalists who defended the Clintons when they faced unfair accusations in the 1990s.

Full article at the link.

There is much to note here, INCLUDING what he mentions in-so-far as the attacks now aimed at fellow Democrats and journalists WHO DEFENDED THE CLINTONS when they were faced with UNFAIR accusations in the 1990’s.

This is where HRC has truly brought herself down to gutter level…turning on those who have defended her when she was subjected to unfair attacks herself.

Report this

By rtl3, March 25, 2008 at 6:46 pm Link to this comment

Obama, has stated from very early on in his campaign that he had many disagreements and serious debates with his pastor. This is important. It is possible to respect someone you disagree with. For anyone who attended college or has a job I’m sure that’s not a foreign concept. It’s terribly easy to run away from a problem or something you find uncomfortable but it takes a real leader to stand up and debate with someone you respect and to stand your ground and fight for what you believe in. This is what Obama has done and he continues to have my full support and respect.

So POGBLOG now that you are a little more mature, I hope you have stopped glaring and stalking away and instead debated with those hate-filled people and work hard to show them the light. good luck to you.

Report this

By Albert Johnson Jr, March 25, 2008 at 6:42 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hillary Clinton is truly a nasty piece of work.  Even if one does not consider the supposedly inflammatory nature of the Wright sermons, she took an opportunity to promote healing or at least thought provoking discussion, and instead parroted a line that even the conservative nominee and the man he defeated has abandoned.


I have no doubt Hillary would have left her church and the place that introduced her to Jesus because it is abundantly clear that there is no belief, no ethic, no moral, or important relationship she would not gladly sacrifice in order to further her own naked ambition.  However, she should get that choice.  These are the words of her pastor in the white house for 8 years Dean J Snyder the Senior Minister of the Foundry United Methodist church.  The Clintons church while they were in the white house.


The Reverend Jeremiah Wright is an outstanding church leader
whom I have heard speak a number of times. He has served for
decades as a profound voice for justice and inclusion in our society.
He has been a vocal critic of the racism, sexism and homophobia
which still tarnish the American dream. To evaluate his dynamic
ministry on the basis of two or three sound bites does a grave
injustice to Dr. Wright, the members of his congregation, and the
African-American church which has been the spiritual refuge of a
people that has suffered from discrimination, disadvantage, and
violence. Dr. Wright, a member of an integrated denomination, has
been an agent of racial reconciliation while proclaiming perceptions
and truths uncomfortable for some white people to hear. Those of us
who are white Americans would do well to listen carefully to Dr.
Wright rather than to use a few of his quotes to polarize. This is a
critical time in America’s history as we seek to repent of our racism.
No matter which candidates prevail, let us use this time to listen again
to one another and not to distort one another’s truth.


Over 2 million Americans have seen the full context of the Rev. Wright’s sermon on YouTube.  So, when Hillary says it’s out there for people to make up their minds I hope they truly do.

Hillary is a political succubus.  She will suck the energy and will from this party until we are broken and defeated.

We have to defeat this person.

Report this

By hinnis, March 25, 2008 at 5:58 pm Link to this comment

Rev. (and I use the term loosely) Wright has stated himself that James Cone is one of the primary persons he looks to regarding his “black liberation theology.”  The fact that Wright preaches black liberation theology is stated on the church’s website (unless they’ve scrubbed that, too, in their effort to mislead America about their racist church).  Obama has been listening to that racist garbage for 20 years, so I assume he understands the theology of his “mentor and spiritual adviser” Wright.  Otherwise, Cyrena, I’m not going to do your homework for you.  If you care enough, look it up.  By the way, you didn’t answer the questions—do you agree with the statements made by James Cone?

Report this

By cyrena, March 25, 2008 at 5:45 pm Link to this comment

You’re really, really, desperately distorted here hinnis, to go to the trouble of putting together this particular IED. (Insinuation/Exaggeration/Distortion) and plagiarizing it out of context. (that IS plagiarism by the way).

You’ve also claimed here, that Cone is a ‘mentor’ to Wright. How do you know that? You don’t. And how do you know that Barack Obama has ever even HEARD of James Cone, or read this book that you plagiarized from, written 10 years ago, after the first 2 books that he wrote?

I’m making a guess that Barack Obama never did read this, because aside from those people who study Theology, and specifically Black Theology, (which is relatively new as introduced by this ONE man) MOST people won’t have read it.
Barack Obama studied law moron, not Theology -  black, white, liberation, or any other kind.

By extension, you are condemning every single of the 6 or 12 members of his church, and if we wanted to carry it even further, you’re condemning every member of the Church of Christ, which happens to (94%) WHITE.

But, since you all are so interest in the Rev. Wright, and since this article is about what HILLARY CLINTON said, maybe you should be aware that the Rev. Wright, was A GUEST OF THE CLINTONS WHEN THEY RESIDED AT THE WHITE HOUSE.

In fact, Hillary may have even served him tea. I don’t know what they talked about, so it COULD have been Black Liberation Theology, but somehow, I bet it wasn’t.

Now, what’s up with all of the major LIES that keep spilling from Hillary’s lips? Is that not a bad influence on innocents that might here that? So many lies coming from this poor ‘sleep deprived’ woman.

And then there’s poor Chelsea, her daughter, who was allegedly startled when a citizen at a rally somewhere, questioned her about Monica Lewinsky. How DARE Mrs. Clinton expose her innocent child to such scandal!!

I mean, why didn’t she just grab up her child and just LEAVE that four timing husband of hers, even if he WAS the president?

Shame on her!!

Report this

By hinnis, March 25, 2008 at 5:19 pm Link to this comment

OBAMA SUPPORTERS: Do you agree with these statements made by Rev. Wright’s mentor, James Cone, which discuss the nature of Obama’s religion, black liberation theology? 1. To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen. God has chosen black people. 2. While it is true that blacks do hate whites, black hatred is not racism. 3. All white men are responsible for white oppression. 4. Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man “the devil.” 5. If there is any contemporary meaning of the Antichrist, the white church seems to be a manifestation of it. 6. “Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.” ** All of these statements are taken directly from Cone’s seminal work on black theology entitled “Black Theology and Black Power.”  This is the “theology” to which Obama has been subjecting his innocent children.

Report this

By pogblog, March 25, 2008 at 5:04 pm Link to this comment

I fear I can’t find Mr. Obama a profile of courage in the matter of Jeremiah Wright. In 1954 I was 10 years old in very southern Maryland. My beloved mentor stepfather who taught me about the wonders of Jung and the horrors of Freud, about Socrates, Plato, Kant had absolutely none of the venom or volume of Mr. Wright, but if at the dinner table he uttered a syllable with a suspected whiff of disrespect to black people or Jewish people, I would get up from the table instantly and look at both him and my mother in disgust and stalk to my room and go hungry for that night. I could not eat with people who even hinted at some idiot innuendo of prejudice.

I was 10 years old. I’d never heard Martin Luther King yet. I knew, tho, that it was hateful and stupid and most of all did not align with justice or truth to speak cold of heart, hot of words. Mr. Obama in his 30s listened to Mr. Wright’s ‘controversial’ rant and didn’t stalk out of the pew? Piffle.

Martin Luther King had much more immediate and deeper atrocious offenses against him and he spoke and acted for harmony and a deep dignity of restraint against much greater odds than Mr. Wright. I cannot respect Mr. Obama for not stalking out of the pew. If my parents went to a cocktail party and some stupid pillar of the gentry said any slightest word against black people, I would stand up in front of all the grown-ups and glare him down and turn my back on them all and leave the room. I was 10 years old. Cringing at his grandmother’s stupid & or ugly talk wasn’t enough either.

You have to say “I won’t listen to it” and leave the room or pew. You have to make the statement visible. There are matters upon which silence and the “Shucks, there goes the old uncle” rationale will not wash in the golden fountain of honor.

Report this

Page 4 of 4 pages « First  <  2 3 4

Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Like Truthdig on Facebook