Procanick was pastor at Resurrection Assembly of God Church in Clinton before stepping down in Spring of 2007.
As it turns out, the ‘Clinton’ lead in the story had nothing to do with “the Clintons” but was a reference to the town of ‘Clinton’, NY.
To be fair, I would like to mention two points:
The initial WKTV article was not specific enough in its elaboration that this was in fact, a city.
My point in bringing up the issue has been one I’ve consistently ranted against and addressed: media sensationalization of the ‘horse-race’ aspect of this presidential contest. The post also included an excerpt from the Nation that discussed the shady “Clinton family.” While I am not a Hillary supporter, I’m still willing to defend her against ridiculous claims.
Breaking: Clinton pastor sentenced to 3 years prison for child molestation.
When the Rev. William Procanick put his hand on the Bible during his sex-abuse trial in Oneida County Court earlier this year, he swore to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
But as the former Clinton pastor was sentenced Friday to three years in prison for inappropriately touching a 7-year-old girl at his home last March, Judge Michael L. Dwyer said Procanick sacrificed his honesty the day he testified.
Are you kidding me? Is this true or is this an overanxious media rushing to report something? You decide.
Sean Hannity has called Obama’s church a “cult,” but that term applies far more aptly to Clinton’s “Family,” which is organized into “cells”–their term–and operates sex-segregated group homes for young people in northern Virginia. In 2002, Sharlet joined The Family’s home for young men, forswearing sex, drugs and alcohol, and participating in endless discussions of Jesus and power. He wasn’t undercover; he used his own name and admitted to being a writer. But he wasn’t completely out of danger either. When he went outdoors one night to make a cell phone call, he was followed. He still gets calls from Family associates asking him to meet them in diners–alone.
Should we really be examining every presidential candidate’s pastor? Or is there an insanity to this process? And what the hell is with that Nation story, you have to read it to believe it.
That was the bold headline on a bright lit television screen behind Anderson Cooper tonight on CNN. It was about Barack Obama’s recent comments to a reporter discussing his white grandmother’s reaction to African Americans in her time:
“The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn’t. But she’s a typical white person who — if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn’t know — there’s a reaction that’s been bred into our experiences that don’t go away, and that sometimes come out in the wrong way, and that’s just the nature of race in our society. We have to break through it. And what makes me optimistic is you see each generation feeling a little less like that.”
Here is my problem: does anyone really believe that Barack Obama is a racist? Because if you believe that, you’re simply ridiculous. It astounds me that people are incapable of looking at things in a broader context; how can we ignore that there still are racial biases in our society? And what harm does it do for a presidential candidate to not only be cognizant of those biases but raise the dialogue? Obama’s comments addressed his own grandmother’s attitudes, and though they were untactful, they were just. The fact that so many bloggers and talk show hosts can’t grapple with this reality suggests to me that they are either childish or possess ulterior motives to derail the Obama campaign.
But worse to me is the media coverage on the 24 hour news networks. CNN, MSNBC and Fox (<-to the LARGEST extent) have used the Rev. Wright story, and subsequent remarks by Senator Obama as fodder for either promoting a conservative agenda (in the case of Fox) or continuing controversy for the sake of politics (CNN, MSNBC).
This kind of baiting is wrong in an election where we should be discussing the issues. Networks want to discuss the horse race and we want to discuss the problems we face as a nation.
Had Sen. Obama explicitly said, ‘I am a racist’ then certainly the discussion should be about his personal moral character. But to run continuous loops of Rev. Wright’s sermons, gaffes, and “analysis” from otherwise biased persons does not serve journalistic integrity. The media is a self-fulfilling prophecy in this regard; they ask, ‘how will the media cover this story and what impact will it have on the campaign?’… well you tell me.
Honesty is dead; it’s all about reporting stories first, and obtaining the highest viewership. If you’re enlightened enough to realize this congratulations, you’re among the few who aren’t complacent to the dictates of the 24 hour news media nor their corporate masters.
Know that I’m not anti-media, I’m anti-constant punditry and horse-race coverage.
Update: Check out Chris Wallace, host of Fox News Sunday, talking about FOX’s “Obama bashing” this morning:
Senator Obama delivered yesterday a speech that was among the best of his political career. In a forceful, yet graceful and calm demeanor, he eloquently defined the problems associated with race in the U.S.
He spoke to a wide array of racial groups-white, black and brown- and addressed the need to come together to achieve fundamental change. Most significantly, he elaborated on how we all have a stake in each other, how we all, despite our heritage, have a reason to feel cheated, left out, or underrepresented. He spoke those feelings, while at the same time urged us to think differently about our politics and reconsider the issues that exist below the surface. A truly magnificent speech. Outstanding.
“A More Perfect Union” – Philadelphia, PA, Tuesday, March 18, 2006
Reactions:
Scout Finch from DailyKos: “This speech is amazingly honest and will hopefully spark a long overdue discussion on race in America. We’ll see if it is enough to blunt to criticism of his relationship with Reverend Wright. I think he’s done a spectacular job thus far of denouncing specific remarks by Reverend Wright, while still standing steadfastly by him and his community.”
Andrew Sullivan: “Alas, I cannot give a more considered response right now as I have to get on the road. But I do want to say that this searing, nuanced, gut-wrenching, loyal, and deeply, deeply Christian speech is the most honest speech on race in America in my adult lifetime. It is a speech we have all been waiting for for a generation. Its ability to embrace both the legitimate fears and resentments of whites and the understandable anger and dashed hopes of many blacks was, in my view, unique in recent American history… I have never felt more convinced that this man’s candidacy – not this man, his candidacy – and what he can bring us to achieve – is an historic opportunity.”
Marc Ambinder: “I do think that Obama’s speech was a marvel of contemporary political rhetoric. Politically, analytically and emotively, it hit many high notes. His acknowledgment of white working class resentments (busing) and about the perception that there’s been no racial progress, his willingness to stick by his friends, his grasp of history, his sense that our views of race are cramped and caricatured… all of that is something that even those who disagree with the substance of his speech, can, I think, appreciate.”
Barack Obama will deliver a “major speech” on race and society tomorrow in Philadelphia.
After everything that has erupted in the past week regarding comments made by spiritual adviser and pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright, this is an appropriate step by his campaign.
As of right now the political implications of Rev. Wright’s comments are not known. I can say that 1) the length between now and the Apr. 22 primary gives Obama a lot of time to calm the issue, and 2) the speech, if delivered well with media attention can fizzle down tempers. What Rev. Wright said is explosive, but we need to let it sit with the public for a week or so before we can gauge the extent to which this has damaged his campaign.
My guess is that this whole Rev. Wright thing will appear in those Obama smear emails. By the time the general election rolls around, the only people discussing this issue will be the same people who believe he’s a Muslim.
MSNBC tonight decided to really hammer away at Obama’s connections with his Pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Rev. Wright made some inflamatory remarks during some of his sermons that were caught on tape and surfaced in the media.
But I’m not going to delve into that insofar as to say that I believe Obama when he says he wasn’t in the pew when those comments were made. And even if he had been- there is no reason for him to be guilty by association. It’s his church, and he can’t be held accountable for every remark made by his pastor.
I honor the following statement issued by Sen. Obama to the Huffington Post:
Most importantly, Rev. Wright preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my life. In other words, he has never been my political advisor; he’s been my pastor. And the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor, and to seek justice at every turn.
I am more stunned by the horserace aspect to all of this. CNN did not cover the Rev. Wright thing today, and it didn’t appear in the Huffington Post until Obama issued a statement regarding the matter. Political Wire didn’t post a story about it, nor did Drudge pick it up. It fell completely under my radar, and I’m a political junkie, until about 7:00 PM when Chris Matthews spent the duration of his show talking about how Obama should respond.
My bottom line: MSNBC picked this story up and tried to blow it into something more than it was. The Obama campaign responded with a short piece in the Huffington Post, an appearance on MSNBC with Keith Olberman, and Rev. Wright voluntarily left the Obama campaign.
I just think it’s better to be “swift boated” now 6 weeks before Pennsylvania than 3 days before the PA Primary or even a week before the November election. Thank goodness. That’s why I’m both pissed off and relieved with NBC News.
Could this be true? In a press conference she had with reporters a week ago, CBS reports:
“I think you’ll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say,” she said. “He’s never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.” Clinton was referring to Obama’s anti-war speech he delivered in Chicago before entering the United States Senate.
But what if Obama wins the nomination? She’d be in an awkward position; she is explicitly, in no uncertain terms, saying Obama only offers a speech and only her and Senator McCain offer real experience.
First of all, the merits of her “experience” are questionable. But beyond that I think this conversation needs to stay civil. I am so disappointed that this campaign has devolved into ‘kitchen sink’ mudslinging. Worse, I hate how we have two excellent Democratic candidates, and one is saying essentially that the Republican is more merited to be president than her viable primary challenger. Who would Hillary vote for if she loses? McCain?
I’ll let Keith Olberman express my frustration. There were more developments to this story yesterday that Keith outlines. Basically, Clinton held a press conference and once again emphasized her and John McCain’s national security credentials.
Hillary Clinton has launched two new websites that directly attack Senator Obama, votingpresent.com, and votingpresent.org.
The websites are intended to bring attention to Obama’s “present” votes in the Illinois State Senate. Explains the Huffington Post:
In 1999, Barack Obama was faced with a difficult vote in the Illinois legislature — to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults, a position that risked drawing fire from African-Americans, or to oppose it, possibly undermining his image as a tough-on-crime moderate.
In the end, Mr. Obama chose neither to vote for nor against the bill. He voted “present,” effectively sidestepping the issue, an option he invoked nearly 130 times as a state senator.
The reality is this should be a non-issue. Voting “present” is a tradition in the Illinois State Senate, and Senator Obama only voted “present” less than 3% of the time. The Clinton campaign is going negative because of declining poll numbers and are willing to attack anything they can to prevent a loss to Sen. Obama.
This will without a doubt be a close race. Current projections put Tennessee in Republican Bob Corker’s column however his lead is slim (within the margin of error in fact). A current Rasmussen poll puts Corker at 47% and Ford at 45%. Unfortunately, the tricky part about polling is that you never know which poll is most accurate; some have Ford ahead by as much as 9 points, others have Corker demonstrating the same lead. The brunt of these polling results has been in the middle, with Ford and Corker between 3 to 5 percent of one another. Indeed, Tennessee is actually in play for the Democrats, and some are asking, “How?”
First consider the State of Tennessee and than the candidates’ stances on the issues. Corker is a traditional conservative with basic values that match Tennessee’s conservative culture. Likewise, Ford is a conservative Democrat with conservative social positions and liberal economic ones. It has only been through his centrist campaign that he has been able to appeal to Tennessee voters (lets admit that a traditional liberal couldn’t otherwise win in Tennessee). I was watching CNN the other night and Ford appeared on the Situation Room to defend his campaign. While listening to him I wouldn’t have otherwise known he was a Democrat had the little “(D)” not appeared on the bottom of the screen. Ford discussed how he uses his faith to guide his personal beliefs and morals. As a result, he’s against gay marriage, euthanasia and “after witnessing something several years ago” partial birth/late term abortion. He even went as far to say he was a “follower of Jesus”; something that would be shunned in any liberal culture but is respected in Tennessee.
I do wonder how he would be as a U.S. Senator? How would a Democrat from a fiercely Republican state vote on the Senate floor? I mean if the Democrats do regain control of both houses, would they be able to count on Ford’s vote when pushing their agenda? It’s an interesting question- and it further fascinates me that just six years ago he contested Nancy Pelosi for the House Democratic Minority position. I suppose he is loyal to his party, and if anything he would be a centrist, independent voice in the U.S. Senate
Interestingly, Corker is refusing to debate him. In a Corker press conference just a few weeks ago Ford showed up and challenged his opponent to a debate. Many in Tennessee criticized him for “unstatesman-like” activity, but you know what, he has balls and I praise him for doing something so gutsy. It is stupid for Corker’s campaign not to agree to a debate; what do they want to accomplish? Deny the voter the opportunity to hear two people in a forum of open ideas? Not draw the distinctions between the two candidates? Perhaps Corker’s campaign is compensating for Corker being weak on the issues. After all, it doesn’t even make strategic sense. In Pennsylvania, Casey isn’t debating Santorum because Casey has nothing to gain (he’s up 9-15%). Corker is neck and neck- and in an election you should be willing to do anything to get elected. How dare the Republicans pounce on Ford’s character? How dare they distract voters from the issues? Tennessee ladies and gentleman: a state where Corker wants to spew smack, and Ford wants to talk to issues.
“New Race Problem”
