http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/08/06/cafferty.file.wed.cnn?iref=videosearch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6i7v85iEgvY
Obama did not plant the prayer in the wall, as was told on The View on Wednesday, July 30.
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/07/29/obama-did-not-leak-his-prayer/
By Tommy Christopher Jul 29th 2008 9:00PM
Filed Under:eDemocrats, Barack Obama, 2008 President
As I reported Friday, an Israeli newspaper published the prayer that Barack Obama left in a crack of the Western Wall in Jerusalem. The note was pried from the sacred site by a seminary student, in a frenzy of prayer removal. The move to publish the note has been widely criticized. Yesterday, The New Republic, via Caleb Howe and Redstate, reported that Barack Obama had released the note himself, prior to the theft. The basis for the claim? An anonymous spokesperson for the paper, Ma'ariv, and the lack of a denial from the Obama campaign. To their credit, they have since published a retraction of sorts, but not before the lie traveled halfway around the interweb:
UPDATE 3 (4:25 p.m.): I finally heard back from the Ma'ariv spokesman, who denied that the Obama campaign leaked the memo to them or gave them approval to print it, and who disavowed the alleged spokesman who gave quotes to at least four Israeli publications. I must mention that the PM's Caleb Howe provided commentary on the story in good faith, as it appeared at the time. The skepticism expressed by TNR does not excuse them from running the story. An anonymous statement from a party with a reason to lie (Ma'ariv risked a backlash and possible legal action) does not deserve equal weight against the credible original reporting, or simple logic.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215331119403&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
By JTA
The yeshiva student who pried Barack Obama's prayer note from the Western Wall has apologized.
Identified only by the first initial of his name, Aleph, and with his face obscured, the student went on Channel 2 television Sunday to confess that he took the presidential contender's note last week and passed it to the press.
The resulting coverage of Obama's private, handwritten musings on hope and sin added to the mystique of his campaign visit to Israel but drew international criticism, including from leading rabbis who said Jewish morality had been compromised by the publication.
Obama, the presumptive Democratic candidate to face off against Republican John McCain in the race to succeed President Bush in November, has not commented on the episode.
"I'm sorry. It was a kind of prank," Aleph said, his hands shaking as he fingered the tightly wadded-up sheet of King David Hotel letterhead. "I hope he wasn't hurt. We all believe he will take the presidency."
Channel 2's religious affairs correspondent said she had passed the note from the yeshiva student to the Western Wall Heritage Foundation, which reinserted it - deeply - between the ancient slabs of stone.
Media Lies about Obama's "Broken Pledge"
by JohnKWilson
Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:16:21 PM PDT
Note: I'm the author of a new book, Barack Obama: This Improbable Quest, but I'm not part of the Obama campaign.
This week, one attack by John McCain on Barack Obama has become an article of unquestioned faith repeatedly declared in the mainstream media: that Obama broke a promise to accept public financing in the general election. There’s only problem with this claim by the press: it is demonstrably untrue and fully refuted by the facts. Yet the mainstream press has been nearly unanimous in falsely claiming that Obama had broken a promise to take public financing.
The New York Times wrote about his "decision to break an earlier pledge to take public money." NPR claimed, "Earlier, Obama had said he would participate in public financing if his Republican rival, Arizona Sen. John McCain, did the same." Chris Matthews on June 19 claimed it was "breaking his principles, breaking his word...It sounds like he’s changed his tune....Something he promised before." David Gregory on his MSNBC show on June 19 claimed it was a "broken pledge by Obama" and declared, "They had a deal." The New York Post headline was, "GOING BARACK ON HIS WORD."
A Wall Street Journal editorial called it a "flip-flop." That line of attack became particularly common: "It was a flip-flop of epic proportions," said Mark Shields on the Lehrer News Hour on June 20, and David Brooks added this it was "the low point of the Obama candidacy" and "epic hypocrisy."
CBS News reported that Obama "abandoned a campaign pledge." NBC News claimed that Obama "did promise to observe the limits if his opponent did." But the most extensive misinformation came from ABC World News. On June 19, Charles Gibson proclaimed, "This is a direct contradiction to what Obama said." George Stephanopoulos proclaimed this a "flip-flop" and added, "this is a clear flip." Continuing the same story for a second day, Gibson proclaimed at the opening of the ABC World News on June 20, "Flip-flop flack: Mounting criticism of Barack Obama for refusing public financing."
And according to ABC’s Jake Tapper, "Obama's stark abandonment of a pledge he repeatedly made during the Democratic primaries has dinged his reputation as a government reformer, and it clearly gave his critics ammunition to attack his character and paint him as a Democratic flip-flopper."
Even progressives fell into this trap. Rachel Maddow declared on June 20 that his stand was "a reversal from his previous position." Joan Walsh of Salon.com proclaimed that Obama "flip-flopped on campaign finance law."(Race to the White House, June 20) Nick Baumann of Mother Jones wrote, "Obama is making a politically expedient decision and essentially going back on his ‘Yes’ answer to a questionnaire that asked whether he would forgo private financing if his opponents did the same."
So what’s the truth. Below is every single case I could find reporting in the media about Obama’s comments on public financing:
1. Even in February 2007, before Obama’s massive fundraising became evident, Obama’s staffers were explicit in stating that public financing in the general election was an "option" and not a commitment.
2. The March 2, 2007 New York Times reported Obama’s campaign saying that he would "aggressively pursue an agreement."
So from the very beginning, the Obama campaign stated over and over again that public financing in general election would require an extensive agreement that went beyond merely having both parties accept the funding.
3. In response to a November 2007 questionnaire to the Midwest Democracy Network and Common Cause, Obama wrote: "My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election....If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."
No one could read this answer as suggesting that Obama would accept public financing under any condition. Obama explicitly "requires" a promise by the Republican to adopt a "fundraising truce"–meaning not using the parties or 527s as a way to cheat the system.
4. In a December 23, 2007 speech in Iowa cited by ABC News on June 19 (a search on the internet and Lexis-Nexis finds no instances of the press reporting on this at the time) Obama said: "I wrote a letter to the FEC saying if my Republican opponent is willing to abide by public financing, I would abide by public financing as well...." At most, if this quote was not taken out of context (ABC News cuts off the end of it), it shows that Obama simply made a mistake in a speech that was never reported on by the press and which he was never asked to explain. Clearly, since his letter to the FEC never made any pledge like that, Obama was simply using an oversimplified explanation to a crowd in one case. No one can imagine that this misstatement amounted to a pledge.
5. In a February 20, 2008 op-ed for USA Today, Obama explained that such an agreement would have to be carefully negotiated to produce a meaningful agreement in good faith that results in real spending limits. The candidates will have to commit to discouraging cheating by their supporters; to refusing fundraising help to outside groups; and to limiting their own parties to legal forms of involvement. And the agreement may have to address the amounts that Senator McCain, the presumptive nominee of his party, will spend for the general election while the Democratic primary contest continues.
6. At the Democratic Presidential Debate in Cleveland on February 26, Tim Russert asked Obama, "So you may opt out of public financing. You may break your word." Obama responded: "What I – what I have said is, at the point where I'm the nominee, at the point where it's appropriate, I will sit down with John McCain and make sure that we have a system that works for everybody."
7. However, Obama’s promise meant speaking with McCain’s campaign, not necessarily McCain himself. Obama told reporters in February 2008, "If I am the nominee, then I will make sure our people talk to John McCain’s people to make sure we abide by the same rules....My folks will sit down and see whether we can arrive at common sense ground rules."
8. During an April 27 appearance on Fox News, Obama declared, "I have promised that I will sit down with John McCain and talk about can we preserve a public system." Chris Wallace asked: "If you can get that agreement, you would go for a publicly financed campaign?" Obama: "What I don't intend to do is to allow huge amounts of money to be spent by the RNC, the Republican National Committee, or by organizations like the Swift Boat organization, and just stand there without – " Wallace: "But if you get that agreement?" Obama: "I would be very interested in pursuing public financing, because I think not every candidate is going to be able to do what I've done in this campaign, and I think it's important to think about future campaigns."
Obama has been completely consistent from the beginning of his campaign to now on public financing: He would only accept it if the Republicans were willing to meet his conditions for restraining spending by the parties and outside groups.
By contrast to Obama’s consistent commitment to his pledge, McCain’s campaign has shown a clear desire not meet Obama’s standards on campaign finance. As Media Matters noted, the mainstream press such as USA Today, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal failed to mention the fact that McCain, not Obama, had violated the campaign finance laws.
McCain has also indicated, both in words and actions, that he is unwilling to meet Obama’s standards. At the end of May, the Republican National Committee (aided by McCain’s joint fundraising) had almost $54 million, compared to $4 for the Democratic National Committee. McCain flip-flopped and endorsed a North Carolina Republican Party ad attacking Obama. And McCain opened the door for right-wing 527 attacks on Obama, declaring that "I can’t be a referee."
Unlike McCain, Obama asked independent groups to avoid creating 527s and Moveon.org on June 20 announced that it would close its 527 in accord with Obama’s wishes.
The Obama campaign was fully justified in concluding, after an satisfactory meeting between their lawyers, that McCain would not meet the conditions he has explained from the start. Perhaps Obama is guilty of not being aggressive enough in begging McCain to follow these rules, but that’s fundamentally different from violating an unconditional pledge to take public financing–a pledge that Obama never made, and a pledge that the media keep saying he has broken.
Why is the media repeating this lie over and over again?
One reason is the inability of the mainstream media to understand complexity. The notion that Obama could attach conditions to his support of public financing is deemed a cop-out, even if those conditions are entirely rational and consistently given. As Keith Olbermann (a rare exception to the media parade of conformity) noted on June 19 in criticizing Gibson and Stephanopoulos, "you guys have bigger IQs than that. Can't you read the whole paperwork?"
A second reason is the effectiveness of the right-wing in promoting the myth that the media are pro-Obama. This puts pressure on the press to find issues to attack Obama, even when they aren’t true.
A third reason is the "gotcha" mentality of the press toward political reformers. The media believe that anyone who calls for reform should be attacked more viciously than corrupt politicians because of the reformer’s "hypocrisy" and arrogance.
In reality, the media are helping McCain cover up a huge tactical error. McCain could have announced that he would take public financing and publicly agreed to Obama’s requirement for a "fundraising truce." Instead, he failed to push Obama, and embraced the Republican Party and right-wing 527s. McCain foolishly waited until Obama’s announcement, in order to attack Obama. In doing so, McCain lost his only hope for financial parity with Obama, who might have felt obligated to take public financing if McCain had been willing to meet all of the conditions.
Unable to gain a financial advantage by limiting the Obama campaign’s spending and using the Republican party and 527s to smear him, McCain this week turned to his only hope in this campaign: that the mainstream press will lie about Obama, ignore the misconduct of McCain, and help McCain win by misinformation. We can’t let the media get away with distortion of reality.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/21/01621/0513/483/539538
Since the Rove style ads are starting to show up, especially the one about Michelle:
"Great minds discuss ideas,
From Votesmart.org: 2006 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Gun Owners of America 0 percent in 2006. 2006 Based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all Congressional candidates in 2006, the National Rifle Association assigned Senator Clinton a grade of F (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F). 2005 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Gun Owners of America 0 percent in 2005. 2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Gun Owners of America 0 percent in 2003-2004. 2003 In 2003 Gun Owners of America gave Senator Clinton a grade of F-. Yes, she's pro-gun, except for, you know, the part about guns.
I finally realized what is happening here. Have you seen Stephen King's "The Langoliers?" There is a time/space equilibrium warp and some beings with teeth come in at the end of each day and "eat" everything and then the next day is "constructed."
I think this is what Hillary's campaign does. Lies are told and then dismissed, and a new reality is formed, and so on and so on. The movie is science fiction; I think Hillary's statements and actions are also.
Hillary's candidacy could be a Stephen King movie, except people would probably say it went too far from reality, even for science fiction.
I got this in an email today, and I think it applies to many things, including this campaign.
The Daffodil Principle
My daughter had insisted that I drive two hours to her town to see what she called “The Daffodil Garden.” Even though there were a million things to do, I went. We met at her house and left in her car. After about twenty minutes, we turned onto a small gravel road and I saw a small church. On the far side of the church, I saw a hand lettered sign with an arrow that read, “Daffodil Garden."
We got out of the car, and I followed her down the path. Then, as we turned a corner, I looked up and gasped. Before me lay the most glorious sight.
It looked as though someone had taken a great vat of gold and poured it over the mountain peak and its surrounding slopes. The flowers were planted in majestic, swirling patterns, great ribbons and swathes of deep orange, creamy white, lemon yellow, salmon pink, and saffron and butter yellow. Each different-colored variety was planted in large groups so that it swirled and flowed like its own river with its own unique hue. There were five acres of flowers.
"Who did this?" I asked.
"Just one woman," she answered. "She lives on the property. That's her home." Carolyn pointed to a well-kept A-frame house, small and modestly sitting in the midst of all that glory. We walked up to the house.
On the patio, we saw a poster. "Answers to the Questions I Know You Are Asking" was the headline. The first answer was a simple one. " 50,000 bulbs," it read. The second answer was, "One at a time, by one woman. Two hands, two feet, and one brain." The third answer was, "Began in 1958."
For me, that moment was a life-changing experience. I thought of this woman whom I had never met, who, more than forty years before, had begun, one bulb at a time, to bring her vision of beauty and joy to an obscure mountaintop. Planting one bulb at a time, year after year, this unknown woman had forever changed the world in which she lived. One day at a time, she had created something of extraordinary magnificence, beauty, and inspiration The principle her daffodil garden taught is one of the greatest principles of celebration.
That is, learning to move toward our goals and desires one step at a time--often just one baby-step at a time--and learning to love the doing, learning to use the accumulation of time. When we multiply tiny pieces of time with small increments of daily effort, we too will find we can accomplish magnificent things. We can change the world.
"It makes me sad in a way," I said. "What might I have accomplished if I had thought of a wonderful goal thirty-five or forty years ago and had worked away at it 'one bulb at a time' through all those years? Just think what I might have been able to achieve!"
She summed up the message of the day in her usual direct way. "Start tomorrow," she said.
She was right. It's so pointless to think of the lost hours of yesterdays. The way to make learning a lesson of celebration instead of a cause for regret is to only ask, "How can I put this to use today?"
Use the Daffodil Principle.
Stop waiting.....
Until your car or home is paid off
Until you get a new car or home
Until your kids leave the house
Until you go back to school
Until you finish school
Until you clean the house
Until you organize the garage
Until you clean off your desk
Until you lose 10 lbs.
Until you gain 10 lbs.
Until you get married
Until you get a divorce
Until you have kids
Until the kids go to school
Until you retire
Until summer
Until spring
Until winter
Until fall
Until you die...
There is no better time than right now to be happy. Happiness is a journey, not a destination.
Wishing you a beautiful, daffodil day!
Some of us have mentioned that it would be a great project for Obama's daughters to adopt a homeless dog (or two!) when they get their promised pet. I have a zoo of adopted fuzzy ones and they are wonderful, appreciative members of the family. When they have been on their own, hungry, lonely, and cold and wet, they LOVE having a home and people to pay attention to them.
Now I see that Oprah has learned the value of adopted pets and the horrors of the puppy mills and is going to do an entire show on the subject. I would love for the Obamas (after the inauguration) to come on Oprah's show and talk about their experience if they do go the shelter or rescue route. It would raise awareness and it fits in his "Include, Respect, Empower" message. I don't remember any White House children having a project, and this would be great for the girls and the countless animals in shelters waiting for a loving person to take them home.
An added plus: Lisa Ling will be on the Oprah show Friday and she is an Obama supporter!
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080402/D8VPM7G80.html
Winfrey Dedicates Show to Her Late Dog Apr 2, 6:42 AM (ET)
CHICAGO (AP) - Oprah Winfrey plans to dedicate a show investigating abuses at puppy mills to her cocker spaniel, Sophie, who died last month from kidney failure.
"Sophie gave me 13 years of unconditional love. She was a true love in my life," Winfrey says on the broadcast scheduled to air Friday. (Advance remarks from the show were released Tuesday by Harpo Productions.)
The show features special correspondent Lisa Ling investigating puppy mills, which Ling calls "horrific" and "haunting."
Winfrey says the show is "for anybody anywhere who loves a dog, has ever loved a dog, or just cares about their basic right to humane treatment."
While Sophie was not a product of a puppy mill, and Winfrey's three current dogs were adopted from breeders, Winfrey says in the future she would look to adopt from an animal shelter.
"I would never, ever adopt another pet now without going to a shelter to do it. I am a changed woman after seeing this show," she says.
I have taken some clips that show the positive side of Reverend Wright and compiled them so people can see that the short sound bites are deceiving. Please pass the links on to your family and friends and we’ll try to correct the distortion that has been on the media. Let me know if any of them are not working.
Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdqiT4OPnio
Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrJkyMkMb9U
Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DUSbdUG9N0
Part 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcKDywA1518
Audio of Rev. Wright’s sermon, Audacity to Hope
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFZROa0rlMU
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9_LQKlLSBo&feature=user
All of you that are concerned with negative posts: complaining about what you perceive as negative is also negative. Can't you just skip it and go on? That would be more positive.
Some people want to inform and others need to vent or express feelings. Some of you want to ignore. All of those are fine. I respect your wanting to skip this kind of thing, but we need this kind of information because we don't want a clueless campaign. People are calling voters and need to know what those people might possibly have heard so they have answers ready for them. I talk to people and I like to know. HQ needs to know so they can post a rebuttal on the Know the Facts page.
We don't want to be the emperor with no clothes. That would be Bush—look how happy he is. Being positive by the route of ignorance is not going to get anywhere. I prefer positive thinking as a result of squashing the negative to other people. We need the votes of those other people, who clearly are not well informed.
Can't we just read or scroll on down? The main thing that depresses me on here is the attacking of some posters by others.
Let's respect each other's different needs (unless they are genuinely offensive, which means we need to report them to admin.) and see if THAT can be our positive expression.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgJ-nrtifFc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eAvIdXIYDc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqphQcOUI4A&feature=related love not hate
http://youtube.com/watch?v=LqBoF800mQI
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4PBSC6yoMr8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIoiWoHODkI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Z1TQohr8a4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT7LxAKgYeI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BuM5JVgwKc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1SLbGcFDEw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IICD0iwCB9o&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckz6H3IbYzc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3Z4NArsgiU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxR9kgvQznU&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=GejUlWnp3Hk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4it8rPMgQJ4&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/20/124426/842/246/480797
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JSXTlr4seI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfDyxqjPW5Q&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/20/124426/842/246/480797
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ed1Tb-vrEww
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ioaChVw_pUw
http://www.tucc.org/home.htm
http://www.ucc.org/news/chicagos-trinity-ucc-is.html
http://youtube.com/watch?v=lY6qjeJ5mG8
http://youtube.com/watch?v=i5fydONgwA8
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZNwMPNxwHmQ Huckabee
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4qNi7tPanUA&feature=relatedhttp://youtube.com/watch?v=4qNi7tPanUA&feature=related McCain and Hagee
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hwW3btvk_KQ&feature=user
http://youtube.com/watch?v=yGl44APr8KQ&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=WLQGWpRVA7o&feature=related Beat the b*****
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI&feature=related McCain truth
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ajm5JTf7jZs&feature=related McCain Somalia
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hAzBxFaio1I&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=a9Dd-yg2A4E&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=o2iqFhHM88o&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=s8iDT9RURwo&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_1X3efvVTLA&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DCAqm286eAM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7O0wS9NQCUM&NR=1
I am collecting some good, positive clips of Wright and can put them together and make a montage. Do you all think that would be a good idea? Before I do it, I will continue to gather some more tonight and you all put up anything that you find. Also, the Audacity of Hope sermon is just audio, so any suggestions you have for graphics during that part are appreciated. I can also put in text between clips if you think of anything.
One more idea--do any of you have the information about the different tones of worship they had at different times? At many churches the early morning one is more formal and traditional and later ones are more relaxed. It seems that I remember that there was one service that was tailored to the "extremely non-traditional" people like bikers and such. This could explain how he didn't hear a lot of that stuff, combined with how many times he would have been out of town.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/19/commentary.ashong/index.html
By Derrick Ashong
Editor's Note: Derrick Ashong is a musician, activist and entrepreneur. He recently became a You Tube "phenom" after posting a passionate defense of Barack Obama. Ashong identifies himself as an independent.
Derrick Ashong says Barack Obama spoke with "candor and compassion" about race relations in America.
Like many Americans I watched Sen. Barack Obama deliver his speech titled "A More Perfect Union."
I watched in a state of minor shock, not so much at the deftness with which he defused the sophomoric conflation of his call for national unity with the inflammatory rhetoric of the retired head pastor of his church -- a conflation that would imply that we must each swallow whole the entirety of views expressed by our friends and associates.
It was not his repudiation of small thinking that struck me. It was the fact that here we had an American politician speaking with both candor and compassion about the proverbial elephant in our national living room.
Race is an issue that continues to confound this country. It is an undercurrent that paints our description, understanding and valuation of people in American society whether spoken or not. It is the subtext that places NBA star LeBron James and Brazilian supermodel Gisele Bundchen on the cover of Vogue, in uncomfortable caricature of brute and ingénue.
It is in the minds of some the very reason a person of color would even be considered a serious candidate for the presidency of the nation -- never mind that three centuries into the American experiment there has been to date, only one such person.
I watched Obama's speech with a measure of disbelief that he had the gumption to come out and say what we all know -- that the problem of race remains one that we as a nation have yet to conquer. To be sure we have made strides towards reconciliation. But the hard conversations continue to be harder than most are willing to deal with.
Black America has yet to come to grips with its responsibility to tackle head on the problems that plague our communities. White America has yet to acknowledge the fact that here in the "home of the free," true liberty has evaded many for far too long.
Too often these conversations are ended before they've truly begun, due to the ignorance, intransigence or simple unwillingness of people to acknowledge the validity of what the other side has to say.
Who can honestly argue that black America is not today contributing mightily to its own social, cultural and economic decline?
Who can honestly argue that white America has not been willfully blind and too often complicit in the injustices that continue to be visited upon people born with darker hue or stranger accent?
Who will have both the courage and the commitment to the promise of universal justice and equity that undergirds our country, to call upon the nation to move beyond the divisive rhetoric of racial "one-upmanship" and to embrace the challenge of fulfilling that promise?
Apparently a junior senator from Illinois by the name of Barack Obama.
For days pundits have pondered whether Sen. Obama could weather the controversy over Rev. Jeremiah Wright's racially polarizing comments. The question at this juncture is not whether the candidate will rise to the occasion, but rather, whether America will.
