I'm Shocked

Who would have imagined that a substantial factual error would work its way into Bill Kristol's latest Obama-bashing column? It's almost as if Kristol's a hatchet-man rather than a real journalist.

UPDATE: Note that as of 10:15 AM eastern time, Kristol's column is still featured on the front page of NYTimes.com and there's no correction. Marc Ambinder's item above pointing out the error has circulated all throughout the internet already -- surely the Times could decide to stop misleading its readers.

Comments

No one could have foreseen...

Posted by low-tech cyclist | March 17, 2008 9:31 AM

Of course, the fact that it is not factual is irrelevant, as he will probably never write a correction, it remains in print, and will be believed by many people.

Posted by john | March 17, 2008 9:37 AM

The guy should be absolutely crucified for that. What a hack.

Posted by Jake | March 17, 2008 9:38 AM

I know it's hard to resist employing the latest blogger jargon or catchphrases du jour, but can we please ease up on the use of "I'm shocked"? It's getting really old.

Posted by tinisoli | March 17, 2008 9:48 AM

I know it's hard to resist employing the latest blogger jargon or catchphrases du jour, but can we please ease up on the use of "I'm shocked"? It's getting really old.

-Knock knock
-Who's there?
-Unlike
-Unlike who?
-Unlike "It's getting really old."

Give a man a fish, and he'll have smelly hands du jour.

etc.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 17, 2008 9:53 AM

More data will emerge. If it's not the July 22 sermon, more information will pop out. Those skeletons are packed three-deep in Obama's closet.

Posted by Americaneocon | March 17, 2008 10:00 AM

The error is in trusting the source without checking.

Does anyone believe that Kristol cares whether or not he's caught lying?

Posted by Jemand von Niemand | March 17, 2008 10:01 AM

More data will emerge. If it's not the July 22 sermon, more information will pop out. Those skeletons are packed three-deep in Obama's closet.

What's the bottom of the barrel smell like?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 17, 2008 10:11 AM

Maybe it will end up being a good thing that the right (or the Clintons) find all they can possibly dig up & throw at Obama and he still beats them so they can finally shut up about it.

Posted by El Cid | March 17, 2008 10:15 AM

People are still proud to be neocons??

Posted by Monster | March 17, 2008 10:16 AM

Is there any reason to think that Bill Kristol is even capable of objectivity and journalistic integrity?

The Weekly Standard aside, how could the NYT give someone involved in PNAC this sort of lisence? Probably to placate accusations of bias. He's also a foreign policy advisor for McCain.

Seriously? Isn't this just free advertising for McCain's campaign - and back-handed smearing?

Posted by socctty | March 17, 2008 10:17 AM

Here's the deal: Bill Kristol's not a blogger, and as far as the NY Times knows, he doesn't write his columns while wearing pajamas. So he can get away with saying whatever trash he wants.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | March 17, 2008 10:20 AM

wrt the update: i'm not sure that matthew grasps that the leadership of the nytimes is not in the slightest attuned to internet culture. they'll get around to correcting it in print, the normal way, days from now....

Posted by howard | March 17, 2008 10:26 AM

This whole wright thing always seemed to me to be a Neocon hit job and thats what it is now. Nytimes has truly sank to the gutter.

Posted by Kelly Pierce | March 17, 2008 10:27 AM

I, for one, am shocked to learn that some black people in America are angry about white hegemony.

Posted by Spike | March 17, 2008 10:33 AM

Kristol claims that Ronald Kessler reported that Obama was in the pews of Trinity of July 22nd. So it's not factually inaccurate to report that another journalist reported something.

Posted by Tim K | March 17, 2008 10:35 AM

Frankly, although the factual inaccuracy is glaring, I thought the more disturbing pattern throughout Kristol's column was his condescending attitude towards young voters who support Obama.

Calling us the 9/11 Generation? No thanks. I don't know a single young person who thinks one terrible Tuesday morning defines us as a generation. Yet another neo-con trick to keep us all afraid...very afraid!

Posted by DSG | March 17, 2008 10:38 AM

Isn't the real news that Kristol is citing Newsmax? Yikes.

I suppose that is Kristol and Kessler wanted to dispute the Obama campaign's claim, they could easily say that Obama may have simply gone to church in the morning and then flew down to Miami after church. He said/he said, which precludes it from being a "factual error".

Posted by Al | March 17, 2008 10:39 AM

It's a weird column - was listening to CSPAN radio yesterday, and they were replaying the Sunday talk shows. Kristol was on Fox basically saying that this Obama/Wright thing was no big deal. I guess he had an afternoon revelation.

And look at Tim K, up early and shilling for Kristol.

Just more evidence that truth and facts hurt Hillary.

Posted by SoCalJustice | March 17, 2008 10:40 AM

Should add to the above: it could be he said/he said if the timing works - i.e., church, flight, Miami speech. We need a tick-tock!

Posted by Al | March 17, 2008 10:44 AM

Tim k:

Kristol claims that Ronald Kessler reported that Obama was in the pews of Trinity of July 22nd. So it's not factually inaccurate to report that another journalist reported something.

Uh...yeah, if Kristol wants to use the same standards as tabloid journalists.

Posted by AKBY | March 17, 2008 10:45 AM

I'm not sure who one would call to ask for a correction -- the editorial page editor, perhaps,
but here's the NYT's switchboard number:

[phone]

Posted by Suze | March 17, 2008 10:46 AM

Using an upstream planted source as cover for misleading stories IS the evil Republican playbook. And the usual cooperating evil partner in their shenanigans? The New York Farkin' Times.

Plus ça change and all that.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 17, 2008 10:46 AM

Al:

It's been well established that Obama was not, could not, be present at Trinity that morning.

No need to inject more hypotheticals.

Kristol just plainly wrong here.

Posted by AKBY | March 17, 2008 10:48 AM

It's been well established that Obama was not, could not, be present at Trinity that morning.

How so?

Posted by Al | March 17, 2008 10:50 AM

Well, look. Obama's been attending Rev. Wright's church for around twenty years, and Wright's been (arguably) the single most influential individual in Obama's life during most of that period.

We already know that Rev. Wright claims that the CIA created AIDS in order to exterminate black people. Maybe that's really true, but I'm personally pretty skeptical about that particular claim.

Anyone want to lay odds that Wright hasn't said lots of other "really interesting things" in his 1000s of sermons over those couple of decades? And remember, the full set of his sermons have been on sale at his personal website and someone said that FoxNews bought a complete set.

I think the "Macacca" effect can cut both ways...

Posted by RKU | March 17, 2008 10:56 AM

"Who would have imagined that a substantial factual error would work its way into..."--the New York Times? Really? I'm shocked too, Matt. Shocked.

Anyway, nice catch-and-release.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 17, 2008 11:00 AM

Might be fun.

Grudge Match:

Republican Great Depression II

versus

Obama's Crazy Preacher

I feel pretty good about those odds.

Posted by El Cid | March 17, 2008 11:00 AM

Does it matter if Obama was there on July 22? How many times has he been to services since then? Wright has been his spiritual advisor for years, he performed the Obama's wedding. This is not a political ally, not someone that he can distance himself from with any credibility. Quick, blame Hillary.

Posted by phg | March 17, 2008 11:03 AM

"I'm shocked" is stale no doubt, but it's closer to the mark than several other blogs, like Josh Marshall's, which treat Kristol as if they'd caught him with his pants down. GOP sliming does not work that way. Kristol may even admit error another day, or the paper may force him to, but that'd be all fine with him, too. When it comes down to it, for all the agony of how Kerry did or did not respond, the media were quite willing to correct the swift-boat ad, even while further disseminating the "controversy." The point is to get it out there and to get people talking. Come a month, and people will be taking it for fact.

Posted by John Haber | March 17, 2008 11:03 AM

Well, look. Obama's been attending Rev. Wright's church for around twenty years, and Wright's been (arguably) the single most influential individual in Obama's life during most of that period.

Oh please, this is nonsense. What are you possibly basing his importance on? The fact that one of Obama's books is named after one of his sermons. Have you bothered to actually read that sermon? Because it's nothing at all like the snippets circulating the MSM.

I would suggest that neither the Reverend Wright nor Obama is anywhere near as simple a person as you'd like to believe.

Posted by Jake | March 17, 2008 11:04 AM

Let's say Obama attended church in the morning in Chicago, he leaves church at 10 am, boards a plane at 11 am that puts him in Miami 3 pm.
But somehow he delivers as speech at the La Raza Convention in Miami at 1:00 pm.
Obama is Desmond.

Posted by bjd | March 17, 2008 11:05 AM

Put me down for twenty bucks on the Crazy Preacher. What did he say anyway? That America is run by rich White people?

God, the horror....

Posted by Robert Powell | March 17, 2008 11:08 AM

Love the whole Wright thing, as it kills the "Obama might be a Muslim" meme dead dead dead. Republicans are not going to play the "your preacher says crazy shit" game, because they know they will lose. First, because Wright is stone cold sober compared to say, Hagee, and second because the base doesn't respond well to attacking preachers. That's why McCain has been so silent on this one.

This only skeeves out Dems because so many Dems are uncomfortable inside a church. Anyone who is comfortable inside a Church is accustomed to hearing the occasional batshit crazy thing flying around (see MJ at TPMCafe about his rabbi).

Posted by nolaboyd | March 17, 2008 11:09 AM

I sent in a correction to the Times last week when it ran a factually incorrect statement by Harold Ickes regarding the states that Obama has won. No correction has been run, and I have not received any follow-up e-mail explaining why.

Posted by Brian | March 17, 2008 11:17 AM

Brian - It's the same news org that bumbled the "Al Gore invented the internet" line.

Posted by soc | March 17, 2008 11:22 AM

Newsmax has now issued a "clarification". Now Davis is saying he knows for sure he saw Obama there "during the month of July".

http://newsmax.com/kessler/Obama_hat%20e_America_sermon/2008/03/16/80870.html?s=al&promo_code=9990-1

Posted by AKBY | March 17, 2008 11:24 AM

Facts as I've found them:
-Original Newsmax article published Aug 2007 claims Obama was at the 11:30 AM (Central time) session
-He spoke at 1:30 PM (Eastern time) in Miami at the Raza.
-Time elapsed, 3 hours because of time zone switch.
-Distance from Chicago to Miami 1190 miles
-Maximum cruising speed of Gulfstream II jet ~585 mph
-Minimum flight time 2 hours, likely time longer.
-Mapquest directions from Trinity church to O'hare airport, 39 minutes
-Time left for Obama to hear sermon, emplane, deplane, drive to Raza ~21 minutes.

No way.

Posted by Njorl | March 17, 2008 11:25 AM

Grudge Match:

Republican Great Depression II versus Obama's Crazy Preacher.

I feel pretty good about those odds.

Except that Obama's entire campaign has been built around his *non-populist* economic program, as Petey, Bruce Webb, and others have repeatedly emphasized. Obama's appeal was mostly one of "racial transcendence".

Also, he lives in a huge Chicago mansion largely bought for him by a crook headed for prison. And his wife earns $300K/year basically for her "connections". Pretty nice life if you can get it.

Offhand, this arguably sounds less appealing to (non-black) working-class voters than a decorated war-hero like McCain's having married into the family of a rich beer-distributor thirty-odd years ago. Lots of workering-class voters drink beer.

Edwards would have been a much better choice....

Posted by RKU | March 17, 2008 11:27 AM

bjd - We know that the sky became purple at the same time Desmond acquired his time-travelling capabilities. Hmmm, it seems to fit...

Posted by nbt | March 17, 2008 11:29 AM

But then who's Obama's Constant?!?! LOL

Posted by kj1313 | March 17, 2008 11:33 AM

RKU, does your mother know you posted lie after lie after lie in rapid succession? Didn't she tell you specifically not to do that when you were growing up?

Seriously, man, what just got into you?

he lives in a huge Chicago mansion largely bought for him

That's a lie, he bought it himself.

And his wife earns $300K/year basically for her "connections

That's a lie, unless you're claiming that this is out of range for Harvard-educated lawyers in private practice.

You LIED TO ME. Cut it out.

Posted by Tyro | March 17, 2008 11:34 AM

Njorl - Nice analysis, except 11:30 CST is 12:30 CST. That leaves only 1 hour (not 3 hours) between the two events.
So your correct conclusion should be "No f'in way".

Posted by nbt | March 17, 2008 11:36 AM

Njorl - Nice analysis, except 11:30 CST is 12:30 EST. That leaves only 1 hour (not 3 hours) between the two events.
So your correct conclusion should be "No f'in way".

Posted by nbt | March 17, 2008 11:36 AM

Nice catch nbt. My mistake was assuming that the right wingers claimed the nearly impossible was true, rather than the completely impossible. How foolish of me.

Posted by Njorl | March 17, 2008 11:40 AM

nbt and kj1313 ,
The Color Purple in Chicago suggest to me that Oprah is the constant.

Posted by bjd | March 17, 2008 11:40 AM

Except that Obama's entire campaign has been built around his *non-populist* economic program, as Petey, Bruce Webb, and others have repeatedly emphasized. Obama's appeal was mostly one of "racial transcendence".

Obama's policy platform is virtually identical to Clinton's. If he needs to adjust his rhetoric towards economic populism, he can, easily.

Also, he lives in a huge Chicago mansion largely bought for him by a crook headed for prison.

Nope. See the Chicago papers on this. The Rezko story is going nowhere.

Posted by Brendan | March 17, 2008 11:45 AM

Tyro:

Well, look. As far as I can tell from the stories in the media, Obama *couldn't* afford the huge mansion together with its grounds. So his friend Rezko helped him out by buying the grounds at the asking price ON THE SAME DAY that Obama bought the mansion at hundreds of thousands *below* the asking price. That way, Obama got use of the mansion and its grounds at about $1M less than the price. It seems an awful lot like the Duke Cunningham deals that landed him in the big slammer. Bruce Webb, who apparently knows real estate pretty well, had a good analysis a few months back.

And didn't Obama's wife---whose job is as a "community liaison" or something---have her salary *tripled* to $300K/year immediately after Obama got elected to the Senate. Nice coincidence.

Also, she apparently flunked her bar exam, and isn't currently doing "private practice" legal work, so I'm not sure just how great a legal mind she really has, Harvard Law School or not.

Posted by RKU | March 17, 2008 11:50 AM

Kristol needs to be fired. Period. Absolutely inexcusable. Anyone who continues to give him any forum whatsover shames themeself.

Posted by jduffy | March 17, 2008 11:52 AM

What makes this particular fact checking error so outrageous is that Kristol was quoting Kessler who was referencing Davis.

A statement third removed going unchecked?

To say this is sloppy is a gross understatement.

Posted by AKBY | March 17, 2008 12:02 PM

RKU - Well, she worked at Sidley Austin in Chicago for a few years. That's solid.
Her choice not to work in private practice any longer (I gather that she doesn't really "practice law" in her current job for the university) has little bearing on her intelligence.

I can't find anything on google about Michelle flunking her bar exam. However, we all know that Hillary flunked hers!

Posted by nbt | March 17, 2008 12:04 PM

Except that Obama's entire campaign has been built around his *non-populist* economic program, as Petey, Bruce Webb, and others have repeatedly emphasized. Obama's appeal was mostly one of "racial transcendence".

That may matter in primary fights, and of course the Republicans may try to make their most of it.

By the time of the general election, it may look a lot more like a good old fashioned choice between more of the Republican same and a Democrat, any Democrat, escape clause please.

Posted by El Cid | March 17, 2008 12:08 PM

You know, criticizing people for not passing the bar on the first try is really a low blow. Happens to plenty of people, and I can't get motivated to hold it against them. Seriously, why do people stay stuff like this to my face and expect me to get outraged about it?

I suspect that the people repeating these talking points exchange them within their tight circle of friends, whip themselves into a frenzy over it, and then somehow expect that the outside world of normal people will act with the same unhinged indignation that they've whipped themselves into. Sorry, RKU, but I'm not part of the "anti-Obama outrage cricle jerk," so you're talking points are not only dishonest, but they don't really have any emotional resonance to the outside world.

Posted by Tyro | March 17, 2008 12:16 PM

RKU,

I went to the Illinois State Bar website to see if she's even listed. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like the Illinois State Bar have a database that provides information on when the person became a member of the bar. Regardless, there are many attorneys who no longer practice law. Markos Moulitsas is one of them. So that doesn't prove anything. She use to work at Sidley Austin which is a prestigious law firm in Chicago. I think that she use to do intellectual property, which is nothing to sneeze at. The only way she can have her license revoked is by not taking a sufficient number of continuing legal education courses per year.

Posted by Micheline | March 17, 2008 12:18 PM

Obama needlessly painted himself into a corner by claiming he never heard anything "controversial" in his 20+ years of association with Wright. He's in big trouble.

Take a look at this excerpt from website of the church Obama gave $22,500 to in 2006:

“Disavowal of the Pursuit of ‘Middleclassness.’ Classic methodology on control of captives teaches that captors must be able to identify the ‘talented tenth’ of those subjugated, especially those who show promise of providing the kind of leadership that might threaten the captor’s control.

“Those so identified are separated from the rest of the people by:

"1. Killing them off directly, and/or fostering a social system that encourages them to kill off one another."

Wright is an exhibitionist and you shouldn't trust him as being fully committed to getting Obama elected. Wright might well prefer to go down in the history books as the 2008 Willie Horton who proved a black man still can't get elected President.

Posted by Steve Sailer | March 17, 2008 12:21 PM

Steve Sailer, why don't you try to get a job as a public "racial issues" spokesman for one of the competing Presidential campaigns? I'm sure you would be a wonderful asset.

Posted by Barbar | March 17, 2008 12:25 PM

Steve Sailer and Bill Kristol - together again.

Thank you, Senator Obama. I was hoping Obama would be able to bring most Americans together, but if the only people really hating it during an Obama presidency are the Paleocons, the Neocons, and Tim K, that ain't all bad.

Posted by SoCalJustice | March 17, 2008 12:27 PM

Barbar,

Thanks! I was going to say the same about Steve Sailer myself. Do really make money (in the mold of Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity) saying the things you do?

Posted by DJ | March 17, 2008 12:29 PM

The NYT now (Mar 17 11:30:21 CDT 2008) has a correction at the top of Kristol's column. Someone is awake and checking the intertubes there.

Posted by John P | March 17, 2008 12:31 PM

Yes, that (now retired but still very energetic) Rev. Wright really seems like something of an real exhibitionist. Kind of like the way he decided to give Farrakhan his "Lifetime Achievement Award" soon Obama launched his presidential campaign.

I wonder if he'll end up going on FoxNews weekly during the whole campaign, arguing that the biggest reason all Americans should vote for Obama is so that Barack can then order the CIA to *stop* spreading AIDS throughout the black community!

Posted by RKU | March 17, 2008 12:35 PM

This is in response to RKU's insidious comments earlier in the thread...

If you google Michelle Obama, the University of Chicago has a nice summary bio of Michelle Obama that includes a education, private practice and non-profot experience.

You know it's not a bad bio at all. In fact (and this only a half-snark) think about it:

Obama manages to make it to the White House and is there till 2016. Perhaps Durbin will be ready to retire, in which case Michelle wins the relatively safe (for Democrats) Illiois senate seat. By 2024, she will be thoroughly vetted, she would have taken everything the repugs would have thrown at her, she will have 35+ years of life "experience" and be ready to answer the phone at all hours of the night etc.

Like I said I'm only half-joking...

Posted by DJ | March 17, 2008 12:38 PM

"Obama needlessly painted himself into a corner by claiming he never heard anything "controversial" in his 20+ years of association with Wright. He's in big trouble."

That's the salient point most here chose to ignore. Even if Kristol was wrong about Obama being at Wright's church on one particular day, what are the odds that Wright never said something similar on the thousands of Sundays Obama spent in that church? Zero.

Posted by Fred | March 17, 2008 12:42 PM

RKU and Steve Sailer are mad dog racists. Hard to know who is the most sickening.

Posted by Jennifer | March 17, 2008 12:46 PM

Michelle Obama did succeed in passing the Illinois bar exam, probably on the second try. For details on Michelle's problematic relationship with affirmative action:

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/080225_michelle_obama.htm

Posted by Steve Sailer | March 17, 2008 12:52 PM

One thing that the reporting by Jim Davis in Newsmax makes me think of is the much derided journalist storyline in the final season of The Wire.

Matt, do you still think it's unbelievable that a journalist would make up facts to get his story and byline greater publicity?

Posted by Joe | March 17, 2008 12:58 PM

Clearly Kristol is trying to spin this for all its worth.

Obama and his advisers aren't stupid and I think you will find that they have been very careful about the line they have taken. Obama's denials were with respect to some very particular statements that were doing the rounds. They will have taken a position on the basis of those statements and I would be surprised if anyone can show that Obama was listening to those statements.

So Wright comes in a long and honourable line of radical preachers. Has this country become so intimidated and crushed that it can't tolerate some scandalous rhetoric in sermons without launching a witch hunt? Big deal if Obama listened to some polemics from his preacher without stamping out of the congregation.

Anyhow as Kristol himself points out, where Obama was at that point, this kind of rhetoric made a certain kind of sense. That is real whole point of Obama is that he doesn't come from the stereotypical elitist background, why he is an authentic representative of the American Dream.

Posted by Chris Dornan | March 17, 2008 1:02 PM

"RKU...mad dog racists."

Yes, indeed!!!

Similarly, I think Obama lost the white Democratic vote in the most recent primary by about FIFTY (!) points.

Fortunately for him, everyone knows that over the last thirty years, nearly all of America's "racists" have shifted into the Democratic Party, and now especially dominate the primaries. So he'll have a really easy time winning all the non-hardcore Democrats who'll comprise the vast majority of the November electorate...

Posted by RKU | March 17, 2008 1:14 PM

The Times has issued a correction:
Correction

Posted by Mike P | March 17, 2008 1:19 PM

Steve Sailer: you can moan all you want about Affirmative Action but is their any doubt that both Barack and Michelle Obama are much more accomplished human beings than you’ll ever be (or in fairness, than I’ll ever be)?

What do you and I have to show for ourselves: a few blog posts and articles. The Obamas on the other hand are leading a major political movement, one that has already shifted American politics. Even if they lose, they have already made history. Let’s leave racial ideology to one side: doesn’t it demonstrate an essential pettiness of spirit, a meanness of the soul, not to acknowledge the real achievements of talented blacks like the Obamas.

Posted by Jeet Heer | March 17, 2008 2:06 PM

What a correction!

The Obama campaign "has provided information" that Kristol's imagination differs from reality.

Isn't it the job of the newspaper to not print items that IT cannot verify in advance rather than retract them AFTER some party forces acknowledgment of fact?

Posted by Jamesaust | March 17, 2008 2:07 PM

Even if Kristol was wrong about Obama being at Wright's church on one particular day, what are the odds that Wright never said something similar on the thousands of Sundays Obama spent in that church? Zero.

Translation: The Obama story is fake but accurate.

Posted by roy edroso | March 17, 2008 3:19 PM

So Obama doesn't go to church... I told ya he wasn't a Christian.

Posted by Tony Adams | March 17, 2008 3:25 PM

Put me down for twenty bucks on the Crazy Preacher. What did he say anyway? That America is run by rich White people?

God, the horror....

Share it, brother. This bullshit brouhaha almost makes me nostalgic for such manufactured outrages as the "War on Christmas".

In the long run, the assholes getting the vapors about Wright's remarks will be seen as one of Obama's secret strengths, in much the same way that Pete Wilson turned out to be an unintended Dem asset. So keep up the good work, Steve Sailer!

Posted by sglover | March 17, 2008 3:47 PM

Kristol's job is to launder columns from NewsMax directly into the NY Times, polishing them up just enough that people can take them seriously. Looks like he forgot to fact-check this time.

Posted by mq | March 17, 2008 6:35 PM

I have a question...has any other minister or pastor come out and criticized Wright for his sermons? I'm asking because I think nolaboyd makes a good point about people who don't attend church (e.g., journalists) freaking out about this. Or people who are freaking out about this don't like Obama anyway. If you took just the sound bites of the sermons from pastor's I've heard, the same "horror" would occur. For example, I've heard lines such as "the U.S. is an evil country" because we are gluttons, sex-crazed, etc. to "Al Gore is the anti-Christ." Same crap so frankly I'm with the bunch here who claims "crazy preacher." That's why I don't go to church.

Posted by Stephanie | March 17, 2008 9:15 PM

Fact is, Reverend J.A. Wright didn’t preach anything that professors all over America haven't taught for decades. Ward Churchill ring any bells? On the other hand, Hillary Clinton has had entire books written about her “spiritual life,” and even founded her own college – at which Ward Churchill did speak, at taxpayer expense – but neither she nor Bill Clinton attend church. Barack Obama puts forth that both the Rev. Wright, and Geraldine Ferraro’s ideologies were shaped by the 1960s – as were, I might add, the Clintons. Barack Obama threatens to drag the Democratic Party, kicking and screaming into the 21st Century. And, some dems don’t like it: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | March 17, 2008 9:43 PM

The things said in the sermon seem pretty factual - whats all the fuss about. There were African-American men dying in Iraq for a war started on lies - does any one doubt that?

Posted by bill | March 17, 2008 9:47 PM

Hillary Clinton founded her own college? Huh???

Posted by nbt | March 18, 2008 1:14 AM

The article appeared this morning in my local newspaper (which is owned by the NYT), without the correction.

Posted by anonymous | March 18, 2008 7:39 PM

Write to the local paper and to the NYT (I already wrote to the NYT) asking them to stop printing material by Kristol due to his repeated dishonesty.

Posted by Nathanael Nerode | March 23, 2008 9:08 PM