Deleted Pro-Clinton Blog Entry from National Press Club Rev. Wright Appearance Organizer

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT

May 1, 2008

Updated

Hey, Buzz, thanks for posting the "deleted blog" -- seems to have gotten some traction here and there.

But now for today's update: It's simply amazing -- Ms. Reynolds has now deleted all posts from her blog (http://reynoldsworldnews.blogspot.com) back to January 21, 2008 -- this would include the very detailed and lengthy post about Rev. Wright that has been quoted and linked to all over the place. Again, thank you Google cache for not allowing the leaders of Animal Farm to paint over the words on the barn.

Here is the link.

It's really not a matter of whether or not Ms. Reynolds set up this event to embarrass Obama. It's about why she has deleted words that she wrote and why is she trying to hide these opinions -- namely that Obama withdrew his support of Wright for political expediency -- he "burned his bridges". She is, in fact, doing precisely the same thing by attempting to erase her posts.

BC

April 29, 2008

A New York Daily News reporter, Errol Louis, revealed that Rev. Barbara Reynolds, who is also a journalist, is a Clinton supporter who suggested Rev. Wright as a speaker to the National Press Club awhile back and was recently asked to organize his appearance there this week.

Since Louis broke his story, the relevant February entry on Barbara Reynold's blog has disappeared -- just vanished. In addition, neither Rev. Reynolds nor the Clinton campaign, as of the posting of this news alert, have responded to queries about whether Reynolds suggested and organized Wright's appearance at the National Press Club with the knowledge of the Clinton campaign or go-betweens for the Clinton campaign.

Using cache recovery and other techniques, a BuzzFlash reader recovered the key blog entry that Errol Louis quoted from before it was deleted.

These are, allegedly, Rev. Reynolds' words of support for Clinton and explanation as to why she voted for Clinton in Maryland:

Using Google's cache and examining the source code of the deleted entry, I have been able to reconstruct the posting from Barbara Reynolds' blog (http://reynoldsworldnews.blogspot.com/) dated February 14, 2008, titled "HOPE", in which Barbara Reynolds, the person who supposedly organized Rev. Wright's appearance at the National Press Club, praises and thanks the Clintons.

The URL of the Google Cache is here:

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:SIgvOo...
and the text I retrieved is here:

Hope

February 14, 2008

Never before has the political clout of African-American women been so crucial as in this presidential race when they make up as high as two-thirds of registered black voters. Black women voters are the primary reason why Senator Barack Obama pulled Oprah and Senator Clinton garnered Maya Angelo and the majority of the black women in the Congressional Black Caucus in their respective camps.

As expected Sen. Barack Obama trounced Sen. Hillary Clinton in the Chesapeake Trifecta of Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia.

With most of my Maryland and DC friends beating the drum for Sen. Obama, I tried to join the parade. Usually I am a drum major, leading momentum, but not this time.

Like many African American women, I have struggled with the dilemma of selecting a black man or a white woman to go against warmonger Sen. John McCain. My problem was that both Senators Obama and Clinton are darn good.

Finally I voted for Senator Clinton. My first reason was that as seductive as Obama’s mantra of hope, the Clintons legacy of help is more substantive and stronger.

Hope by definition is not based on facts. It is an emotional expectation. Things hoped for may or may not come. But help based on experience trumps hope every time.

How do you abandon someone like Hillary Clinton, who at every opportunity worked for causes benefiting the poor, especially children? Her work began in her early days with her mentor Marian Wright Edelman, founder of the Children’s Defense Fund and at Yale Law School, where she pursued children’s studies. Early on her stated life’s goal was to be a "voice for America’s children."

Look how different things would be that before any policy, rather foreign or domestic, could be advanced, the fate of our children would be the first consideration, a value that I believe Clinton would bring to the table as president.

Under Bill, this nation championed diversity. With Bill and Hillary as first Lady in the White House, black unemployment declined, small business loans to African-American doubled, there was strong support for affirmative action and more blacks in his Cabinet and in high positions than ever before. In addition, Hillary made history by selecting a black woman, Maggie Williams, as her chief of staff. To offset plummeting election returns, Williams has been promoted to head her campaign staff.

In fact during the Clinton years, the nation experienced the longest economic boom in history: unemployment dropped from 7.5% to 4%, the Dow Jones Industrial Average of stocks rose from 3,200 points to over 10,000, and the federal budget rose from a quarter-trillion-dollar deficit to a surplus of nearly that much.

Now since one Clinton cleaned up the first mess created by Bush I, why not let another Clinton clean up the mess created by Bush Light and why not a woman?

Traditionally, I have sympathized or cast my lot with the "underperson," the one needlessly being picked on or ridiculed. Media treatment of Senator Clinton has been degrading.

Much of the news media have gone bonkers over Senator Obama, pandering and refusing to ask tough questions, while intensely and sometimes nastily grilling Senator Clinton. Pundits continue to stress that Clinton is "polarizing," and that 41 percent of voters say they won’t vote for her as if to cement a self-defeating prophecy.

When the Clintons were in office, I worked at the executive levels of journalism. It was overwhelming to see how many white men, even liberals, detested Hillary not only because she is a woman but because she did not play it safe and took on controversial issues, such as trying to win health care for the more than 44 million people who can’t afford it. She lost the fight, but it took courage to start it and I believe she deserves another chance to win it.

Atty. James Walker, a law professor at the University of Connecticut, explains the disparate treatment this way: "In light of issues like the Don Imus firings, neither politicians nor the press want to go near anything racist. The public environment has been sanitized toward political correctness, but there are no holds on sexism. That is why there can be open season on Senator Clinton."

"Hillary is getting the benefit of Bill’s baggage, his dirt from the Monica Lewinsky scandal, but Obama is getting a clean slate because of the guilt recently brought to the forefront of how America has treated blacks. That means an easy walk for Obama and the opposite for Senator Clinton," Walker said.

I also find it troublesome that so many influential Republican conservatives are confessing their love for Senator Obama. When people who are my enemies become friends of my friends, I am just naturally suspicious.

In any event, Sen. Obama, tall, brilliant, handsome, with a wonderful wife and a message of hope would make a good president, but I embrace Clinton because at the highest levels they have helped make life better for African-Americans. My vote for Hillary in the Maryland Primary was my way of saying Thank You.

Could all be a coincidence, but that's one heck of a Clintonian coincidence to be sure.

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT

Technorati Tags:

The Powers That Be Have Never Been So Desperate

"For example they're employing Hillary Clinton to play the lead role in this campaign to demonize Reverend Wright." "Shades of the Willie Horton scam that George Bush the elder used to win himself the presidency?" "Whatever it takes to hold on to power." "Except they won't get away with it this time." "Because we have hope?" "Along with a plan." "Which is?" "We elect a president who'll end the Iraq War, negotiate with Iran plus turning things around here at home." "And then what sort of world?" "It'll be up to us."

So if Wright

Hadn't made his speech there, he wouldn't have said all those other controversial things in other speeches he's been making? For instance, when he was speaking before the NAACP a few days ago. This is as bogus as the "Obama in native garb" photo that was supposedly "leaked" to the Drudge Report by the Clinton campaign. Only problem with that is the fact it had been all over the internet for months. Hillary, Hillary, Hillary....she did it, it's all her fault...

Ms. Reynolds has it bass ackwards

She states in her blog, " I also find it troublesome that so many influential Republican conservatives are confessing their love for Senator Obama. When people who are my enemies become friends of my friends, I am just naturally suspicious." To which I answer of course, we all find it troublesome when so many influential Republicans purport to love Sen. Obama, and set their minions to registering Democratic and voting for Hillary. Most everyone knows that the Republican cross over vote is going to her. The reason? They can trounce her with the campaign they have FULLY PREPARED for years and years and slide their guy into office; if this fails: They have already made a deal with her to "move on" and forget about busting the current crop of criminals in office. About Obama? If he wins and does NOT bust the criminals? He's going to be a one term guy with zero support and Hillary will NOT be next. They want us to squabble and crash so they can stuff Jeb onto us. He is probably going to be veep to grandpa and oops grandpa croaks in office and fat little Jebbie becomes prezidunce number two.

You're right about one thing ...

Someone has it bass ackwards, but it isn't Ms. Reynolds. "Most everyone knows that the Republican cross over vote is going to her (Clinton)." Really? 'Cause someone forgot to tell those nasty Republican minions. There's no data for the closed primary states (except for PA), but let's look at the crossover vote data for the open primary states:

Iowa - Obama (44-10)
Super Tuesday open states - Obama (53-36)
Virginia - Obama (72-23)(73-24 among self-identified "conservatives")
Wisconsin - Obama (72-28) (59-40 among self-identified "conservatives")
Misissippi - Clinton (76-24)
Missouri - Obama (75-21)
Texas - Obama (53-46)
Ohio - tied (49-49)
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/

Now in PA (a closed primary), newly registered Dems who were registered as Republicans in January were split 50-50 between Clinton and Obama, while the split of Dems who were already registered as Dems in Jan. was 57-43 - Clinton. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#PADEM

So let's see, the Republican crossover voters go for Clinton in ONE state (Misissippi), they split equally in Ohio and PA, and OBAMA WINS THE REPUBLICAN CROSSOVER VOTE IN ALL OF THE OTHER STATES.

So, yeah ....... I guess you could say "Most everyone knows the Republican crossover vote is going for her" ..........

............. if you live in an alternate reality.

McCain Y(es)man is FOS, like his friends Rush Limbaugh et al

Many voting for Clinton to boost GOP Seek to prolong bitter battle By Scott Helman, Globe Staff | March 17, 2008 For a party that loves to hate the Clintons, Republican voters have cast an awful lot of ballots lately for Senator Hillary Clinton: About 100,000 GOP loyalists voted for her in Ohio, 119,000 in Texas, and about 38,000 in Mississippi, exit polls show. A sudden change of heart? Hardly. Since Senator John McCain effectively sewed up the GOP nomination last month, Republicans have begun participating in Democratic primaries specifically to vote for Clinton, a tactic that some voters and local Republican activists think will help their party in November. With every delegate important in the tight Democratic race, this trend could help shape the outcome if it continues in the remaining Democratic primaries open to all voters. Spurred by conservative talk radio, GOP voters who say they would never back Clinton in a general election are voting for her now for strategic reasons: Some want to prolong her bitter nomination battle with Barack Obama, others believe she would be easier to beat than Obama in the fall, or they simply want to register objections to Obama. "It's as simple as, I don't think McCain can beat Obama if Obama is the Democratic choice," said Kyle Britt, 49, a Republican-leaning independent from Huntsville, Texas, who voted for Clinton in the March 4 primary. "I do believe Hillary can mobilize enough [anti-Clinton] people to keep her out of office." Britt, who works in financial services, said he is certain he will vote for McCain in November. About 1,100 miles north, in Granville, Ohio, Ben Rader, a 66-year-old retired entrepreneur, said he voted for Clinton in Ohio's primary to further confuse the Democratic race. "I'm pretty much tired of the Clintons, and to see her squirm for three or four months with Obama beating her up, it's great, it's wonderful," he said. "It broke my heart, but I had to." Local Republican activists say stories like these abound in Texas, Ohio, and Mississippi, the three states where the recent surge in Republicans voting for Clinton was evident. Until Texas and Ohio voted on March 4, Obama was receiving far more support than Clinton from GOP voters, many of whom have said in interviews that they were willing to buck their party because they like the Illinois senator. In eight Democratic contests in January and February where detailed exit polling data were available on Republicans, Obama received, on average, about 57 percent of voters who identified themselves as Republicans. Clinton received, on average, a quarter of the Republican votes cast in those races. But as February gave way to March, the dynamics shifted in both parties' contests: McCain ran away with the Republican race, and Obama, after posting 10 straight victories following Super Tuesday, was poised to run away with the Democratic race. That is when Republicans swung into action. Conservative radio giant Rush Limbaugh said on Fox News on Feb. 29 that he was urging conservatives to cross over and vote for Clinton, their bête noire nonpareil, "if they can stomach it." "I want our party to win. I want the Democrats to lose," Limbaugh said. "They're in the midst of tearing themselves apart right now. It is fascinating to watch. And it's all going to stop if Hillary loses." He added, "I know it's a difficult thing to do to vote for a Clinton, but it will sustain this soap opera, and it's something I think we need." Limbaugh's exhortations seemed to work. In Ohio and Texas on March 4, Republicans comprised 9 percent of the Democratic primary electorate, more than twice the average GOP share of the turnout in the earlier contests where exit polling was conducted. Clinton ran about even with Obama among Republicans in both states, a far more favorable showing among GOP voters than in the early races. Walter Wilkerson, who has chaired the Republican Party in Montgomery County, Texas, since 1964, said many local conservatives chose to vote for Clinton for strategic reasons. "These people felt that Clinton would be maybe the easier opponent in the fall," he said. "That remains to be seen." Wilkerson added, "We have not experienced any crossover of this magnitude since I can remember." In the Mississippi primary last Tuesday, Republicans made up 12 percent of voters who took a Democratic ballot - their biggest proportion in any state yet - and they went for Clinton over Obama by a 3-to-1 margin. John Taylor, the GOP chairman in Madison County, said he toured various precincts and witnessed Republican voters taking Democratic ballots to vote for Clinton. "Some people there that I recognized voting said, 'Hey, I'm going to vote in this primary this year, right now. But don't worry, in November I'll be back,' " Taylor said. "They were going to do some damage if they could." Another popular conservative radio host, Laura Ingraham, who had also encouraged voters to cast ballots for Clinton, crowed about her apparent success the day after Ohio and Texas voted. "Without a doubt, Rush, and to a lesser extent me, had some effect on the Republican turnout," Ingraham told Fox News. "When you look at those exit polls, it is really quite striking." Some political blogs have suggested that the influx of Clinton-voting Republicans prevented Obama from winning delegates he otherwise would have, by inflating Clinton's totals both statewide and in certain congressional districts. A writer for the liberal blog Daily Kos estimated that Obama could have netted an additional five delegates from Mississippi. It is also possible, though perhaps unlikely, that enough strategically minded Republicans voted for Clinton in Texas to give her a crucial primary victory there: Clinton received roughly 119,000 GOP votes in Texas, according to exit polls, and she beat Obama by about 101,000 votes. Not everyone casting ballots for Clinton did so primarily to sink her, however. Brent Henslee, 33, a Republican who works at a radio station in Waco, Texas, wanted to keep Clinton in the race to expose more about Obama, whom he sees as more "fluff than substance." "I'm not buying into all the Obama-mania, is the main reason I did it," he said. "A lot of these people don't know a thing about this guy and they're crazy about him. And I thought that maybe keeping Hillary alive will just shed some more light on the guy." Of the nine remaining major contests, four - Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Oregon, and South Dakota - have "closed" primaries, which means only Democrats can participate. If Republicans and conservative independents continue their tactical voting, it may be more likely in Indiana, Montana, and Puerto Rico, which allow anyone to vote, and possibly in North Carolina and West Virginia, which open their primaries to Democrats and independent voters. "If you are a Republican you could pull a Democrat ballot and vote for the Democrat presidential candidate you think will stand the least chance of beating McCain in the fall general election," the assistant editor of the Greene County Daily World, in southwestern Indiana, wrote in a blog post earlier this month. Meanwhile, Clinton, despite trailing Obama in delegates, is projecting confidence about her chances as the nomination race careens toward the April 22 Pennsylvania primary. The morning after her big wins in Ohio and Texas, she was asked on Fox News whether she had a message for Limbaugh. "Be careful what you wish for, Rush," she said with a grin. Scott Helman can be reached at shelman@globe.com. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/17/many_voting_for_clinton_to_boost_gop/?page=2

Wow ...

... cutting and pasting a WHOLE article claiming that Limbaugh's exhortations "SEEMED TO work." Five whole Republican voters/activists and a blogger on Kos ... That's some damning evidence, Norm. Try not to strain yourself. Apart from the meager anectdotal "evidence" (I'm feeling generous), any real data to back up the fact that Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" is having any significant effect?

No?

............ didn't think so.

Guess we know who's FOS.

BTW, Norm - You seem a little angry. What happened to that good, old Norm sense of humor where you show off your finely honed, rapier-like wit? You know the one ....... ("Hillary sucks worse than Monica .... Just ask Bill."). It's a big hit now in all the teen chat rooms!

McCain Y(es)man

Why are most corporate campaign contributions being given to Hillary and lesser to Obama? (Hint: Being part of the Keating 5 isn't considered such a good thing in this current Bush culture of corruption) http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.asp?filter=A&sortby=4

Relevance to the discussion?

Your link goes to a summary of $6,400+ contributors, not "corporate" contributors. Is this much worse than the $2,300+ contributors, where Obama leads? How about the Energy Industry, where he beats Hillary? (Oooops .... forgot ..... he doesn't take oil money). How about the pharmaceutical industry, where he beats Hillary? How about Wall St. (Securities and Investments)? .......

In all honesty, there's no relevance to the point anyway. The original discussion was about whether "Most everyone knows that the Republican cross over vote is going to her."

In reality, it's not.

Stay focused, Norm.

For a McCain Y(es)man, you're pretty bossy

Why is John McCain part of the Keating 5? Do tell your Buzzflash.com fans who Charles Keating is and why John McCain is not a straight shooter, as he falsely claims. The real issue is why Republicans like you feel the urge to post on an obviously pro-Progressive message board. We all know why you and your fellow Republicans voted for Hillary in the primaries you were legally allowed to do so. Show us that McCain loose canon temper that he is so famous for. That's the real John McCain!

Bossy? Naaaaah ....

... just trying to help you out, Norm. You seem to have lost focus on the point being addressed, which was whether "(m)ost everyone knows that the Republican cross over vote is going to her (Clinton)." You seemed to want to veer off that topic .............. course, that's pretty understandable, since the data show that Clinton won the Republican crossover vote in only one state, while Obama has won it in many. Guess that was intentional on your part.

BTW - Re: the Keating 5, I think almost everyone reading Buzzflash knows about McCain and the Keating 5. But just in case, here ya go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five . As to the "Why" he was part of it, you'll have to ask him. I'm sure he'll get back to you right away with an answer.

McCain Y(es)man, Buzzflash readers want the truth, not fluff

...In early 1987, at the beginning of his first Senate term, McCain attended two meetings with federal banking regulators to discuss an investigation into Lincoln Savings and Loan, an Irvine, Calif., thrift owned by Arizona developer Charles Keating. Federal auditors were investigating Keating's banking practices, and Keating, fearful that the government would seize his S&L, sought intervention from a number of U.S. senators. At Keating's behest, four senators--McCain and Democrats Dennis DeConcini of Arizona, Alan Cranston of California, and John Glenn of Ohio--met with Ed Gray, chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, on April 2. Those four senators and Sen. Don Riegle, D-Mich., attended a second meeting at Keating's behest on April 9 with bank regulators in San Francisco. Regulators did not seize Lincoln Savings and Loan until two years later. The Lincoln bailout cost taxpayers $2.6 billion, making it the biggest of the S&L scandals. In addition, 17,000 Lincoln investors lost $190 million. ...[Charles] Keating was more than a constituent to McCain--he was a longtime friend and associate. McCain met Keating in 1981 at a Navy League dinner in Arizona where McCain was the speaker. Keating was a former naval aviator himself, and the two men became friends. Keating raised money for McCain's two congressional campaigns in 1982 and 1984, and for McCain's 1986 Senate bid. By 1987, McCain campaigns had received $112,000 from Keating, his relatives, and his employees--the most received by any of the Keating Five. (Keating raised a total of $300,000 for the five senators.) After McCain's election to the House in 1982, he and his family made at least nine trips at Keating's expense, three of which were to Keating's Bahamas retreat. McCain did not disclose the trips (as he was required to under House rules) until the scandal broke in 1989. At that point, he paid Keating $13,433 for the flights. And in April 1986, one year before the meeting with the regulators, McCain's wife, Cindy, and her father invested $359,100 in a Keating strip mall. The Senate Ethics Committee probe of the Keating Five began in November 1990, and committee Special Counsel Robert Bennett recommended that McCain and Glenn be dropped from the investigation. They were not. McCain believes Democrats on the committee blocked Bennett's recommendation because he was the lone Keating Five Republican. In February 1991, the Senate Ethics Committee found McCain and Glenn to be the least blameworthy of the five senators. (McCain and Glenn attended the meetings but did nothing else to influence the regulators.) McCain was guilty of nothing more than "poor judgment," the committee said, and declared his actions were not "improper nor attended with gross negligence." McCain considered the committee's judgment to be "full exoneration," and he contributed $112,000 (the amount raised for him by Keating) to the U.S. Treasury. http://www.slate.com/id/1004633/

No fluff, Norm ...

Attack McCain all you want ... more power to ya! Just trying to keep you focused on the subject, which is the fact that Obama's getting the vast majority of the Republican crossover vote. But hey, most people would want to change the subject too, if they were in your shoes.

BTW - You never explained why you stopped using your famous tagline ("Hillary sucks worse than Monica. Just ask Bill."). Got bored with it, or you hit mental puberty?

You were just shown

Statistics on how the actual vote went, but your mind is made up.

rev wright

Naturally, Clinton is to blame for Obama's 20-year association with Rev Wright, for Wright's self-serving media blitz on Bill Moyers, the NAACP, and the National Press Club--give me a break! Obama and his campaign refuses to take responsibility for a very bad case of bad judgment. How did Wright's "performance" or "spectacle" at the NPC differ from what we've seen or heard in his sermons? Does Obama think the public is stupid? Obama seems to be always hiding something, and when found out lies about the facts, then finally repudiates what is obvious and can no longer be denied. Actually, Rev Wright is right about one thing -- Obama is just another politician!

This is cart before the horse

First things first -- who was it who put the spotlight on Reverend Wright? Did he jump up and down and holler at Obama meets? Nooooo. Is it his fault that out-of-context sound bytes from his sermons were played over and over and over on the MSM and YouTube? Nooooo. If you had been suddenly turned into some sideshow freak and spectacle, what would YOU do?

Reverend Wright, as I've written elsewhere on Buzz, seems to me to be funny, fully authentic, and bona fide Christian. He says it like it is, and he is not ashamed by his blackness or his black heritage, unlike many others -- unfortunately, including Senator Obama. But then, Barack doesn't have the same heritage as most American blacks do, so maybe he can be forgiven.

I watched Dr. Wright on Moyers, and I watched the Press Club event (all but the last part of questioning which was suddenly unavailable). Did the Reverend Jeremiah act out? Yes. Did he try to worm out of who he is? No. Am I upset or saddened by anything the pastor said? Not in the slightest. I came away liking him even more.

Am I disappointed in Obama? A little. Am I distressed by having learned about Jeremiah Wright or turned off by what he says or how he says it? Hell, no. He's for real. Obama is responding as he has to, given the fear-mongering our media indulges in hourly.

Is Clinton responsible? I don't know. Maybe not directly, but she's certainly done her part to denigrate (check the etymology of that word!) Obama's person and character and suitability for the role of President.

AIPAC is responsible

Well said Lee, I also watched Rev Wright on the programs you mentioned, and found the man to be charming, engaging, and delightful to a fault.

But ultimately, the Israeli Lobby has done a number on the poor man to get Obama.

Unfortunately for Obama, he had the temerity to state a partial truth, while speaking to a group of Democratic activists in Muscatine. (March of last year)

Obama, was quoted in the Des Moines Register, by reporter Thomas Beaumont, as saying, “Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people.” The quote is a lie by an act of omission - what Obama really said, "nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people from the failure of the Palestinian leadership to recognize Israel, to renounce violence, and to get serious about negotiating peace and security for the region."

But the Damage was done, and the attack dogs were set loose by David Adelman, a member of AIPAC.

From the Apr 5th, 2008 issue of the highly respected Economist Magazine: "Mr Obama, who has greater popularity among Palestinians, could be a more credible peacebroker in the region. His comment that “nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people” was well received in the Arab world (not so well in Israel), where in general Mr Obama is better liked than his Democratic and Republican rivals. His expressed willingness to talk to America’s enemies means he is generally reckoned to be less aggressive than, for example, Mr McCain, who talks of bombing Iran. Al Ahram Weekly, the English edition of the leading Egyptian daily, goes so far as to describe him as “the favourite US presidential candidate of people in this part of the world.”

Israel sets the agenda and the media falls into line, and the good Mr. Wright is destroyed.
------------------------------------
BTW, the etymology thing provided a chuckle - thanks.

rpriel, Ruthless power respects no one.

However, AIPAC 's power is severely diluted because of it's ruthless behavior. The previous leadership of AIPAC, I believe, actually knew the difference between lying and telling the truth. Just as George W Bush and his cadre of scumbags, AIPAC leadership can't distinguish between the truth and lies. Unfortunately, the corporate media is owned by Bushie scumbags and they propagate AIPAC's lies unfettered.

Why Take it Down?

If there was no intent, other than to provide Reverend Wright with a forum, in which to defend himself and his church, why would Reverend Reynolds remove from her website, her obvious support of Hillary Clinton. Surely she doesn't think "the mainstream media", in which she plays a prominent part, attach "guilt by association." Interesting that she would remove the glowing praise of the Clintons, after her guest had done the maximum damage to Clinton's opponent. I'm sure it's all coincidence. OK. I lied.

rev wright

Naturally, Clinton is to blame for Obama's 20-year association with Rev Wright, for Wright's self-serving media blitz on Bill Moyers, the NAACP, and the National Press Club--give me a break! Obama and his campaign refuses to take responsibility for a very bad case of bad judgment. How did Wright's "performance" or "spectacle" at the NPC differ from what we've seen or heard in his sermons? Does Obama think the public is stupid? Obama seems to be always hiding something, and when found out lies about the facts, then finally repudiates what is obvious and can no longer be denied. Actually, Rev Wright is right about one thing -- Obama is just another politician!

Progressive Daily Beacon...

...Has posted photos of Barbara Reynold and Rev. Jeremiah Wright together at Monday's National Press Club before Wright's speech. PDB also posted an old photo of Wright and Bill Clinton and a letter from Clinton to Wright, during the "Monica Lewinsky Affair", all under the headline: Is Obama's Former Pastor Working for Clintons?

http://www.progressivedailybeacon.com

It goes WAAAAYYYYY beyond that ....

Just look at all of the mysterious deaths surrounding the Clintons ( http://members.tripod.com/~cbn2/death-2.html ). You think Buddy the Dog's death was an accident? Puhhhh-LEEEEEZZ!!! That's "one heck of a Clintonian coincidence," as Mark would say.

Wake up and smell the Clintonian coincidence coffee, people!

wasn't even Wright speaking it was a double from the Clinton's

buzzflash has become a laughing stock http://www.dailyhowler.com/ bill from ct

Buzzflash.com = Obamaflash.com

You are so right! BF's pro-Obama bias is so disturbing, and has certainly contributed -- along with other Left wing media -- to the hardening of Clinton supporters to either sit out the election or to vote for McCain this fall. As a voting block, women and the working class do not like to be taken for granted. We also don't like Obama's arrogance and double-talk.

Just read the April 29 Daily Howler

http://www.dailyhowler.com/ Found no mention of BuzzFlash.com. Please reference blog date so I, and everyone, can check Daily Howler archives.

Jessum Crow!

As they say in Vermont, "Jessum Crow! BuzzFlash". Are you a source of "progressive" news and information or the Barack Obama Campaign headquarters? Perhaps, you should rename yourself the Liberal Sludge Report? But, it all could be a coincidence, No? But that's one heck of a coincidence to be sure. I think Buzz is drowning in Democratic Party illusions of self-importance. Look at the presidential candidates and their campaigns' conduct and the way their fronts and shills operate. More smear than creamy peanut butter. No solutions, just platitudes and empty-suit rhetoric, personal attacks and negative campaigning. Which one of the presidential candidates addresses the issues and operates from a sane perspective? Obama, Clinton, McCain? Hardly. Only one: Ralph Nader. You run, Ralph!

I'm for team Clinton, so I must be branded as a racist, huh?

The Clinton team did not put those hateful words in Rev. Wright's mouth, but if the Clinton's did trick Wright into his appearance, that is a good thing for America. Better we get to the truth of the Obama, Wright, Ferrakhan connection of hate now, instead of waiting for the swift-boaters to sink Obama ( and a boatload of good democrats who will go down with him) in the general election. A vote for Obama in the primaries is by proxy a vote for McCain and other republicans in Nov. TTfN. Skip Roth

What do you think Black America should say?

How about:Thank you, White America, for 300 years of involuntary servitude...that's slavery, Mass'a!...100 years of Jim Crow and unequal opportunities in education, housing and employment!

Thank you, White America, for the invention and introduction of heroin and cocaine into the black community. Special thanks go Ronald Reagan and the CIA for the scheme known as Iran-Contra that flooded the black community with cocaine in the 1980s; and made street gangs a major force, giving law enforcement an excuse to continue a regime of oppression that goes back to this nation's roots.

Thank you, White America, for whipping us, beating us, raping us. It has made us a stronger people. Please, continue.

BTW, what's with Hillary's monkey-see-monkey-do moment over suspending the federal gasoline tax, which funds highway and infrastructure repairs and improvements? Didn't Hanoi John come up with that first?

And who was your "Mass'a"?

Who owned you? Who owned your parents? Who owned your grandparents? Who owned any black person, living or now dead, that you've met? Quit whining and act like a man - or don't get pissed when you're called a "boy". I'm jewish/irish and I don't owe you sh*t and neither does anyone (white, yellow, red, Middle Eastern,or black) else. If you don't like America, go elsewhere. If you want things different, go out and make a difference. And btw, they only made slaves of Africans. Caucasians tried to ELIMINATE jews. When the powers-that-be start rounding up all blacks and putting you in ovens, only then will you understand true discrimination. The drug crisis in black America is due to lack of self-control. There have always been gangs; in New York at the turn of last century it was Irish and Italian gangs. Black gangs in America are a relatively new development. As for unequal opportunities in employment, maybe we should have affirmative action for whites in football, basketball, and music? But I believe you about education. Your post proves you have an obvious lack of education, especially in history.

Unlike Buzzflash the source of story checks facts

It would be nice if Buzzflash got the true story before they fling mud. From the original source of the story Ben Smith at Politico "Wright was invited to the National Press Club by a journalist and minister who supports Clinton. The Tribune reports that Wright was invited by Barbara Reynolds, a former USA Today editorial board member who has written on personal blog of her support for Clinton. I don't mean to suggest some kind of plot. Her agenda here seems to have been the same as Wright's: To protect the minister's reputation from, among others, Obama. "[I]t 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 instead of respecting Wright for the towering astute father of progressive social and global causes that he is," Reynolds wrote in March. Reynolds' is well placed to defend Wright. Her bio says she teaches "prophetic ministry and the media" at Howard University's divinity school. ALSO: Richard Prince points out that Reynolds has spoken critically of Clinton as well, after grilling her -- and being dissatisfied with her answer -- on the Ferraro flap. ALSO: She'd first pitched inviting Wright to the press club two years ago."

Once again we get lost in

Once again we get lost in extraneous information. Pastors preach...some take full advantage of the limelight when it reaches past their congregation...certainly we should know that from all the Father Caughlins to the Robertsons. What's a candidate to do? A friend and mentor is showboating while speaking the truth and rubbing some people the wrong way. What worries me is the narcissism from both Clinton and Wright. Rev. Wright is retiring and wants to be heard during this opportunity created by the right-wing, However wise he is, reticence and the broader perspective that demands baby steps to progress has been temporarily lost - I, for one, don't blame him but I wish he hadn't expounded. But, believe me, I know how hard it was for my father to see this nation as it is now and, dammit, African Americans have always been patient and patriotic and loyal to the American dream. But Sen. Clinton's narcissism I resent. Her insistence that she is the only Presidential candidate with the skills and connections to "rebuild" the U.S. back to the days of "welfare reform", "don't ask don't tell, "three strikes, you're out" prison terms or the inaction against genocide is insufficient. I want Progress. Her record gives me no faith. Her "I'm Commander-in-Chief tough" vote to give this administration the green light for an illegal preemptive war and her continued support of weapons of indiscriminate civilian killing like cluster bombs disgualifies her as a wise leader. Her earmarks in the Senate are the rationalization of business as usual that really means political self-grandizement. Her opportunistic response to the Rev. Wright soundbites from the first days was chilling and set the tone for more racism and misunderstanding and in our national racial dialogue. This 60 year old feminist is delighted to have an alternative candidate to support... to hope.

Facts? FACTS?!?! ....

Buzzflash use facts rather than mind-reading and Drudge/Newsmax when it comes to Hillary Clinton? ............ why, that's just CRAZY talk!

Could all be a coincidence, but that's one heck of a Buzzflashian coincidence to be sure.

BTW - Thanks for the actual facts.

Political posturing indeed...

Thankyou for the inciteful post, gabbyone... It seemed to me that Senator Obama has been pretty fast to throw Rev. Wright under the bus, as soon as he became inconvenient... And what made the Reverend inconvenient?...why, he had the audacity to defend himself and to state some of the obvious problems we are facing as a society. Barbara Reynolds seems pretty clear that she is defending Rev. Wright from Obama, Clinton and the media, and genuinely wants to rescue the Reverend's reputation...

And, if you can handle it, please read Adolf Reed, Jr.'s take on Obama, just published in The Progressive Magazine. You will find it here:

The Progressive: Adolf Reed, Jr. on Obama

Ouch! If you don't know him, Reed is an internationally renowned political scientist and author from the University of Pennsylvannia. He also co-chaired the Chicago-based Coalition for New Priorities, an umbrella network of almost 100 organizations from labor unions to community groups fighting to reorder public policy and federal budget priorities.

Masters of the media

Why was this Rev Wright's speech simulcast on at least three news networks? This is something that rarely occurs even with Presidents and other notables unless there are speeches of significant import. Could it be that the masters of our mainstream media wish to turn the Rev Wright screws on Obama and help out their friend Hillary?

Perhaps...

But I think your targeting is incorrect, it's more probable that they're behind Hillary in order to keep the Democratic party fragmented thereby helping their true masters, the rethugs...

So True!

I agree completely! The MSM doesn't want ANY democrat in office. They want the feud between Clinton and Obama to continue. Not only do they hope for it to splinter the party, but it keeps all eyes and questions off McCain. The American public can see right through his plan of following the "Bush Presidental Blueprint" should he become president. The less he talks or is seen, the better for the repugs. They can't afford for anymore in their party to come to their senses between now and November and vote democrat.

Good question

it should be interesting to know who's behind this programing!