AP Covers for Obama by Avoiding Church's, and Pastor's, Essence

Photo of Tom Blumer.
By Tom Blumer | April 5, 2008 - 01:27 ET

Now playing defense for Team Obama: Karen Hawkins and Christopher Wills of the Associated Press, as carried in the Washington Post ("Obama Found a Home in His Church") on Thursday.

Call it a Wright-wash -- Hawkins and Wills managed to avoid any mention of the main tenets of "Black Liberation Theology" (details after the jump) that form the foundation of the belief system of the Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC). Until recently (though TUCC's Pastoral Staff page at its web site still does not reflect the supposed change), TUCC was headed by Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose preaching moved presidential candidate Barack Obama to join the congregation 20 years.

The AP pair also managed to avoid any mention of often inflammatory items in weekly bulletin articles published by the Church.

Nowhere in the story's 1,200-plus words was there any mention of the Church's belief system, which was outlined by McClatchy's Margaret Tavel on March 20:

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Obama’s church pushes controversial doctrines

Jesus is black. Merging Marxism with Christian Gospel may show the way to a better tomorrow. The white church in America is the Antichrist because it supported slavery and segregation.

Those are some of the more provocative doctrines that animate the theology at the core of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Barack Obama’s church.

….. Wright has said that a basis for Trinity’s philosophies is the work of James Cone, who founded the modern black liberation theology movement out of the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. Particularly influential was Cone’s seminal 1969 book, “Black Theology & Black Power.”

Cone wrote that the United States was a white racist nation and the white church was the Antichrist for having supported slavery and segregation.

To cover up the theology, the AP writers made TUCC seem typical:

Trinity is a predominantly black congregation in a mainline, mostly white denomination _ the United Church of Christ. Its 8,000 members include politicians, doctors, lawyers and other leaders on Chicago's South Side.

It would be interesting to take a poll of this mainline denomination's members about Marxist "theology" and whether the "white church" is the Antichrist.

Now to the bulletins.

In the July 22 bulletin, in the "Pastor's Page" section, the Rev. Wright gave two pages of space to a colunmn by Hamas terrorist Mousa Abu Marzook. The column originally appeared in the Los Angeles Times, which came under heavy criticism for running it. Among Marzook's many whoppers:

A number of political parties today control blocs in the Israeli Knesset, while advocating for the expulsion of Arab citizens from Israel and the rest of Palestine, envisioning a single Jewish state from the Jordan to the sea.

CAMERA.org wrote at the time that "that no Israeli parties in government advocate the 'expulsion' of Arabs; one calls for voluntary transfer."

A June 10 bulletin article, also in the "Pastor's Page" section, was written by terrorist sympathizer Ali Baghdadi. Among other things, Baghdadi wrote (bolds are mine):

I must tell you that Israel was the closest ally to the White Supremacists of South Africa. In fact, South Africa allowed Israel to test its nuclear weapons in the ocean off South Africa. The Israelis were given a blank check: they could test whenever they desired and did not even have to ask permission. Both worked on an ethnic bomb that kills Blacks and Arabs.

The KKK, on its worst day, never accused the ethnic groups it hated of attempting to concoct a "white bomb."

The Rev. Wright not only allowed these hate-filled diatribes to appear in TUCC's bulletins, he was -- and presumably, in the absence of any expressed remorse, still is -- supportive of them, as indicated by what he wrote in the July 8 bulletin:

WrightOnProgrMuslims070807

Putting "state" in quotes when describing Israel is a standard tactic of those who do not wish to see that nation survive. Rev. Wright surely knows that. Also note that the Rev. Wright put "war on terror" in quotes. So not only does he feel that we deserved to be attacked on September 11, as seen in the infamous "chickens coming home to roost" video, he apparently believes that our response to the attacks is either illegitimate and/or should not be taking place.

Barack Obama has denied reading TUCC bulletins, but was seen taking notes by a New Republic writer during one of the Rev. Wright's sermons in March 2007. The default option for where Obama would have been recording his notes would be the "Sermon Notes" section of each week's ..... church bulletin.

AP writers Hawkins and Wills made no mention of the bulletins or their content. No words relating to Israel, Hamas, or the Palestinians appeared in their article.

Instead, readers were fed pablum such as this:

People familiar with Trinity compare its emphasis on African culture to the way some Catholic churches play up Irish or Italian roots.

..... (Wright is) a serious biblical scholar who thinks carefully about issues.

..... Wright's sermons, even when they included strong critiques of racism and inequality in America, were always grounded in the Bible, church members said. Wright sometimes used harsh, painful language, his supporters acknowledge, but mostly he was well within a black tradition of emotional, social commentary.

Very little in the AP story would have caused readers to question Obama's continued association with the Rev. Wright and TUCC. That is the fundamental reason why the Rev. Wright issue continues to resonate, while Old Media obfuscates.

NewsBusters poster Matthew Balan reported on Friday afternoon that CNN portrayed TUCC sympathetically as "under siege." On Wednesday, NB poster Mark Finkelstein caught Good Morning America's David Wright (no relation) positing that bringing up Rev. Wright any further may be unfairly "raising the race issue" to hit "below the belt."

As long as Old Media reporting on Obama-Rev. Wright continues to be as disgraceful as the AP article covered here, my two-word response to David Wright is: No. Way.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

→ The theology is settled.

The consensus among theologians and Media is that "Black Theology" is the rightly divined Word of God.

♣ a seal

Still Ridin' Dirty

As recently as two weeks ago the webpage for Wright's church informed candidate members that they must take two mandatory classes.

The title of those classes?

"Black and Christian."

Anyone here wonder how the MSM would handle an Evangelical church that required a "White and Christian" class?   

zee... Bingo! "Never

zee...

Bingo!

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

Ok, I'm prepared to get accused (again...) of hate

But having half a clue about google isn't evidence of hate on my part, it's just evidence of me being my usual inconvenient self and following the facts. I'd say the nuke accusation can be filed under "probable." Even though there has been a lot of obfuscation about which nation did it if not both, South Africa & Israel were clearly friends. Both were definitely working on nukes at the time, whether or not some people want to talk-about or explicitly-admit it.

As for the racist-bomb accusation, this article mentions nothing about Israeli cooperation, but the idea doesn't sound any more far-fetched than a "gay bomb," which the US military considered in the '90s. I'm sure those wonderful South African allies of ours were examples of good behavior to the rest of the world during the Apartheid era. Riiight...Intelligence agencies of all sorts never get involved in the illegal drug business -- nothing to see here. Move along! And whatever you do, don't even think about Mena, Arkansas & cocaine in the '80s when it comes to the USA's own unpunished illegal drug behavior. ;)

Anyway, my goal here is not to defend the nutty preacher, but to inject a factual context as to why such speculation, even if it's wrong, might not seem totally-nutty in terms of history if you look a bit. The shallow and incredibly-lazy media coverage we've often seen on "sensitive" matters like intel-agencies being involved with illegal drugs or secret nuke tests often serves to mask the truth (see Mena). Even though the preacher's still nutty, too. There. Is everyone on all sides of these issues nice and infuriated? Good.
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

→ Good point sarc

But your link points to a FOX news article saying the "love bomb" was suggested and rejected.

How is it that every "out of the box" brainstorming thought is damning proof the Government is out to get me?

I'm not faulting your observation, as I'm sure many will grasp at any straw to legitimize a position.  What the heck, it works for Oliver Stone, it may as well work for Jeremiah Wright.

♣ a seal

It's not proof they're "out to get you"

But it wasn't just "considered," someone asked for $7.5 million to start it (thank you, FOIA). And I'm not grasping at any straws by simply telling the whole truth here, it just happens to be inconvenient for both major-party sides of the issue sometimes (see Mena coke-smuggling by the CIA, which was a compendium of strange bedfellows, but it happened and nobody ever got punished in either the courts or the media).
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

→ The system worked sarc

What is important is that a proposal was made and rejected.

Maybe you've got something with the drug smuggling thing, but brainstorming can be a valuable tool in problem solving.

China zoos solved their Panda copulation problems by showing "Panda porn" to the males (true story).  Somebody was thinking outside the box while others were loading turkey basters.

I'll bet somebody higher up had to approve the finances.

♣ a seal

Believe me, I've got something on the drug smuggling...

I witnessed it before they moved the operation from Miami ("secret" is a relative term in Miami, believe me). As a partisan Libertarian at the time, I was being accused by the bipartisan smugglers' bosses of being part of the USA's drug problem. I thought, and still think, that my ideas are the solution. I have yet to forgive, or forget, because the court system and the news media failed to tell the truth regarding Mena-coke. When it came to the gay bomb, the system worked, but when it came to that coke smuggling, it definitely didn't-work for anything but bipartisan criminality, and partisan Libertarians like me sure look a lot like victims.

"Thank God for strange bedfellows" is all I can say. Most of the media totally fell down on the job, with occasional notable exceptions like the WSJ's Micah Morrison (unexpected) and tiny High Times magazine, which along with a free Miami birdcage-liner essentially broke the story (expected, but it really pissed-off the rest of the news media, who were either asleep or paid-off IMO).
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

South Africa & Israel

South Africa & Israel were clearly friends

Nations don't have "friends," they have "interests."

Seeing you are so mired in "realpolitik" at all times (nothing wrong with that, by the way) there seems to be a disconnect if you then think outside the box of national interests.

An example. Britain and America had been "friends" for a long time following the unfortunate contretemps of 1776 and 1812...

Yet when Britain declared war on Germany on Sept 3, 1939 ( a war it clearly could not win alone) did America jump right in on the side of its "friend."

It did not.

And when it did, when its own national interest enabled it to do so, did America then decide it would do nothing to assist its other enemy, the communist Soviet Union?

On the contrary, it allied itself with a natural enemy.

Did that make the USSR and the U.S. "friends"? No, it did not.

Just sayin'.

Vote 4 change. Vote 4 anything. See Jack & Mr Shy's first campaign ad for the ONLY viable 3rd party candidate.

Ok, then...

They were clearly "interests." My main point stands, it's easy to imagine the 2 militaries worked together because they sometimes did just that. It's easy to get "mired in realpolitic" when you're accused of promoting drug abuse by the very people who are guilty of drug smuggling and who publicly claimed to want to stop it. Trust me on that one.
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

Only a true conspiracy theorist

could take an article like that and use it as proof to defend (which, regardless of your denial is what you're doing) a whack job like Rev. Wright.

To equate an article which points out that someone proposed TO the military an idea, an idea that the military REJECTED and SPENT NO MONEY ON is to engage in a sort of moral relativism that does tend to addle the mind of people such as yourself, who form all outward appearances, have no positive regard for his own country or countrymen.

Let's rephrase your argument: 

  1. An IDEA that someone proposed (at who knows what level) to be used in a conflict where troops are already KILLING each other, a non-lethal weapon that would disrupt the behavior of ALL enemy troops (not just the gay ones), rather than kill them would make them amorous, maybe even towards other troops, and stop them from KILLING our troops.
  2. Concepts that another country-NOT the US- (who was soundly discredited in the world community for their racist approach to government control of their population) considered using in controlling civil unrest.  Certainly these ideas, which the article you cite does not say that a program was developed, only that a European scientist had developed it and South African scientists also "worked on" the project, and their Surgeon General backed it.

Those two are essentially the same thing and therefore, Rev Wright's comments are justifiable or at least tolerable because one could see how the good Reverand could feel that the US was out to wipe out blacks?  Is that your argument?

If this man is a "leader" in his community, then he is doing his community a disservice with his wing-nut theories, and instead of being tolerated because he connected dots that don't exist, he should be roundly criticized for being the nut that he is, and his assinine ideas taken apart, bit by bit by the media.  Instead, we have idiotic talking heads like Mika B. stroking their chins and "understanding why he feels that way".

Hogwash!  Let's look at another of Rev. Wrights theories:  He claims that AIDS was developed or intended to be used to wipe out blacks, if I understand his rant correctly.  Honestly, how long would it take a rational person with an adults understanding of human sexual behavior to figure out that an STD incapable of distinguishing the race of a person is about the dumbest way to try and kill members of only one race?  How could that POSSIBLY work, Rev. Wright???

Sarc, thanks again for demonstrating your faith in the good intentions of the US and your keen grasp of the minute differences between rational thought and irrational rantings.

Um, nice try

But unless you put all those words in my mouth, and you can't, it's all BS. I just used an example off the top of my head. Want another? Try googling "Tuskeegee Experiment." I'm not defending the nutcase by upsetting other nutcases with the easily googled truth, but as I predicted, I'm now accused of hate because I expose the crimes of all governments without prejudices. Thanks for making it come true, if only my state's lottery were this easy.
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

sarc?

How does a debate with you translate into an accusation of hate?

Why are you wearing the victim hat? Have you always worn it and I just haven't noticed til now?

♣ a seal

Ok, it's not hate?

If I'm "defending" a hater like Wright according to some hallucinated theory, something I explicitly explained I'm not doing? Or is it the upsetting fact that I hold the US government (especially hypocrites in both major parties that accused me of wanting kids to use drugs WHILE SMUGGLING DRUGS INTO THE USA!!!!) to the same low standards I hold other governments? I don't know, but if this makes me somehow "wearing a victim hat" it's certainly nothin' new. I've been busting the drug smuggling hypocrites' chops around here as long as I've been exposing their holy drugwar's racism. It's OLD hat for me, believe me, when I bust hypocrites and/or hold the US government to the same standards the US government wants to set up for US citizen units.
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

(Sarc is actually funny! 

(Sarc is actually funny!  Every board has to have at least one raving paranoid to spice things up.  I read his last post and I couldn't help but wonder what completely paranoid, wild, out-there-in-left-field magazine articles he's got clipped out and taped to his bathroom mirror!  We have someone at work like him...you can't involve him in political, social or cultural debate, because EVERYTHING in his life eventually gets back to a government conspiracy.  Last week he when he spilled water on a TV remote control, he tried to dry it off by putting it in a microwave!)

You GO Sarcasmo!  Tell us your theories about the Illuminati!

By the way...what's a "citizen unit"?

 

If you don't know by now

The joke's on you. Be careful, though, because it looks like the Wall Street Journal's in on that conspiracy. Various other media outlets have "interesting" quotes, too, but keep believing in the government! They never lie or conspire, ever.
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

C'mon sarc. There's space

C'mon sarc. There's space between "never" and "always."

Is there no room in your philosophy for "sometimes," Horatio? 

sarc, maybe his question

How does a debate with you translate into an accusation of hate? -Cool Arrow

sarc, maybe his question came from the fact that you started this discussion with

Ok, I'm prepared to get accused (again...) of hate

You seemed to expect it...the question is why would you consider any disagreement with you an accusation of hate?

I see your point now.

Paraphrasing:

If a government or governments has committed a crime in the past, then therefore all accussations of government crime by any nation, however far removed from other governments' crimes in either time, ideology or distance, are therefore credible accusations and must all be assessed with the same degree of likelihood. 

"Well, remember when so-and-so did this?  It could happen, right?"

Bearing no relationship whatsoever to the situation at hand, and having no other credible argument to put forth, that argument is the last bastion of a shallow mind.

I can't help but think that if this "logic" of yours were applied to individuals rather than governments or nations, it would be called...um...what's the word....predjudice?

It's still not working

You can't put words in my mouth. I never said "credible," you did. I just did rudimentary googling to try to figure out why this guy would say that, and then reported the facts in context of history. And humans are all prejudiced, to argue otherwise betrays the truly shallow mind.
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

Church bulletin

Sarcasmo,

Do I think that the drug problem in America has conspiratorial tents to it? Most likely. Do I think that Israelis and South Africans would collaborate on a weapon to wipe out Arabs? Probably. But this stuff is in a Church bulletin!!

Rev. Wright has a criminal from Hamas writing articles for his church bulletin? Rev. Wright pleads for a better understanding of the "many manifestations of Islam, not just the media-owned 'war on terror' Islam" in his church bulletin?

I think we could solve a HUGE problem in this country if we could legalize marijuana. Dont' confuse my thoughts with being anti-progress or anti-truth; but the dishonorable Rev. Wright and his Master's degree in 19th century West African Islam can take their hateful, racist and treasonous garbage to Hell.

While that man is busy preaching hate against Whitey, he's making millions from the people he is trying to "free". Then he moves onto the block with Whitey...presumably to keep an eye on them? See what Whitey is up to next...

I'd like to talk about our governments role in the drug trade...but do you think that a church bulletin is a good place for this dialogue to take place?

Sarc, why don't you put

Sarc, why don't you put your well-documented skepticism of the media to work on articles like this? Here we have one guy making claims. No mention of any corroboration. One man says that an "unknown European scientist claimed" to have developed a "race bomb." One guy, possibly engaging in a little CYA. I mean, what is this "Truth and Reconciliation" commission all about? I would suppose their idea of "reconciliation" might involve some "payback," wouldn't you?

As for the nukes, I remember when a "mystery nuke" was detonated back then. And maybe it was Israel and South Africa allied to research it. Lots of countries have been chasing the atom since it was first unlocked. Israel's situation may have caused them to forge some "distasteful" alliances. Where else could they test a nuke in secret? But such rumors and suppositions don't exactly constitute evidence that Israel is a racist, apartheid state, do they?

So, do you file all this under "probable," based on unsubstantiated testimony? I think this kind of article deserves the same skepticism as any other from the media. If charges from a single source are acceptable to prove your point, they have to be acceptable when they work against you, too. And that way lies madness.

Anyway, all this really just obfuscates the point of this thread. NOWHERE is America even mentioned in this article. If this makes it "probable" that Reverend Wright is validated in his hatred of this country, I'm ready to send this to the jury. With great confidence in their verdict.

I don't know.

And I've never said the former head of an Apartheid era military research laboratory was right, but the allegation was out there. I also said that all it took was minimal googling to find it. I doubt any serious scientist, even back then, would think that a "race bomb" targetting skin-melanin genes is possible, but governments have a history of paying un-serious "scientists" when they're properly biased, as we've all seen with both cannabis & climate in the USA.

I'm not prepared to say the guy's lying about his old job because I see no benefit (and major legal risks from a resentful new government) in lying about it for him. I don't know, but I do also note once-again another government's interest in illegal drugs, which for me makes the article more-believable because we've seen so-much of it from these "anti-drug" hypocrites. But all I was trying to do is explain why Wright may have considered such ideas, and google made it obvious that there's some easy to find context the "mainstream" media is leaving-out, didn't it??
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

"I'm not prepared to say

"I'm not prepared to say the guy's lying about his old job because I see no benefit (and major legal risks from a resentful new government) in lying about it for him."

Um, that was my "CYA" comment. He said something about his being "unrational," or something (don't have time to check the link for exact words again). There's one benefit. And I see no risk in lying. Are you saying the new government would want to defend the apartheid government? Probably the best way to get into the good graces of the current SA government is to come out against the apartheid government. After all, people are more than willing to believe anything bad about them. As you seem to be.

All I'm promoting is a little of that "healthy skepticism" which seems to be your stock in trade, sarc. I practice it too, but it can't be selective. Defeats the purpose.

the root problem

Great article. I've been reading George Barna's new book PAGAN CHRISTIANITY? and my mind is being blown. I think he nails the real problems. The modern pastor office as we know it is not something that Jesus or the Bible ever intended. This was a real eye opener for me. I've been a church member for many years and always knew something was wrong with the way things were done. This book helped me to see just what it was. Incredible piece of historical research. If we had been doing things the way God intended, we wouldn't be even talking about people like Rev. Wright.

For God's sake

Sarcasmo.. GROW UP PLEASE. Lets get back to the article and remove theyself from side comments that you continue to generate. This artice is about the good Rev. White and his followers in the arcane art of blaming Whites for all the world's problems. Not about, well I was accused of being a druggie... Suck it up Sarcasmo and press on.

I don't give one rats i-oda about links between drug dealers and other BS that has no relevance here. Then again, anyone using Google as their search engine is not firing on all cyclinders. The question is why is the media allowing the Rev. White and his Trinty Church of Christ a free pass on the hate being spewed from them.

Their hatred is well documented, to include their own website, not from "some source" and "it will be exposed later" remarks. Stick to the subject at hand and leave the tangets for HuffPo.

I'm tired of being called a racist, yes that is what Rev. White and his morons think of us. And yes, that includes the good Obama. To even allow his children to be raised in that church disgusts me. Another generation brought up on racism, and you sarcasmo are part of the problem. I was raised to believe everyone is created equal and should be treated as such. If you can not see the problem in what their teaching, please be quiet and keep your silly remarks to yourself. As for me, I'll take my old worn out American Indian a** back to the reservation. All actions are either black or white, right or wrong, there is no middle ground

 

By the way, what is a "partisan Libertarian". Makes no sense.

Humblepie...

Exactly.

Why does the dishonorable Rev. use the pulpit and his bulletin to push his hateful, treasonous views?

I think that his Master's degree in 19th century West African Islam says bunches about the mindset of the Rev. Was his undergrad degree in African American Studies? I believe that ALMOST HALF of ungrad blacks at my alma mater, The Ohio State University, either studied Sociology, or African American studies. I'm sure that both of those majors would do a great job of preparing young blacks to live in a "White" world.

There are probably millions of Rev. Wrights all over this great country.

Kill Whitey, indeed.

Just Look at the TUCC web page

Wright states in his church's list of beliefs: "African-centered thought, unlike Eurocentrism, does not assume superiority and look at everyone else as being inferior."

Well, I guess the supreme leader of Zimbabwe, the late Ugandan Idi Amin, the Rwandans, the Tutsis, the Hutus, the Kenyans just this year, the Somalians, the Sudanese, the Congolese, the Chadians and the...(well you get the drift) of the past 2-3 decades didn't get to hear this sermon from the Mt. of Wright just like Obama says he never did. Never heard or read anything from his mentor and advisor nor that the church -- HIS CHURCH -- ever sent out. What did he do in church -- HIS CHURCH -- play with the offering envelopes, or doodle, or thumb through the hymnal, or look around for friends, or stare at the floor, or squirm or any number of things little boys do in church to past the time?  No! He heard and saw everything. He approved of everything. He hates this counrty and its people because his black african father was good for two things -- taking advantage of an American education and screwing his mother -- leaving little Barry behind from the superior being! Why wasn't Barry raised by his father's family in Kenya? Because he was 1/2 white and American. They didn't want him! Obama's "typical white eurocentrist" grandparents raised him! Obama better look at both his daddy and his close advisor for what they were/are -- afrocentrists!

Wright, why are africans still making slaves of each other? (ref. Sudan & Somalia to name but two)

Wright and those who support him through inaction or funding (read OBAMA) are "followers and believers." Say whatever you have to say to friends and relatives to get by, but just remember this about Obama when you are alone in the voting booth. 

AP story still covering for the Clinton's as well, Tom.

The AP story still is covering for the Clinton's as well, Tom.

It offered:

Most Americans know Wright only from video excerpts of sermons in which he says God should damn the United States for its racism, accuses the government of spreading AIDS and suggests the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks were retribution for the country's past wrongs. Obama's long connection with Wright has raised doubts among some voters about Obama's beliefs and judgment.

Then noted what Hillary Clinton had to say about the Rev's inflamatory comments:

His Democratic rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, said she would have left the church if it had been her pastor saying such things.

One would expect that HRC and Bill Clinton might have a bit more to say if and when anyone in the media has the 00's to ask them about Wright's comments. In fact, we might see the Democratic party split wide apart; right down it's leftist middle. The MSM only wants to split the R's - not the D's, so the censorship of this volatile conversation must continue:

Jeremiah Wright on Bill Clinton 

In that clip the Reverend Wright is ranting in hatred, as he thrusts his pelvic forward, suggesting  that Hillary would be as Bill Clinton had been; he f---ed the blacks just as he did Monica Lewinski. This man doesn't just hate America - he hates the Clinton's. Wright's view is actually representative of a long held view, but kept silent one that, in fact, Clinton did the talk - but did not do the walk. Contrary to MSM's wish list, Bill Clinton effectively did nothing for the black community. The transcript, please:

Rev. Wright:  Hillary is married to Bill and Bill have been good to us? No, he ain't! Bill did us just like he did Monica Lewinsky! 

Congregation:  (cheers)

Rev. Wright:  He was riding dirty!

The Rev better check his stories

In all reality Rev. Wright, He wasn't riding dirty, but, you could say you were sucking up to him.. Makes you want to swallow your words.