NY Times Bob Herbert sounds the ALARM Bells

NY Times writer Bob Herbert has joined the chorus of pro-obama slanted media personalities who have sounded the Alarm Bells in the last 24 hours.

Chris Matthews,Cooper Anderson, Gergen,Martin, Buchanan, Brazile & Olbermann, all sounded the alarm bells in the last 24 hours. The SOS...

Rev. Wright is about to destroy the 2008 campaign of Barack Obama.

With appearances in the NAACP & the NPC, there is no turning back at this point.

As Martin eloquently said.

" The only question seems to be. Does Obama have enough capital left within the Super Delegates that can
give him the nomination- with the very likelihood of losing the general election because of Rev. Wright's serious damage.
Will enough Super Delegates still go with Obama, knowing that he will likely lose in November?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/opinio n/29herbert.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&am p;oref=slogin

Madame Clinton, please don't go anywhere.

This thing is way far from over. It's just getting started.



Display:


Re: NY Times Bob Herbert sounds the ALARM Bells (none / 0)


 Kennedy wants JFK`s torch back.
Wisdom Is The Reward For Listening Over A Lifetime
by gunner on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:49:47 AM EST

he never had it (2.00 / 1)

IMHO


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:52:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times Bob Herbert sounds the ALARM Bells (2.00 / 3)

There was also Dowd at the weekend. What's happening here is that the liberal chattering classes who have been promoting Obama's candidacy for a year are waking up to a basic fact. He's almost certainly going to lose it in November. They are as desperate to get a democrat in the white house as anyone here so now they realize his vulnerability with the mainstream democratic voter they have a dilemma. This is a real situation folks, note the amount of speculation being raised by Brazile's apparent wobbling. At the moment they are wrestling with how they handle this situation. The wright controversy has thrown this whole situation into relief although its not huge in itself. This is a dilemma a lot of Obama supporters here are going to have to face so all these pundits aren't on their own. If Clinton does well in Indiana look for this debate to explode.


by ottovbvs on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:52:08 AM EST

Re: NY Times Bob Herbert sounds the ALARM Bells (2.00 / 2)

I understand what Rev. Wright is trying to do, and that he has now been given a National stage upon which to do it.

But I don't understand his timing or tactics.  If he were to either adjust his message (or the volume with which it comes) or wait until after Obama would be elected, the Obama campaign/presidency could handle the issue and possible work it in their favor to get something done.  However to push this hard right now, I just don't understand.  For some it will harden their support of Barack.  For others it will erode their support.  And yet for those that are on the fence or on the other side of the aisle...it will make them choose differently.

Some people just can't help themselves I guess.  Either he thinks his words really won't hurt Obama or he thinks his words will galvanize Obama's candidacy and support enough to defeat Hillary.

I don't know.  but I do know it's not good for Barack.


He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin
by TxDem08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:53:01 AM EST

Re: NY Times Bob Herbert sounds the ALARM Bells (none / 0)

Wow, I never thought I'd find myself agreeing with you, but I certainly do here.  Maybe Wright thinks that he wouldn't have as much name recognition in November as now?  If so, someone should really introduce him to Senator McCain...


"I'll bite your legs off!" -- HRC 2008!
by username3 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:01:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times Bob Herbert sounds the ALARM Bells (2.00 / 3)

I'm not sure he wants Barack to win.

I mean Wright and Obama were close for years and then the moment it became politically expedient, Obama shoved Wright under a bus.  Wright, as anyone in his position reasonably would, likely feels that Obama has sold out and failed to stand up for the Black church.  Instead Barack keeps trying to give nuanced denouncements of Wright, in essence having his cake and eating it too.

I wouldn't bee too happy with one of my mentees running out and giving carefully worded denouncements of my theology, and it's easy to see why Wright feels betrayed.  


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:01:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times Bob Herbert sounds the ALARM Bells (none / 0)

But that's not what happened.  Obama didn't shove Wright under a bus, nor should he have.  If anything, Obama took criticism for defending Wright as much as he did.


by KTinOhio on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:15:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times Bob Herbert sounds the ALARM Bells (none / 0)

In hindsight, I bet Obama's wishing he had thrown Wright under the bus a month ago.


by LakersFan on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:56:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Eh. (2.00 / 2)

Best to get this out of the way now rather than October. My guess would be that the good reverend is getting this message privately as well. That he needs to get it is beyond dispute, because yes, this is hurting.

And anyway, when we win North Carolina and Indiana, which we will, it's over. We have the money, we have the numbers, and we're very much in the drivers seat. Hillary can't win this election at the polls, and if she manages to get the nom via scared super-delegates, she won't be President, either, because she won't carry the youth vote or the black vote.


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:58:58 AM EST

Re: Eh. (2.00 / 5)

Is there anything other than your personal desires that leads you to believe Barack Obama will in Indiana?  

Most recent poll has Hillary +9.  All week, we'll be hearing nothing but Wright this, Wright that...

And you think this predicts an Obama win in Indiana?  


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:03:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, I do. (none / 0)

As far as polls are concerned, Survey USA is the only one I'm presently aware of that gives Clinton a substantial lead, just as they gave her a 16% lead in PA, where she came out 8.5% ahead. Indiana-based polls have it tight, but with an advantage for Obama. Part of the state lies in his home media market, he has a superior ground game, and the kind of money needed to take all of these advantages and make a win out of it.


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:27:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, I do. (2.00 / 1)

The last SUSA poll had Sen. Clinton up by 7 in PA ~ not 16


If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi
by SevenStrings on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:32:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Please excuse MBNYC (2.00 / 1)

He's not very, um, bright.


Until recently I was selling drugs, and now I'm selling Obama T-shirts.
by switching sides on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:43:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Please excuse Switching Sides (none / 0)

He hates the US Constitution.  He hates America.


by Mostly on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:50:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Heh. (none / 0)

Still stalking, I see. By the way, I'm also ugly.


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:50:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heh. (none / 0)

Prove it!


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:34:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The one taken (none / 0)

a week before - which is the timeframe we're in right now.


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:48:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

ah (none / 0)


If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi
by SevenStrings on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:00:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, I do. (none / 0)

Clinton won PA by well over 9%.  Her share of the vote was 55% and his was 45%.  The 8.5% figure you cite was based on an error in the SoS website in tabulating results from Lancaster county.  

Are you telling me now that because Indiana polls are tight, when you factor out SUSA, that Obama has an advantage?

My understanding is that all Indiana polls have thus far drastically undersampled women, thus skewing Obama, and even then only showing a tie, a narrow Obama lead, or an outright Clinton victory.  


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:47:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Eh. (1.50 / 4)

Just a few things:

Barack can't win this at the polls either.

Barack needs the SD's just as much as Hillary.

Barack WILL NOT carry the blue collar or the white middle-class, which is necessary to win AND carry down-ticket races.


He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin
by TxDem08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:08:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Barack needs 39% of SDs, and HRC needs 68% (none / 0)

even if he only wins 45% of the PDs remaining (he'll probably do better than 45% here). Pls see the math here


Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:25:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, he will. (none / 0)

Obama's fundamentals - likability, voter identification, trust, etc. - make him the strongest candidate in the race of either party. Right now, the race is between two flavors of Democrat, where he's far enough ahead to win even if he loses every contest between now and the end; which he won't, but that's worth pointing out.

But in the general, the narrative shifts from two kinds of Democrat to Democrat versus republican. That's where all of our generic advantages kick in. I keep on hearing variations of XYZ won't vote for a black guy; the more appropriate frame is whether people prefer a republican or a Democrat.

The SDs aren't going to nominate someone based on what is essentially fear of racism, especially when that would take the nomination away from the guy who's actually winning the race. There would need to be extraordinary developments for that to happen.


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:33:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times Bob Herbert sounds the ALARM Bells (2.00 / 1)

Before you go overboard, I have to note that there has been relatively little evidence of Obama getting harmed by Wright. Nor is there solid evidence that Obama is unelectable because of it. I would love to be pointed to solid evidence of this "collapse"


John McCain wants to make abortion illegal
by Lost Thought on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:03:26 AM EST

Re: NY Times Bob Herbert sounds the ALARM Bells (none / 0)

Well, the timing and method sure benefits HRC,
But every now and then I am surprised at the common sense of the American people.
by barnowl on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:16:26 AM EST

Quote + Link = Mismatch (none / 0)

Can you please link the source of your quote.  It's hard to put your diary in context when you put link in that does not go to the only quoted material.

Thanks


"The best way to show that a stick is crooked is not by arguing about it or spending time denouncing it, but to lay a straight stick alongside it" -DL Moody
by nextgen on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:19:28 AM EST

Re: NY Times Bob Herbert sounds the ALARM Bells (2.00 / 2)

I know if BO's campaign implodes, it will be blamed on the Reverand. But I reallly think it was already tanking, and it was the fault of BO himself. This just added oil to the fire.
Wright did not make those comments in San Fran, nor act like a blue nosed elitist for the last few months. And Hillary demonstrated this with her last big wins in Ohio, PA, and pulling out Texas like she did.
It is unfair to blame it on  Wright, it is BO that people are rejecting.
by rrs11215 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:42:36 AM EST

Re: NY Times Bob Herbert sounds the ALARM Bells (none / 0)

It's way too early to make these kind of claims. Let's wait and see for some new polls before deciding what we "know" has occurred.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:43:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times Bob Herbert sounds the ALARM Bells (none / 0)

Today's Rasmussen tracking poll has no change for Obama. He is maintaining an 8 point national lead.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:12:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Offer proof (none / 0)

How can the campaign be tanking, when Obama still leads McCain in national polling?

The doom and gloom is unfounded.


by Slim Tyranny on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:28:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times Bob Herbert sounds the ALARM Bells (none / 0)

What strikes me is that virtually all the op-eds and editorials about this subject are extremely critical of Wright but make a clear distinction between him and Obama. They often make the point that Wright is peeved at Obama for drawing away from him and that Wright is selfish and self-indulgent, looking for his moment in the sun.

Thus I'm now thinking that this latest spate of publicity will be less damaging to Obama than I thought.  People see that Wright is angry because Obama distanced himself from him, thus Obama's views are clearly not equivalent to Wright's.

However, I'd still like Obama to reiterate those differences today.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:43:00 AM EST

Re: NY Times Bob Herbert sounds the ALARM Bells (none / 0)

It was a Hillry supporter that invited Rev Wright to the NPA to talk.  I think that Rev Wright is on the side of Hillary now.  He might even come out and endorse her.  LOL.


by Spanky on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:02:58 AM EST

Re: NY Times Bob Herbert sounds the ALARM Bells (none / 0)

Shortly before he rose to deliver his rambling, angry, sarcastic remarks at the National Press Club Monday, Wright sat next to, and chatted with, Barbara Reynolds.

A former editorial board member at USA Today, she runs something called Reynolds News Services and teaches ministry at the Howard University School of Divinity. (She is an ordained minister).

It also turns out that Reynolds - introduced Monday as a member of the National Press Club "who organized" the event - is an enthusiastic Hillary Clinton supporter./

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/colu mnists/louis/index.html


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:10:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times Bob Herbert sounds the ALARM Bells (none / 0)

The only people the Wright issue matters to are those low information, uneducated voters who were never going to vote for Obama anyway. These white voters were only looking fro any excuse not to vote for Obama. Let us not forget that in Pa. Obama won the vote of newly registered voters by 20 points, and has actually been improving his support with these "blue collar" voters.

                 OH   PA
60 and older      28   38
White             34   38
White men         39   44
White women       31   34
Less than $50K    42   46
No college        40   38
College           51   49
Catholic          36   31
Protestant        36   53


"In the primary you should vote with your heart, but in the general, you should vote with your head" Hillary's husband
by venician on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:04:32 AM EST

are you proud of this remark? (2.00 / 1)

"low information voters" not going with Obama?  I thought you wanted to fight the label of elitism in Obama.  Well you just kind of blew it here.

There is another "class" of voters who will not vote Obama.  They are thinking, concerned democrats who want to make sure we get this country back from the republicans.  


by 4justice on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:08:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: are you proud of this remark? (none / 0)

I think the "low information voters" reference was specifically tied to those voters who will be influenced by the Wright non-issue.

The "thinking, concerned Democrats" who will not vote for Obama are, hopefully, making that decision solely with respect to the primary.  In the general election, I expect "thinking, concerned Democrats" to vote for Obama.

Wright is not a real issue.  There is no "substance" there, especially when compared to real issues like Iraq, healthcare, etc.  In the end, well-informed voters should see this guilt-by-association nonsense for the absurdity that it is.


by Slim Tyranny on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:30:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: are you proud of this remark? (none / 0)

Thank you slim, I couldn't have said it better myself.


"In the primary you should vote with your heart, but in the general, you should vote with your head" Hillary's husband
by venician on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:19:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary still has way more Baggage than Rev.Wright (none / 0)

and much higher negatives (in the mid 50s).


It's time to restore balance and fairness to our economy,... It's time to stop giving tax cuts to corporations that ship jobs overseas... - Barack Obama
by Lefty Coaster on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:11:45 AM EST

Re: NY Times Bob Herbert (2.00 / 1)

The solution is the joint ticket.  That's where the karmic winds are blowing towards.   We have to heed the message, tell Pelosi to shut up, and push both sides to agree to run together.  


by khyber900 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:16:33 AM EST

ALARM Bells? Really? (none / 0)

Obama is ahead of McCain in national polls.  Wright has been in the picture for an extended period of time, and Obama's numbers have not taken a substantial hit.  This new Wright exposure is only positive, when compared to the pure soundbites circulated previously.

The doom and gloom is bizarre.  And listening to the national media (who treat this primary process as spectacle only) on whether or not to ring alarm bells and hide under your desk is foolish.


by Slim Tyranny on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:33:31 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.