Earlier today, Paul noted the hollowness of Barack Obama’s defense of his failure to do anything–for twenty years!–to distance himself from Jeremiah Wright’s hate speech:
Had the reverend not retired, and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn’t have felt comfortable staying at the church.
The additional point that should be made is that Obama’s claim that Wright has “acknowledged that what he had said…were inappropriate” is simply false. Wright has done no such thing. It’s too early to say that the bloom is off the Obama rose, but even the Associated Press felt constrained to point out his misrepresentation in an article titled “Obama Suggests Ex-pastor Is Contrite”:
Democrat Barack Obama seemed to suggest in an interview aired Friday that his former pastor has acknowledged that his controversial remarks were inappropriate and hurtful, although there are no public accounts of the minister having done so.
Obama’s campaign responded by denying that Obama said what he said:
Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the senator’s remarks did not imply that Wright has expressed misgivings about his statements.
“Sen. Obama was clearly saying that were Rev. Wright not retiring, he would need to be assured that the reverend understood why what he had said had deeply offended people and mischaracterized the greatness of this country,” Burton said.
This kind of bald-faced prevarication works as long as pretty much all reporters are willing to cover for a candidate. So far, that’s been the case with Obama; perhaps no longer.
PAUL adds: I should say that I understood Obama’s statement as his spokesman interprets it. Not because it’s the best reading of Obama’s words (it isn’t) but because it’s so clear that Wright hasn’t done what Obama’s grammar seems to have him doing.