Posted by
Andrews on Thursday, May 01, 2008 3:23:44 PM
Now,
I have said this before, but this time
Best of the Web really did come very close to saying exactly what I did. Here is the final part of their item today:
The real proof that Wright is right about Obama, though, comes from this passage in a New York Times story from April 30, 2007--a year ago yesterday:
Mr. Wright, who has long prided himself on criticizing the
establishment, said he knew that he may not play well in Mr. Obama's
audition for the ultimate establishment job.
"If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly
distance himself from me," Mr. Wright said with a shrug. "I said it to
Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen."
Assuming Wright's account of the conversation was
accurate--and as far as we know, Obama has never disputed it--Obama not
only is acting out of political expediency now, but was making plans a
year ago to do so. All part of the effort to sell him as a new kind of
politician--and if you buy it, we've got some change you can believe in.
And here is my comment from "
More on Obama's Woes" back on March 17:
Here is a quote from the New York Times:
In the interview last spring, Mr. Wright expressed frustration at the
breach in relationship with Mr. Obama, saying the candidate had already
privately said that he might need to distance himself from his pastor.
But perhaps the two could repair things, said Mr. Wright, pointing out
that Mr. Obama’s opponent, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, had faced worse.
Please read that and think about what it means.
If Obama told Rev. Wright that he may have to "distance himself", does
that not mean that Obama was aware Wright was a political liability?
And, why would Wright be a political liability except for his
inflammatory rhetoric and beliefs? So, it appears Obama was well aware
of Wright's beliefs last spring, but he now claims to be unaware of
what the Reverend had said? The only way I can see for any of this to
make sense is to assume that Obama is lying.
Now, to be fair, I think I lifted that NYT reference from an even earlier Best of the Web, so I guess this is more symbiosis than theft. But it is still bizarre to see something so close to what I wrote appearing on the WSJ site.
Of course, as I always add, I know no one stole anything from me, these sort of thoughts are floating about and putting them into similar words is hardly unusual, especially in a case such as this where the conclusion is so obvious. I suppose I mention it only to amuse myself.. Unless someone out there needs an editorial writer, then I suppose I am putting it up to tell prospective employers that four times so far I have scooped the WSJ opinion page.
And, no, I am not serious about that last part either.