David Axelrod thinks so. Joel Pollack of Big Government caught Axelrod during a speech in California saying that Wright’s problem was that there was ““ninety seconds of vitriol plucked from thirty years of sermons by some enterprising opposition researcher.”
The claim that Wright’s sermons were selectively edited by Obama’s political opponents contradicts what is known about Wright’s preaching and the radical, racialist creed of the Trinity United Church of Christ, to which Obama belonged for two decades and to which he contributed a large amount of money.
Axelrod’s claim is also contradicted by Obama himself, who has cited Wright’s enthusiasm for radical politics as the main reason he was attracted to the church.
Axelrod brought up the Wright controversy during a lecture recounting his role as the “architect” of Obama’s rise from the Illinois state senate to the presidency. Axelrod praised Obama’s infamous “race speech,” contrasting his media skills to those of GOP vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin.
The lecture was part of the Distinguished Speaker Series of Southern California, and was delivered before a largely friendly audience.
Recording was not permitted in the Fred Kavli Theater, but Axelrod’s remarks on Wright are an exact quote, written down and tweeted immediately upon delivery. Axelrod’s tone was somewhat bitter, a brief flash of passion in an otherwise relaxed presentation.
It seems odd that an issue the Obama campaign had successfully buried would be resurrected by a supposed political genius. But Axelrod has absolutely nothing to worry about. Jeremiah Wright is a non-person in the eyes of the press. He simply doesn’t exist. So what interest would the press have in looking into the defense of someone who is invisible by a top Obama campaign official?
“Axelrod praised Obama’s infamous “race speech,” contrasting his media skills to those of GOP vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin.”
It’s quite a contrast. One of them is president and can only count on the office to provide influence. The other no longer holds any office, yet can influence the political debate with a Facebook comment.
I believe it was Pat Moynihan who said, ‘We are entitled to our opinions, but not our facts.’ Apparently that no longer applies to Leftists. They have their opinions, and they will state ‘facts’ to support their opinions. The Left has become incoherent.
The question is: does Axelrod’s resurrection of Jeremiah Wright indicate that he wants to create a “distraction” of people arguing over an “old and settled issue” instead of looking at how rotten Obama’s tenure in office has been, or is it a matter of trying to resurrect the Reverend because he is trying to make Wright’s radicalism respectable in anticipation of it being part of the the intended theme for Obama’s horrific second term?
YES, YES and YES. Axelrod is throwing that out to see if it will generate some interest about how badly the dear Reverend was treated. How the Obama’s had to give up their long time mentor to make Whitey happy. The list will be long and this is just the beginning.
They are thickening the hide in preparation for the attack on Mormonism.
As someone who wrote a 45,000 word essay fueled by the Jeremiah Wright event and with of course the accompanying research, I can assure you that not only are Wright’s comments not taken out of context but shared by the overwhelming majority of the black elite in America.
The fact is that Wright can hardly speak without spouting some kind of hate speech. Don’t be fooled by the Bill Moyers interviews with Wright before the Presidential election. That was a concerted attempt to put out the Wright fire and softsoap the good Reverend.
What Axelrod and others have depicted as “cherry-picking” verges close to a straight out lie.
I can assure you that not only are Wright’s comments not taken out of context but shared by the overwhelming majority of the black elite in America.
All I can speak for is what I have observed. The older sister of one of my childhood friends went on to become an author of some ten books. She is also black. Three decades ago, I heard her commenting on the Reagan assassination attempt: too bad he missed. That got my attention: a member of the black intellectual elite who condoned an assassination attempt.
I also note that none of her relatives condemned her statement.
I think everyone is missing an important, critical element in this discussion. Axelrod of course helped Obama win the Presidency; he’s recounting to you the obstacles they overcame. So the Rev. Wright stuff is, in part anyway, Axelrod saying to the crowd: “Look at what we had to deal with! And we still won! Aren’t I brilliant!?!?”
People these days try to read too much into something like this. Forget Obama trying to distract people or anything else, though I suppose they may try to use this that way, if it gets any traction. Thing is, it probably won’t, because Wright’s old news now, as has been pointed out in other comments. The main thing to note here is the narcissistic Axelrod, stroking himself in front of a large audience of admirers.
Not that I want to distract from Obama’s dismal tenure in office, but I think it is important to point out that Jeremiah Wright reprinted Hamas screeds in his church newsletter (which Obama may have read even if he dozed through the Reverend’s racist foaming at the mouth), and that Hamas ran phone banks from Gaza during the 2008 election to help get Obama elected.
Let’s leave any issues of the legality of that aside for the moment; instead, let’s look at what that indicates of Obama’s sympathies, especially when coupled with the involvement of his pals Bill Ayers and Rashid Khalidi with the Gaza Flotilla movement, and consider Obama’s inordinate pressures on a certain US ally.
I was sceptical so I looked that up.
Here’s the original report: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21YF7ggCG6g
Heh, 13 weird kids were calling random numbers and in unbelievably broken English, saying that Obama would bring peace to the middle east.
That’s not much of a phone bank.
So your “report” was unbelievably exaggerated. Makes me wonder how many other paranoid stories about the President are extreme exaggerations. I would venture to guess “almost all”
Quite the contrary; your characterization of the video is extremely slanted.
First, the report mentioned that the interviewed ringleader had recruited 17 of his friends, not 13 as you claim—a small point, but it goes to your inability to recount even simple details with accuracy.
From there, we go to the Al Jazeera reporter’s obviously false characterization of the room set up with matching computers in a corporate- or hotel-ballroom-style room as “an internet cafe.” Clearly it is something more. We then must consider that Al Jazeera is a propaganda outlet favorable to Hamas; its effort to make what you call “weird kids” look like a volunteer effort is quite transparent. This is Gaza, run by the totalitarian Hamas; the activity would not be happening, and certainly would not be reported on, if Hamas had not given both the activity and the reportage a green light. If Hamas had not approved, the young ringleader would not only not be talking to a reporter, he would more than likely be inhabiting a shallow sandy grave.
Finally, you confuse effectiveness with intent, legality, and propriety. It is very likely that the Gaza callers were not very effective, though you seem remarkably unfamiliar with unsolicited phone calls in “unbelievably broken English.” They are quite common. We do not, however, know how “broken” the English of the actual callers is; we merely know that the Hamas ringleader who was interviewed does not speak English well. The much-younger recruits pictured with him probably do much better.
Whether or not these callers were effective, however, there is the question of whether it was legal for a US Presidential candidate to accept campaign assistance from a terrorist organization. And Obama did accept it; he never disavowed it, never denounced it, never asked that Hamas stop this activity from occurring.
Nowhere in the video does it say the man works for Hamas.
Also it didn’t say nor did it imply that there was any contact between these people and any Democrats in the US.
This makes it no different than when The Guardian in Britain had their stupid readers writing letters to Clark County asking people not to vote for Bush. Which backfired hilariously
Once again, your spin, blaming Democrats for ineffectual idiots in other countries shows that you’re desperate to invent a lie.
The video doesn’t have to say the ringleader works for Hamas. Hamas has a totalitarian grip on the Gaza Strip; if the man and his operation were not connected to Hamas, it wouldn’t be happening, the news organization would not have gotten to interview him, and he would very likely be dead.
As to whether there were “any contacts between [the Gaza operation] and Democrats in the US,” that too is unimportant. The overwhelming probability is that there were, of course—not only because Obama’s pastor reprinted Hamas screeds in his church newsletter, and Bill Ayers and Rashid Khalidi, to name two of Obama’s bosom buddies, have been involved directly in the “Gaza flotilla movement.” But let’s say that there were no such contacts, just for the sake of argument; in that case, surely a man that was on his way to being President of the United States could merely say, “Please do not give me your support,” and the support would cease, if not as a courtesy then in order to stay in the new president’s good graces.
Your attempt, again, to argue the non-issue of effectiveness when the issue is actually a question of legality and propriety is risible.
We don’ need no stinkin’ facts!!
is more plain, straight talk, repeated every day, day in and day out, to counter the endless barrage of twisty lies repeated every day, day in and day out from the obama mob.
let’s say, like this, for example, that obama is a murderous racist megalomanic out to kill whites and christians and jews alike, etc., but better, and more forcefully said . . .
The words of Rev.Wright need to be published.Instead we’ll get a million words of opinions about him,NYT style.Reading his words reveals how Obama views the world.Even his speeches use the same rhythms of rhetorical tricks. The explosion of federal spending and the sweeping success of the Islamic revolution make Obama the greatest President ever, from Wright’s point of view.Entire continents have been won in a year, the GOP is engaged in a orgy of self-immolation,and Valerie Jerett is running the White House.
so maybe being on the spot it can incite an occupy the lala times paper and get it to cough up that rashid khalidi obama party bash on videotape they keep locked up in there that shows up all those slimy creeps and goons for what they are so everybody in the country can see for ourselves at last before this 2012 election what we were all prevented from seeing before the last one way back in 2008
plastering choice excerpts from michelle lavaughn robinson’s poisonous dissertation at princeton all over the place
barry’s taxicab and steam bath frolics on billboards across our purple mountains’ majesty above our fruited plains
Yes, and in every newspaper, on the front page!