Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Keith Olbermann puts Hillary on blast!

Yeah, yeah, I know I’ve called him a jackass in the past. Not tonight.

Keith done did another one of his bombastic “Special Comments.” But this time – for the first time ever, supposedly – K.O. targeted a Democrat. And not just any ol’ Democrat. He clowned Hillary Rodham Clinton!

Using Geraldine Ferraro as a well-oiled springboard, Olbermann did a front one-and-a-half pike into the mud swamp of Team Hillary’s anything-goes Obama-bashing strategy.

He called out the Clinton campaign’s pattern of race-baiting – and Ferraro’s bullshit especially – with plain, sharp, angry language. (“... despicable... ugly... moronic... like a poison cloud...”)

Given how beloved Mr. Olbermann is by liberals, this “Special Comment” will definitely have an impact. Could it shift the momentum of the entire race? Like when Walter Cronkite declared the Vietnam War unwinnable?

(President Johnson reportedly said, “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost America.” Might Hillary Clinton be thinking tonight, “If I’ve lost Olbermann, I’ve lost the Democratic Party”?)

I predict... There Will Be Blowback. Because Hillary’s a fighter. She will punch back at Keith and/or MSNBC some kind of way... you watch.

In the meantime, watch this. And pass it around.

77 comments:

memomachine said...

Hmmmmm.

Might Hillary Clinton be thinking tonight, “If I’ve lost Olbermann, I’ve lost the Democratic Party”?

I seriously doubt it. KO is a bit of a twit.

However if KO really is the standard-bearer for Democrats, a la Cronkite, then ... ok I got nothing. I simply cannot envision such a thing.

DeAngelo Starnes said...

to memo's usual rhetoric
yawn ...

Dave, thanks for posting this piece. Olbermann really kicked ass. That really boiled down the point.

The shit the Billary campaign has been kicking has to be buried. It's time to ratch up the heat and pressure before they do a spin job that plays into Americans' tendency to acquire selective and collective amnesia.

I'm down.

Undercover Black Man said...

I seriously doubt it. KO is a bit of a twit.

The left-blogosphere loves him, memo. Loves. Him.

Watch and see the ripple effect.

SJ said...

How is what Ferrero said "racist"? I think Obama's race has been a boon to him in this race. If he was white nobody would even give a shit about him. There were much, much more qualified people running than him. A white guy couldn't run on this "change" rhetoric.

Same goes for Hillary though. Her gender has been a positive for her.

Andrew said...

Even if their is some small truth to what Ferraro said, it is still absolutely pointless to talk about because it's based only on unprovable conjecture. There's no way anybody can know for certain how Barack would be perceived if he were white, because well, he ain't white. This is one of those "If I had two wheels, I'd be a bicycle" situations. It might (but almost definitely isn't) be true, but it still doesn't mean a thing.

As for Olberman, I like him when he talks sports and occassionally enjoy his politics when he's being funny, but I too often can't keep a straight face when he's got his "serious face" on. Did he really have to use the Edward R. Murrow sign-off? That's just putting it up on a tee for those who dislike him.

Undercover Black Man said...

Same goes for Hillary though. Her gender has been a positive for her.

D-uh. You done answered your own question, SJ. What Ferraro said was racist because it was designed to diminish the man because of his race.

While at the same time, Hillary Clinton has consistently made direct appeals to women to vote for her because she is a woman. Let's "make history"... let's break the biggest "glass ceiling" of them all...

And there is no doubt that the extreme enthusiasm of Clinton's female supporters is entirely due to the fact that she has ovaries.

Yet if someone were to say flat-out that Hillary's "lucky to be a woman," otherwise she wouldn't be this close to the nomination... that would seem condescending and insulting, would it not?

The fact is: Obama has out-organized Hillary, he has out-strategized her, he has out-performed her on the stump. Those things have nothing to do with race. Voters have taken the measure of both candidates... and Obama has gotten more votes.

Obama has exactly as much Senate experience as John Edwards had when he ran for president four years ago. I don't remember anybody saying he was "lucky to be white"... even though he most certainly was.

Does that make it clearer?

Undercover Black Man said...

Did he really have to use the Edward R. Murrow sign-off?

He does that every night, Andrew. That's his signature. Yeah, I find it ridiculous.

But people seem to dig it!

dez said...

And there is no doubt that the extreme enthusiasm of Clinton's female supporters is entirely due to the fact that she has ovaries.


How often do I have to point out that we're not all like that, UBM? And how is that not a sexist statement? I ask in a matter-of-fact tone, btw, not a hysterical one :-)

Anonymous said...

First time I've ever seen KO' Special Comments feature.

Wow.

If I were doing the Sportcenter on this one? "Olbermann walks into the store, picks Hilary off the shelf, hit the register, swiped the credit card, it's APPROVED, signed the bill and even if he died the second after it's cool because HE OWNED HER."

By the way, did you catch Dan Abrams today? Pat Buchanan and the female black pundit he has on there got into it over Ferraro (with good old Patty defending Gerry.) He actually told her to shut up.

It's lucky he wasn't in the studio.

--jorge reyes

Undercover Black Man said...

^ Hey Jorge. You crack me up.

I didn't see Buchanan on Abrams, but he popped up on various MSNBC shows throughout the day... well, on Chris Matthews anyway... defending Gerry.

I think he's just instigatin'. How could he not love to see the liberal cult of identity politics devolve into cannibalism?

Colin said...

You 12 years old, sj? White guys run on "change" all the time. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton ran on change.

Klein had the best comment on the stupidity of the "if he was..." premise: http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=03&year=2008&base_name=what_if_1

And as umpteen people have said, if being a black feller was a political leg up, there would be a lot more of them in the Senate.

Undercover Black Man said...

And how is that not a sexist statement?

It's not a sexist statement, dez, because of Hillary's overt appeal to "vote for the woman."

If she makes an overt to women -- as women -- to vote for the woman, and they do so by large margins, then one can fairly observe that her success is due to a large degree to gender. (I'll retract the word "entirely.")

Obama doesn't make an overt appeal to vote for him because he's black... and it would be ridiculous of him to do so.

SJ said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

How is what Ferrero said "racist"? I think Obama's race has been a boon to him in this race. If he was white nobody would even give a shit about him.

Tell that to Caroline Kennedy.

BTW, UCB, I am so glad you posted this because if you hadn't, I was going to bring it to your attention. Not that I am a Keith Olbermann fan, (I don't even know who the hell he is) but he is a part of the MSM. Blogs are great, but they are niche driven.

SJ said...

"Obama has exactly as much Senate experience as John Edwards had when he ran for president four years ago. I don't remember anybody saying he was "lucky to be white"... even though he most certainly was."

Oh I agree. Usually being a white man is a big advantage (and will probably always be), but this race is different. What makes Obama or Hillary better than people like Joe Biden, Chris Dodd or John Edwards? Nothing. One could argue these people were even better qualified. But their race and gender has sort of elevated them to having a different appeal.

I will admit part of why I support Obama is his race. I find it exciting that a black man like him can do so well, and come so close to getting the nomination. I agree that Ferraro's comment was quite simplistic and is ignoring what Obama has done throughout the whole campaign.

And yeah, Hillary has made way too many direct appeals to women. Obama's strongest base is black people of course, but at the same time he has appealed to very large segments of the white population.

Anonymous said...

Not to be a fan wanker, but is the previous post from THE Jorje Reyes from LOST? (Which, next to the WIRE, is my fav. show.)

Undercover Black Man said...

^ You’re thinking about Jorge Garcia, who plays a character named Reyes.

But you should be impressed anyway. This is Jorge Reyes.

DeAngelo Starnes said...

sj, you can't be serious. How is what Ferraro said "racist?" Why was it necessary to attribute his race to his success then? Black people have always said race shouldn't be qualification to be president. And that's when they were fighting to break the good ol' boys club only to be told that experience, not race, is what really matters. But when a brotha is whuppin' ass, all of a sudden he's winning because of race because he lacks experience.

Now, how much experience did Bush running anything successfully before he became president? How much foreign policy experience did Reagan have before he became president?

In fact, name one person who was President of the United States before he got elected president of the United States whose name isn't Grover Cleveland or who didn't complete a term as president because ascended to the presidency from being vice president because the president he served under died while in office?

Kinda kills that experience argument, doesn't it?

Ferraro brought up Obama's race as an implication that he wouldn't be successful but for his race. So is that merely petty jealousy she was going off about?

Let's flip the script. Would an incompetent like our current President have gotten as far as he had if he was Black? What would you say if Powell had said Bush wouldn't have led him in the race to the nomination if he wasn't white with the last name "Bush?"

Admittedly, I have not necessarily been an Obama fan up to this point. But that's primarily because I liked other candidate's politics better and I thought he was too busy being a crossover candidate.

Re: crossover, proof's in the pudding. While he may be getting support from African Americans because of his race, he ain't winning solely because of that support. He's getting a lotta love from white voters, not because he's Black but because he represents, to most people, a change of business as usual while Hillary does.

White people don't vote for Black candidates who they think will be President of Black America. And that's the first assumption about any Black candidate. "Oh, he's a civil rights/affirmative action baby who will have his people's interests at heart first."

Being black ain't a boon. Ain't a white dude who would rather be black when (s)he's looking for a job or asking an investment.

As for Ferraro's speech to be called "unprovable conjecture," that statement misses the point. The bigger and better question to ask is why did she feel it important to connect Obama's race to his success?

It's one thing to say, America has come a long way when a Black candidate has led the popularity contest this deep into the race for the presidency due his getting a bulk of his support from white voters.

It's another to say, he's only leading because he's Black. Or he wouldn't be leading if he was white.

From my vantage point, being Black only gave one the benefit of the doubt when it came to hip hop or basketball.

I'm open to any proof one can offer to the contrary.

SJ said...

Ok I just found out that Ferraro said the same thing about Jesse Jackson back in '88. Seems like she does have some issues with race...

SJ said...

deangelo, you make some good points.

BUT, I'm comparing Obama not to Bush or Reagan, but to who his competition was for the race to the Democratic nomination. I find it funny how Obama and Hillary have been arguing over their "foreign policy experience" yet nobody even cared about people like Biden, Dodd or Richardson, people who have negotiated with tyrants like Milosevic and Saddam Hussein.

Granted, Obama's charisma is very appealing, but you have to admit that his race and background is part of the appeal.

Anonymous said...

Re: Jorge Reyes, yes, thanks for correcting me. As soon as I posted that comment, I realized I was wrong. But you hooked me up cuz I actually realized I like a lot of Jorge Reyes's stuff. So thanks!

And BTW, I couldn't figure out how to put Geraldine F's statement in quotes, so I don't want it to seem as if I was echoing her. I was just trying to point out, that what she said was contradictory to Caroline Kennedy's feelings toward Obama. The comparison that she makes between Obamam and her father, I found heartening, but not only that; there was an article in the NYTimes about how Kennedy was somehow indirectly responsible for Obama's father being able to come here to study in America. (I may be a sap, but it gave me chills when I read the piece.)

DeAngelo Starnes said...

sj, part of the appeal but not a boon. In fact, might become a burden once the sophisticated Roveians take over to try to get McCain or Hillary elected.

SJ said...

Hmm...Ferraro said that it's easier for a women in 2006:

By contrast, for all the excitement stirred by Mr. Obama, it is much less certain that an African-American could win a presidential election. Not as many blacks have been elected to prominent positions as women. Some high-profile black candidates — Harold Ford Jr., a Democrat running for the Senate in Tennessee, and Michael Steele, a Republican Senate candidate in Maryland — lost in November. And demographics might be an obstacle as well: black Americans are concentrated in about 25 states — typically blue ones, like New York and California. While black candidates cannot assume automatic support from black voters, they would at least provide a base. In states without big black populations, the candidate’s crossover appeal must be huge.

“All evidence is that a white female has an advantage over a black male — for reasons of our cultural heritage,” said the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, the civil rights leader who ran for president in 1984 and 1988. Still, he said, for African-American and female candidates, “It’s easier — emphatically so.”

Ms. Ferraro offered a similar sentiment. “I think it’s more realistic for a woman than it is for an African-American,” said Ms. Ferraro. “There is a certain amount of racism that exists in the United States — whether it’s conscious or not it’s true.”

“Women are 51 percent of the population,” she added.

Undercover Black Man said...

^ Well damn, SJ... she's cold busted then!

How'd you find that? That should be thrown in her face, post haste!

Two years ago, Ms. Ferraro says it's "more realistic" to envision a woman president before a black president... because of "racism."

Now... with a black candidate leading a woman... she says Obama's race is a decisive benefit? And women are more disadvantaged? Damn!

Michael Fisher said...

Racism is primarily practiced via deceptive language. Code words that any white person well understands. Black people tend to never be "experienced" enough or, alternatively they are "overqualified", or their lives are "extraordinary", etc. It's confusing to black people, but quite clear to whites. As far as I can tell, there is no single criticism which Ms. Clinton has directed at Obama which does not utilize these racist code words. It's quite sophisticated. It's like I'm back in Germany listening to the coded language Germans like to use when they speak about Jews in this day and age. It's disgusting.

Where were Gloria Steinem, Ferraro, and, yes, Ms. Clinton, when a truly historic figure, the FIRST BLACKWOMAN SENATOR EVER (whose seat Sen. Obama now occupies), Ms. Carol Mosley-Braun, ran for the democratic nomination for President? This Senator was marginalized and basically got laughed out of the process. Couldn’t find no Ferraro…, no Clinton.. no Steinem… where were they? On the moon?

Shucks. Who have white women been bloc voting for since they received the right to vote? Certainly not for Shirley Chisholm and certainly not Sen. Moseley-Braun.

When Ms. Mosley-Braun ran in 2004 she already had a full six year senator ship behind her PLUS she had been the ambassador to New Zealand for approx 2 years and previous to those post been a legislator in the Illinois House of Representatives. That is, she had more official government experience than either Ms. Clinton or Mr. Obama or, for that matter, Ms. Ferraro when Ms. Ferraro was chosen as the VP nominee.

If Ms. Ferraro, Ms. Clinton, and Ms. Steinem etc, were so committed to putting a woman up for the presidential nomination, why not Sen. Moseley-Braun who AT PRESENT still has more experience than Ms. Clinton? Thus the hypocrisy.

Clearly then this is not about fielding a woman, it is about fielding a WHITE woman.

SJ said...

An Obama supporter on a forum pointed out the link. It should be brought publicly but I think the story is done and nobody will really bring it up.

Mrglass said...

If you treat any attack against Obama as racist, what will you do if he wins the primary and gets pummeled by republicans? Those comments were very mild and to treat them as some kind of horrible hate crime won't help Obama in the long run.

"Obama doesn't make an overt appeal to vote for him because he's black... and it would be ridiculous of him to do so."

He has done so in the past, and he doesn't need to do it anymore because up to 80% of blacks are already voting for him.

Antonio said...

I like the speech, but Olbermann's so melodramatic it's hard for me to take him seriously.

cuz said...

Did anyone catch Hillary's apology before an audience of journalists from Black newspapers?
Clinton Apologizes - Huffington Post

Is this the "I'm sorry" with no consequences - Superdelegates, I'm not trying to destroy the party. I'm not a racist, so give me your vote? The spin was spun and left lingering to an advantage at this point, I can only believe it if she lost and felt the same way.

If this publishes the html tags, sorry. But you all know to start with the "http://www...."

neptune said...

Oh please, KO is a bloviator of the first order, a leftwing version of Rush L., similarly in love with the sound of his own voice. Trust me, not all "liberals" bow in his general direction.

Without a doubt, what that nutjob Ferraro said was way out of line but the Obamaites need to be careful about calling every criticism of their candidate "racist". That's going to get old real quick.

I think both sides, in some not-subtle-enough ways, are playing on their candidate's particular attributes that would make their election as POTUS historic. Ovaries, extra melanin, whatever. Just because someone doesn't point out that the emperor is naked doesn't mean that he's fully clothed, and just because the emperor wants to pretend that he isn't naked doesn't make everyone else blind.

memomachine said...

Hmmmmm.

More moments by Memo .... :)

1. "The left-blogosphere loves him, memo. Loves. Him."

Well there's certainly enough people on the Right who like Limbaugh.

No accounting for taste on either side of the aisle.

2. "But you should be impressed anyway. This is Jorge Reyes."

Very impressive. I haven't seen all of those works. But I have seen enough to know I like them a lot.

3. "How much foreign policy experience did Reagan have before he became president?"

Actually quite a bit. You have to remember that the economy of California is in the top 10, larger than many countries. This is why so many California governors have run for President.

4. "Racism is primarily practiced via deceptive language. Code words that any white person well understands. Black people tend to never be "experienced" enough or, alternatively they are "overqualified", or their lives are "extraordinary", etc. "

I hate to point this out but Obama *doesn't* have any executive experience. Sure John Edwards ran for President. But you'll notice he didn't win in 2004 and he isn't running any longer now in 2008.

There aren't any code words going on here. Nobody is winking or nodding while saying this. It's established fact.

As for Bush in 2000. I'll point out that this is why Bush selected *Cheney* as his VP. Because he didn't have the experience people thought he should have.

5. "Certainly not for Shirley Chisholm and certainly not Sen. Moseley-Braun."

Ummmm. Wasn't Moseley-Braun a bit of a fruitcake? I seem to remember her as a female Al Sharpton.

...

All kidding and teasing aside I genuinely like most of you guys and definitely respect all of you. But I think you're painting yourself into a situation that you're not going to like come Nov 2008.

In practical terms if you call "racism" too often or in situations, like this one, where there is no overt racism then you're going to weaken your candidate.

Additionally the simple fact is that Obama has only three things going for him:

A. He has charisma
B. He's black
C. He's very very vague in his speeches

That isn't going to take him all the way to the White House. Particularly since he hasn't been challenged enough in the primaries. Whether you like it or not the primary is there for a reason. Politics is, normally, a brutal Darwinian process where the weakest get shoved out.

These normal rules, so far, have been suspended for Obama but that doesn't mean that they always will. And so far Obama both hasn't shown an ability to deal with tough politics and hasn't been forced to do so. The reality is that Hillary has been handling Obama with kid gloves on and one arm tied behind her back. And it's entirely because he's black.

When it comes to the general election I seriously doubt McCain is going to be so nice. Without the necessary experience of a tough primary season it's anyones guess if Obama is going to be able to handle it.

Consider one of his recent advisors, Samantha Power. She resigned because of a statement to the British press. But did you know that she was an advocate of having the **US Army invade Israel**, occupy that country and force the Israelis, at gunpoint, to create a Palestinian state?

Have you ever heard anything quite so insane? And she was a major foreign policy advisor to Obama.

It's ok to like a candidate. But don't marry the guy. Make sure you see all the flaws as well as the good points. Otherwise it'll be very painful.

Undercover Black Man said...

Sure John Edwards ran for President. But you'll notice he didn't win in 2004 and he isn't running any longer now in 2008.

Memo, I respect you as well, and look forward to your comments. BUT...

... dude, the point is, how often was an issue made of Edwards's inexperience during the 2004 campaign?

More importantly, the "experience" standard was so insufficiently probative... Edwards was put on the ticket, and almost got to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.

See what I'm saying?

Invisible Woman said...

Never been a fan of KO, but when I read this this morning on the MSNBC website I was like "oh, snap!".

Nice to see someone on TV come out with a strong opinion that makes rational sense.

memomachine said...

Hmmmm.

@ UBM

"... dude, the point is, how often was an issue made of Edwards's inexperience during the 2004 campaign?"

*shrug* Google it.

john edwards inexperience

I get 80,000+ hits. Frankly I do remember it was a significant issue in 2004 and directly contributed to Edwards campaign failing.

I get what you're trying to communicate. I just think the rose-colored glasses you're collectively using need to go.

Ken said...

Two things..hell maybe more. But first, I'm distressed by how people overlook the facts. Someone on here wrote, the Obama Camp can't call racism and whine everytime they're criticized. When did that happen, ever??? It hasn't, yet perception is so biased someone can write this nonsense which is completely untrue. The second thing is who's going to acknowledge directly that Hillary isn't worried about intelligent bloggers or people who listen to Olbermann on a news program? She's got this strategy right out of the Republican playbook, perfected by George Bush: appeal to the dumbfucks who don't read, eschew thinking for themselves, and who rely on snippets to vote. Thanks to stupid people who don't read blogs, indeed read at all, Bush has been able to get 8 years. In the end, he didn't care what he had to do because, boys and girls, he WON. And that's what Hillary is doing. She wants to WIN, and she'll make nice afterwards. I'm worried that stupid people are more susceptible to repitious messages and by stupid-people osmosis, they'll be zombie like with glazed over eyes talking about "Hillary has more experience" just because they heard it enough it got stuck in their shallow brain pans. Even with delegate math showing she can't win, she doesn't give a fuck. She's going to try to break the rules in regards to Michigan and Florida, and she's going to divide this party cause it's all about Hillary's needs and if she's got to play the voters for stupid and stir up fear and latent racism through a marionette like Ferraro, no problem cause the end justify the means. Only problem is SHE can't win, but she can keep OBAMA from winning if she doesn't "fall back." And she'll keep that same moronic,crocodile smile on her face saying, "you know...." her way of reaching the uninformed and stupid who unfortunately are registered and exercise their right to vote religiously. Anyone can see that conjecture on gender and race of the candidates is a nice little exercise in ditching issues and placing our long-checkered history of fear and racism in the forefront to confuse and ultimately get those dummies to vote for her. I'm hating this bitch today, and to think I was saying just two months ago good things about her, lamenting how being female was really holding her back with white, conservative misogynists. Now she's shown me she can be a serious asshole who'd pimp out anyone to get what she wants. What a mess this whole thing is. I won't vote in the general election if she finagles the nomination. I'm done!

memomachine said...

Hmmmm.

@ UBM

"More importantly, the "experience" standard was so insufficiently probative... Edwards was put on the ticket, and almost got to be a heartbeat away from the presidency."

Sorry, forgot about this part ...

*shrug* Edwards wasn't put on as VP in 2004 because of his experience, or lack of it. He was put on the ticket because he was from the South and the Democrats figured he could draw in some votes. That's pretty much it.

Seriously. In 2004 Edwards had 2-3 years in the Senate and in his first term. And other than being a medical malpractice lawyer that was about it.

Fact is that the argument could be made that Edwards is/was a white Obama. Or that Obama is a black Edwards. The primary difference is that Obama is getting much more traction from his being black than Edwards ever did from him being white.

Really doesn't it bother you that one of the glowing attributes of Obama, by Democrats, is that he speaks well?

Ken said...

Oh, one last thing Undercover Brother your sharpness and watch-dog diligence are appreciated. Just before coming to the site, I'd read and e-mailed Oberman's speech, recognizing it as significant and possibly being the DESERVED BITCH SLAP Hillary had coming. Then I get on here and sure enough, you're ringing the town alarm. Love you for that. The thing we know is she CAN't COMPLETELY overlook Olberman's comments, and he's right she's fucking up and badly. Keep up the good work!

Ken said...

Memomachine,
Those of us supporting Obama aren't doing so because he talks well. That's something that white reporters like to point out. And the distinction Obama has from Hillary and Edwards is more than that he's Black, but he's the one who is most reasoned, most diplomatic, and interested in coalition building, moving beyond color. Your problem is you can't seem to move beyond color. Is his race somewhat a part of his appeal? But if you think that's all he's got then you simply aren't paying attention.

Ken said...

Memomachine,
Those of us supporting Obama aren't doing so because he talks well. That's something that white reporters like to point out. And the distinction Obama has from Hillary and Edwards is more than that he's Black, but he's the one who is most reasoned, most diplomatic, and interested in coalition building, moving beyond color. Your problem is you can't seem to move beyond color. Is his race somewhat a part of his appeal? YES! But if you think that's all he's got then you simply can't or aren't paying attention.

Lolo said...

While I know that some of KO's points desperately needed making, I'm wishing that someone besides him had made them. It's the difference between passion and histrionics, for me. He always comes off as crossing the line into over drama and undercuts his point. Meh.

Obama speaks passionately, not "well" and that m'dears is one of the things that cuts straight across all the lines. That's what "transcends race" or whatever the histrionic people are saying. It's the passion and the belief in what might just maybe be possible for us as a nation.

People want to write it off as histrionics, confuse it with the hand flapping and wringing that KO brings to his standard scoldings but it's a completely different animal. Histrionics stem from hysterical rhetoric and true oratory is rooted in passion and controlled by intelligence. Hence the emotional callback to MLK, who was a master of it.

I wanted to hand KO a hanky by the end of that but I do give thanks that at least one talking head blasted her for her dirty ways. Other than that, it's not going to go far, IMO.

"It's hard out here for an educated, wealthy, professional white woman." ~ Geraldine Ferrarro

They did their damage and are still standing so I say, get to work and get your candidates the votes they need.

cuz said...

Can't deny that this year's election has got everybody "wording." However, I don't accept the "words don't matter," or "talks well" arguments at all. The argument is usually made by people who aren't strong in that particular skill. I admit, I'm one of them.

The "just words" argument contradicts reality. Words have uplifted, motivated as well as leveled and destroyed individuals and entire communities. It is not a philosophical argument. It's real. Words matter big time. So does follow up (so we'll see). Would we want power point presentations instead of stump speeches -- interesting concept -- but then that wouldn't be accessible to people like the new gov of NY would it?

The following quote by JFK is not a Barack comparison (don't go there); it is just a nice quote IMO from a Prez of the USA about the power of the word:
When power leads man towards arrogance, poetry
reminds him of his limitations. When power narrows
the area of man's concern, poetry reminds him of
the richness and diversity of his existence. When
power corrupts, poetry cleanses.

elle said...

ken, welcome to the last three and a half decades of the American voting system, a magical place were haircuts and lapel pins matter more than say, the economy,war crimes, or poverty. Where less than 40% of the population vote. Where people can't name the one Supreme Court Justice but can name all teh seven dwarves. We have the usual consumerist anti-intellectual culture to blame,but what does this matter, you seem like the type of guy that smart enough,ken.

memo said:

These normal rules, so far, have been suspended for Obama but that doesn't mean that they always will. And so far Obama both hasn't shown an ability to deal with tough politics and hasn't been forced to do so. The reality is that Hillary has been handling Obama with kid gloves on and one arm tied behind her back. And it's entirely because he's black.

One of the major point hammered home by the Obama camp is he is above smear tactics . And while I would like to see him be more aggressive, this approach seems to be working as Obama beats Hill in superdelegates(by at least 10) and popularity. Not only that, but polls show that in a hypothetical match up with McCain, Obama(or Hillary) and McCain are close.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23596304/

Thanks to Obama's ability to transcend party lines, he has many republicans and moderates supporting him, than Hillary, who appeals to just Democrats, and Obama's ability to get young voters, while Hillary can only get older voters, means there's a better chance of Obama beating McCain for POTUS than Hillary beating McCain.

Handling Obama with kid gloves? In between Clinton staffers posting pictures of Obama in Somali garb on The Drudge Report, knowing the average American would mistake the garb for Muslim, e-mails and flyers being distributed during the South Carolina and Iowa primaries claims Obama went to a madrassa(radical Islamic school) and will let terrorist free, having Obama's patriotism question for not wearing a lapel pin, being question as not Black enough early in the primaries, being suspected of being loyal to the Black agenda" and know "inexperience". Other than her husband's obvious exploit how has Hillary been criticized? How does being married to the president for 8 years equal experience? If that were true, I would want Jessica Simpson to replace Tony Romo as QB for the Cowboys if he were injured. And McCain? yes he's experienced,intelligent, but from what I see of his platform towards privatization and the current Iraqi conflict(in which he said that he "would stay in Iraq a hundred years" or somethin close to that) he's just a Bush clone, and while I'm no Obamaholic,(I initially supported either Dennis Kucinich,John Edwards, or even Bill Richardson) he's got his flaws, he's the only decent option.

I watched Kieth Olbermann last night and seen his "special message" to HRC. About time someone in the mainstream press had the balls to call Hillary out on her racist smear attacks and general bullshit.

odocoileus said...

@memo

if Obama was running against Romney, the experience issue might actually hold some water.

As it stands, he'll be running against a really old man who has, according to senior generals, some serious anger management issues.

Obama's far and away the best of what's left in the field.

WRT to Ferraro, it's pretty clear that she was the designated hatchet woman, sent by the Clinton campaign to capitalize on the residual racism in PA's working class. It's classic George Wallace.

It's a desperation techinique. Permenantly alienate your most loyal constituency in hopes of drawing one that's sitting on the fence. The Clintons are over, not just in this campaign, but everywhere. She'll out of the Senate for good soon enough.

Undercover Black Man said...

The primary difference is that Obama is getting much more traction from his being black than Edwards ever did from him being white.

You're starting to piss me off, memo. Didn't get much traction?

HE WAS ON THE TICKET!

The only way he could've gotten more traction was if he'd been on top of the ticket.

Yet, with less experience in government than Barack Obama, Edwards had the Democratic Party behind him for veep.

Now... I'm about to embarrass you with my Googling skills by comparing precisely how Edwards's inexperience was talked about in 2004 compared to Obama's this time.

Let's see how "lucky" Obama is to be black.

It'll take me a few days.

cnulan said...

comes now the retort we've all been waiting for.

Let's see how Baraka handles it - quoth my man T3;

a. Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Black race?

b. Do you renounce all associations with Black people and all of their unaccountable leadership?

c. Do you reject and denounce the Reverend Jeremiah Wright?

d. Do you say, "Kiss my Black ass!!!"?

DeAngelo Starnes said...

Anyone that does more than one back and forth with memo will soon find him/herself mired in circular reasoning/name-calling muck that's antithetical to intelligent debate.

But go ahead and kick that ass, Dave.

Watch the Billary spin machine try to wash itself clean of the shit they threw out there. It began with an apology to Black voters.

memomachine said...

Hmmmmm

@ UBM

1. I posted a response to ken, but Blogger ate it. Oh well. I'll rewrite it.

2. Not trying to piss you off but I think it's very clear that Obama has gotten much further than Edwards did. And like I pointed out the only reason why Edwards was included was because he was from the South. Frankly in 2004 if a one-legged hobo could've brought in votes he'd a replaced Edwards on th ticket. Thats how irrelevant Edwards was.

3. Here is an example of what I mean when I say that Obama has a glass jaw:

The Campaign Spot

Summary:
2004= Michelle Obama's salary at University of Chicago Hospital was $121,910.

2005= Michelle Obama's salary at University of Chicago Hospital was $316,962. The only difference was that her husband Barack Obama was now a US Senator

2006= Senator Barack Obama requests a $1.5 million in an earmark for the University of Chicago Hospital where his wife Michelle Obama works

Nice work if you can get it. I guess it's worth giving the wife of a US Senator a $195,052 raise in ONE YEAR if you can swing a $1.5 million free from the federal government.

Pennies from Heaven man. Pennies from Heaven.

memomachine said...

Hmmmmm.

@ DeAngelo Starnes s

1. "Anyone that does more than one back and forth with memo will soon find him/herself mired in circular reasoning/name-calling muck that's antithetical to intelligent debate."

Oh yeh? Sez you!

2. "But go ahead and kick that ass, Dave."

Good luck with that.

memomachine said...

Hmmmm

@ UBM

"You're starting to piss me off, memo. Didn't get much traction?"

Edwards didn't get much traction from being white.

"HE WAS ON THE TICKET!"

Sorry UBM but Edwards was on the ticket because he was from the South and Kerry was a Northern Coastal Elite.

It wasn't because he was white, there were plenty of other candidates that were white. It was because he was from the South.

"The only way he could've gotten more traction was if he'd been on top of the ticket."

Which Obama is far more likely to accomplish than Edwards ever did or would.

"Yet, with less experience in government than Barack Obama, Edwards had the Democratic Party behind him for veep."

Explained above.

"Now... I'm about to embarrass you with my Googling skills by comparing precisely how Edwards's inexperience was talked about in 2004 compared to Obama's this time."

"edwards inexperience" = 261k

"obama inexperience" = 435k

Not sure what you're intending.

"Let's see how "lucky" Obama is to be black."

*shrug* How many white junior US Senators newly elected to the Senate are selected to be Convention keynote speakers?

I can't find one. Can you?

Let's face it. That national exposure gave Obama the "star" status he needed to boost his career.

"It'll take me a few days."

Take your time. We've got 8+ months more to go. Nobody is going anywhere.

Frankly this election, strung out over 2+ years, is starting to feel like Purgatory.

memomachine said...

Hmmmmm.

@ odocoileus

"if Obama was running against Romney, the experience issue might actually hold some water."

*shrug* against McCain the experience issue will come up.

Hillary ... not so much.

"As it stands, he'll be running against a really old man who has, according to senior generals, some serious anger management issues."

IMO McCain has more mental problems than that. He's supposed to be a conservative but he's stabbed conservatives in the back dozens of times.

Enough that I am *not* voting for McCain in Nov 2008. McCain as President is going to fuck conservatives, and the rest of America, without even the courtesy of a reach-around.

But I'm not going to help him do it.

"Obama's far and away the best of what's left in the field."

On the surface that's what it seems. However scratch below that surface and problems come up.

"WRT to Ferraro, it's pretty clear that she was the designated hatchet woman, sent by the Clinton campaign to capitalize on the residual racism in PA's working class. It's classic George Wallace."

I can kinda understand her point, and it was a point made in an extremely clumsy way. But I will agree that she is the designated attacker that will allow Hillary to pretend she's not involved.

"It's a desperation techinique. Permenantly alienate your most loyal constituency in hopes of drawing one that's sitting on the fence."

A. Blacks aren't loyal now to Hillary so she can't count on you. You guys are voting for Obama. So pissing you off works for her.

B. The ratio of hispanic vs black is tipping over so Hillary might be able to make more by holding to a heavily pro-hispanic hardline without regard to black issues.

Especially if some form of amnesty is approved for illegal aliens, many of whom are hispanic. In one shot Hillary could eliminate black voters as a major power block in the Democratic party and ally herself with the rising tide of hispanic voters.

Keep in mind that the last attempted amnesty didn't have *any* limits on how many people could become citizens. None at all. We could've seen, and still might, 100+ million hispanics immigrate into the USA from all over Central and South America.

In which circumstance the black vote would be the political equivalent of a fart in a gale.

"The Clintons are over, not just in this campaign, but everywhere. She'll out of the Senate for good soon enough."

Take it from someone who thought that almost 20 years ago.

The witch ain't dead until you drop a house on her and some damn Munchkin coroner confirms it.

memomachine said...

Hmmmm.

@ elle

"One of the major point hammered home by the Obama camp is he is above smear tactics"

My point wasn't that Obama is holding back. My was that Hillary couldn't find a way to attack without seeming like a racist. But I think she's found the formula:

A. Use other people to attack Obama indirectly over race and gender issues.

B. Use other people to attack Obama's judgement because a number of people in his close circle have turned out to have problems. Pastor Wright, Michelle Obama and Samantha Power are just a few.

I figure it'll be like shadow-boxing where you don't directly attack Obama but instead everyone around him and, indirectly, Obama's judgement in hanging with these people.

"And while I would like to see him be more aggressive, this approach seems to be working as Obama beats Hill in superdelegates(by at least 10) and popularity."

So far. But I expect that to change dramatically very soon as Hillary begins applying her new attack strategy.

Funny thing. Rush Limbaugh was the one responsible for keeping Hillary alive in the Primary. He may end u regretting it.

"Not only that, but polls show that in a hypothetical match up with McCain, Obama(or Hillary) and McCain are close."

That's not a positive for you. So far McCain hasn't run any sort of campaign against either Hillary or Obama. So that's not a good thing.

"Thanks to Obama's ability to transcend party lines, he has many republicans and moderates supporting him, than Hillary, who appeals to just Democrats, and Obama's ability to get young voters, while Hillary can only get older voters, means there's a better chance of Obama beating McCain for POTUS than Hillary beating McCain."

Keep in mind that the general election is going to be hundreds of times tougher than the Primary. And much of what is keeping Obama in the race, his vagueness, isn't going to fly in the general election.

"Handling Obama with kid gloves? In between Clinton staffers posting pictures of Obama in Somali garb on The Drudge Report, knowing the average American would mistake the garb for Muslim, e-mails and flyers being distributed during the South"

Take it from a conservative. She was handling him very carefully.

"Carolina and Iowa primaries claims Obama went to a madrassa(radical Islamic school) and will let terrorist free, having Obama's patriotism question for not wearing a lapel pin, being question as not Black enough early in the primaries, being suspected of being loyal to the Black agenda" and know "inexperience"."

Personally I've never heard of a non-muslim attending a Madrassa. Why would a non-muslim attend a Madrassa? The primary purpose of a madrassa is the education of young muslims in the Koran.

What was a Christian doing there?

"Other than her husband's obvious exploit how has Hillary been criticized? How does being married to the president for 8 years equal experience?"

Please don't ask me to defend Hillary.

That's too much to inflict on a guy.

"If that were true, I would want Jessica Simpson to replace Tony Romo as QB for the Cowboys if he were injured."

I'm cool with that. Maybe they'll win.

"And McCain? yes he's experienced,intelligent, but from what I see of his platform towards privatization and the current Iraqi conflict(in which he said that he "would stay in Iraq a hundred years" or somethin close to that) he's just a Bush clone, and while I'm no Obamaholic,(I initially supported either Dennis Kucinich,John Edwards, or even Bill Richardson) he's got his flaws, he's the only decent option."

McCain's got a lot of flaws.

"I watched Kieth Olbermann last night and seen his "special message" to HRC. About time someone in the mainstream press had the balls to call Hillary out on her racist smear attacks and general bullshit."

Watching KO will rot your brain.

elle said...

memo, you seem to not be getting what UBM is saying about the VP nomination. It's not just because he's from the south,or because he's white, its both, as he appealed to poor white southerners with racial prejudices toward Black folk. You seem to act like it's impossible to be white and from the south, or those often go hand in hand in political language.

cnulan said...

Use other people to attack Obama's judgement because a number of people in his close circle have turned out to have problems. Pastor Wright, Michelle Obama and Samantha Power are just a few.

I figure it'll be like shadow-boxing where you don't directly attack Obama but instead everyone around him and, indirectly, Obama's judgement in hanging with these people.


If that's the case, then John McCain is truly phukked; McCain's Spiritual Guide...,

memomachine said...

Hmmmmm.

@ elle

"memo, you seem to not be getting what UBM is saying about the VP nomination. ..."

I understand what UBM is saying. I just disagree.

My point is that Obama gets much more out of being black than Edwards did from being white. And Edwards being put into the VP position in 2004 in Kerry/Edwards proves the point.

Edwards white southern background wasn't useful except in a few areas where Obama has gotten votes, money and support from all across the country. Something that Edwards was incapable of doing even though Edwards in 2004 ran a very similar campaign.

memomachine said...

Hmmm.

@ cnulan

"If that's the case, then John McCain is truly phukked; McCain's Spiritual Guide...,"

*shrug* good luck with that. Obama's been going to Wright's church for 20+ years. McCain isn't a member of the congregation in Paisley's church.

Since I don't plan on voting for either, it doesn't bother me.

Undercover Black Man said...

Cnulan, thank you for commenting here. The Jeremiah Wright thing today smacks of coordinated action. I happened to be listening to Michael Medved’s radio show this afternoon, which I never do, and it was Topic #1 with him.

Medved played clips of Rev. Wright’s sermons today, and described Wright as “an America-hater” whom Obama must reject.

And I just caught the tail end of it on TV, but on Glenn Beck’s CNN Headline News show tonight, Earl Ofari Hutchinson – a black activist in L.A. – was, I think, attacking Jeremiah Wright as well.

cnulan said...

The Jeremiah Wright thing today smacks of coordinated action.

Dood, it dominated talk radio today - so tomorrow will tell the tale of the tape. My man A. Charles laid out his dot connecting on what's afoot thus;

Okay, let me kick the cynicism up a notch . . .

There must be at least a couple of somebodies in the Clinton campaign smart enough to recognize the consequences of their actions. Some of the consequences are the obvious ones -- Ferraro out there race-baiting can be no accident. If she's truly a Hillary supporter, and they didn't want her stoking the racial flames, somebody would have said, "Psst -- ixnay on the aceray." She did exactly the opposite -- doing the whole media tour to say that Obama supporters were playing the race card and picking on her because she's white.

So I'm only stating the obvious in saying that the Clintons are all too happy to see the stoking of racial antagonism.

And I'm not breaking any new ground in saying that even if that antagonism doesn't earn Hillary the nomination this year, the Clintons are probably fine with the idea of McCain beating Obama this year, and her staking an "I told you so" claim in 2012.

But here's the thing. By now, we are all saying, and hearing other people say, "If she gets the nomination, I'm not voting for her." (Has anybody heard anybody within the past week say that they'll still vote for her if she gets the nomination?) I think it's pretty clear that a whole lot of folks have become sufficiently invested in this campaign that they will be highly pissed and finished with politics if Obama loses -- whether it's the nomination or the general election.

Don't the Clintons have to be aware of that?

And are they necessarily considering that a bad thing?

We know the watchwords that identify the Clinton pandering to the DLC direction of the party: Sistah Souljah, Ricky Ray Rector, Lani Guinier, etc. The DLC types figure that they've conceded plenty of states to the GOP just because of the Democratic Party's perceived pandering to black folks. And they've been trying to figure out a way to move away from us without losing our votes -- and move close enough to the GOP direction to pick of a few at their margins.

It hasn't worked. The Democrats had a vulnerable dunce in Dubya to run against twice. There wasn't much substantive in the Democrat platform to turn Reagan Democrats off -- welfare as we knew it was pretty much gone; affirmative action is on its deathbed, and the only thing a Democrat needs to say to black voters is that it isn't time to pull the plug on it yet. Black turnout was higher than average in 00 and 04, and it went 90% to the Democrats.

And the Democratic Party candidate still couldn't win either time.

Maybe I'm slow, but it is just now occurring to me that this race-baiting and all the other attempts to kneecap Obama isn't necessarily the Clintons going out kicking and screaming.

Maybe this is the way the DLC crowd sees the perceived millstone of the black vote being snatched from around their necks.

Because if this election turns us off completely, and we are marginalized once and for all in presidential elections, they are free to go all the way with making the big splashes that Ferraro is just sticking her toe into right now. They can fight for white votes in the previously solid-red states by dissing the black vote even harder than the Republicans do. Once we're safely at home, what's the risk -- especially when compared to the insufficient reward they've gotten from staying within the polite boundaries of benign neglect? Turn off the black vote, and they're free to chase the Latinos and the "blacks have it too easy" whites.

Somebody doing the forecasting for the Clintons has to have seen this as a distinct possibility, and they have to have accepted that in clearing Ferraro to put the pedal to the metal.

I haven't ideated our get-back yet. But if this is the way they're playing it, we need a good one.

memomachine said...

Hmmmmm.

@ UBM

"Cnulan, thank you for commenting here. The Jeremiah Wright thing today smacks of coordinated action. I happened to be listening to Michael Medved’s radio show this afternoon, which I never do, and it was Topic #1 with him."

1. It's not coordinated action or something being driven by a central source. It's a blogstorm.

The stuff Wright is saying is so shocking to so many people that they simply cannot believe it. I just watched Dick Morris on O'Reilly and you could see in his face that he couldn't believe it.

2. Actually a growing number of Republicans are starting to wish that this stuff had been held back for the general election.

memomachine said...

Hmmmmm.

@ cnulan

"I haven't ideated our get-back yet. But if this is the way they're playing it, we need a good one."

That's pretty disturbing but it's logical if they replace black political power with hispanic.

Undercover Black Man said...

1. It's not coordinated action or something being driven by a central source. It's a blogstorm.

Well, it is all chasing an ABC News report. I was wondering why Michael Medved and Glenn Beck would both decided to harp on Jeremiah Wright today.

Apparently, it's ABC News that went through recordings of Rev. Wright's old sermons -- which are for sale, apparently -- and they found what they found.

If Team Obama hasn't been ready for this shoe to drop, then they're not the pros I think they are.

I predict (... why do I keep prognosticating? I don't know shit...) tomorrow Hillary piles on to keep it going for at least one more news cycle.

If we don't see an effective response out of Obama tomorrow, I'll be surprised.

odocoileus said...

Because if this election turns us off completely, and we are marginalized once and for all in presidential elections, they are free to go all the way with making the big splashes that Ferraro is just sticking her toe into right now. They can fight for white votes in the previously solid-red states by dissing the black vote even harder than the Republicans do. Once we're safely at home, what's the risk -- especially when compared to the insufficient reward they've gotten from staying within the polite boundaries of benign neglect? Turn off the black vote, and they're free to chase the Latinos and the "blacks have it too easy" whites.

Well, the old Democratic party, pre FDR, pre LBJ, was based on a coalition of working class white southerners and northern white ethnics, immigrants and their recent descendents. Defacto and dejure segregation were bedrock values of the old party.

The DLC crowd may have decided that it's easier to unite everyone - Latinos, Asians, poor whites - against black Americans.

Of course, that's playing with fire, literally and figuratively.

Interesting times we're living in.

(Anybody know what's up w/ Ofari Hutchinson, btw? Why is he putting up such a vigorous defense of Clinton? I'm also wondering what Nutter's getting out of his Clinton endorsement?)

cuz said...

UBM I think we need a new thread for the Jeremiah Wright story.

I've been to church long enough and witnessed or heard enough church drama wild enough....back in the day in DC a young minister named James Reeb (who was white) went down south to help the civil rights workers and was killed by a mob of white citizens. In his day, and in that context, he was considered against the American way.

Another minister from the same church, David Eaton, was the target of a FBI investigation. Agents were planted in the church as members to disrupt the organization and eventually to have Eaton arrested and placed in a special political prison for his comments in the pulpit re then Prez Nixon's unwarranted searches to which Eaton replied if anyone came in his house without a warrant, he'd have something waiting for them on the other side. What would ABC think of that sermon? When the real members realized the FBI had intentionally planted people to disrupt the church, the church sued and was the first civilian organization to win a case against the FBI (that's what I was told).

I guess when you run for office, everything is under the magnifying glass. I've seen members of churches like Wright's who are the most upright citizens, are serving in Iraq, attending college, working jobs, and are very invested in the American dream (however that's interpreted). I have enjoyed sermons from charasmatic ministers from time to time, but wasn't compelled to join their church; and I've have gone to my own church after a night of clubbing (sunglasses on indoors) and forgetting everything the minister said the minute I step outsie the door. A lot of people say they tune out totally consumed with the thought "what's for dinner tonight."

For the "unchurched," as I think many ABC News people are, most people carry their own spirituality that may be informed by something the minister says but for the most part is not dictated by the minister. And church is a social as well as cultural construct. I can't really speak to all of it because there are so many levels to it. But I am sure, candidate Obama is not getting marching orders from his minister. But I guess he needs to put these people at ease. I just don't think any answer will be good enough unless you know what it is to go to church. I can't keep up with the count on Catholics who use birth control, have sex out of wedlock, have been divorced and married more than once or twice, and are pro-choice.

cnulan said...

Don't sweat the Jeremiah Wright stuff. It was at the top on C-SPAN Washington Journal and it got handled with aplomb. The local talk bigotess tried to kickstart it this morning and the very first caller stuffed it back down her throat so decisively that she dropped it like a hot potato and changed the subject.

Don't nobody wanna go there and start reality mining for all the skeleton bones lying in folks associative closets.

memomachine said...

Hmmmm.

@ UBM

1."If we don't see an effective response out of Obama tomorrow, I'll be surprised."

Agreed. The principle problems though for any response is the length of time the Obamas were associated and the nature of Barack Obama's campaign, which promises unification.

At this point I'm unclear as to how much, if at all, Barack Obama has bought into Wright's black nationalism. It's clear that his wife Michelle has gone completely in that direction but no idea how it's affected Barack.

IMO it would be a disaster for blacks if Barack gets elected to President and then turns out to be a dedicated black nationalist in the vein of pastor Wright. As much as I condemn it white guilt has the potential to help enact change American culture and racial relations. If there's anything that would poison that would be a dedicated black nationalist elected under false pretenses.

2. So. What about the issue of Michelle Obama getting a $195,000 raise from her employer with a subsequent $1.5 million dollar earmark by her husband for that employer?

Keep in mind that Michelle Obama got her raise in 2005, the same year that Barack Obama got seated as a US Senator, and that the hospital got it's $1.5 million in 2006. Since the fiscal year for the federal government starts in around September of the preceding year this means that the budget for 2006 was setup in 2005.

The year that Barack was seated as a US Senator and could give earmarks and the year that Michelle Obama got her $195,000 raise.

I can assure you that it looks very bad, is unlikely to have a good explanation, is compounded by Michelle Obama's complaint about living within their means on a $500,000 combined income and most definitely will be used as a club to beat Barack like a baby seal.

cnulan said...

despite wishful thinking on the part of memomachine and other ethnic nationalists - this issue has already been completely marginalized. it's as dead as the preposterous Baraka is a muslim/anti-Christ suppositions...,

memomachine said...

Hmmmm.

@ cnulan

"Don't nobody wanna go there and start reality mining for all the skeleton bones lying in folks associative closets."

I would be very surprised if that's the case.

memomachine said...

Hmmmm.

@ cnulan

"despite wishful thinking on the part of memomachine and other ethnic nationalists - this issue has already been completely marginalized. it's as dead as the preposterous Baraka is a muslim/anti-Christ suppositions...,"

I think you're relying on the Mainstream Media's love of Obama to suppress it and I think that reliance is misplaced.

I think this is just starting.

cnulan said...

then laissez le bon temps roulez...,

doing a simple dot connecting walk from McCain to Hagee, Parsley and other members of the GOP lunatic fringe will make for exponentially more associative hay than the four "incendiary" comments dredged up by ABC news on Wright.

Nobody in the GOP - and certainly not McCain - wants to go there.

memomachine said...

Hmmmmm.

@ cnulan

"doing a simple dot connecting walk from McCain to Hagee, Parsley and other members of the GOP lunatic fringe will make for exponentially more associative hay than the four "incendiary" comments dredged up by ABC news on Wright."

**LAUGH**

Yeah that'll fly.

1. McCain hasn't been a member of either parish for the last 20 years.

2. McCain wasn't married by either guy.

3. McCain's children weren't baptized by either man.

4. Parsley's worst comment was that Islam was a false religion that must be destroyed. Compare to what Wright's been saying that's pretty minor.

5. Hagee's worst comments are that Katrina was punishment for NOLA's sins and that the Koran has "a scriptural mandate to kill Christians and Jews.". Of which the first isn't that unusual for a preacher to say and the latter is actually true.

*shrug* good luck with that. But here's something else. Nobody is going to be able to rip McCain on either Hagee or Parsley *without* having to include the issue of Wright.

And in comparison Wright definitely stands out as a unwholesome racist.

...

Obama certainly has some sort of twisted talent in picking his inner circle. So far they've all turned out to be people I wouldn't even want to stand in line with at a Burger King.

memomachine said...

Hmmmm.

A bit more.

1. I haven't seen any supporting documentation but what's going around conservative circles is that Oprah Winfrey is also a member of pastor Wright's church.

2. From the "About us" page at the church's website:

We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.

That's not going to go over well with a lot of American voters. I think quite a few would say:

Africa is your native land?

Don't let the door hit you in the ass.

...

*shrug* But that's just my opinion.

cnulan said...

nowhere here or elsewhere have commmentators established that Wright is a racist. that he said some things that make you intensely uncomfortable and which you doggedly refuse to come to terms with, well, that's how it is in the realm of uncomfortable truths. a Black man who is not financially or politically beholden to you and yours is liable to express any number of popularly suppressed truths. freedom of speech is like that...,

I can easily understand how you would seek to avoid proximity to a passionately stated truth that conflicts with the self-calming narratives you employ to remain in that ethnic not-see bubble you've constructed for yourself mwmo. that said, your pretend discomfort - and the pretend outrage of ethnic nationalist talk radio commentators is insufficient to effect the general consensus on Obama as an American exemplar.

he's no more accountable for his pastors commentary than David is accountable for what you scribble on these threads...,

cnulan said...

McCain's Senior Strategist Rejects Ethnic Nationalist Tactics

cnulan said...

Barack Obama and the End of Racism - from whence the "Not-see" reference was cribbed...,

memomachine said...

Hmmmm.

@ cnulan

"nowhere here or elsewhere have commmentators established that Wright is a racist."

Is this a joke?

Try this. Listen to pastor Wright and replace "black" with "white" and "white" with "black".

You, UBM and everyone else here would be **screaming** about his racism.

As for the rest of your comment. WTF are you talking about?

odocoileus said...

We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land,"

This is really, really stupid shit.

Especially when you consider that most of Wright's ancestors have GOT to come from Northern Europe.

Fuck Reverend Wright. My native land is the Tidewater. Wright, on the other hand, appears to be a native of left wing fantasy land.

elle said...

memo said:

A. Use other people to attack Obama indirectly over race and gender issues.

B. Use other people to attack Obama's judgement because a number of people in his close circle have turned out to have problems. Pastor Wright, Michelle Obama and Samantha Power are just a few.

Yes, I have realized this for quite a while as Clinton's M.O. but it ain't working. Clinton will get the votes of some uneducated underclass whites that think Obama only got this far because of affirmative action "and I could be president if it wasn't for reverse racism", but educated, even middle class, whites aren't falling for that crap she pulls. I've even heard some pundits claim that some people that were pro-Hillary now switching to Obama,because of the nasty attacks. In the end, Hillary lost, the mainstream may make it seem like she has a chance, but the delegate count Obama got is increasing(leading Clinton by 131), Obama can still pick up a state here and there,(like Wyoming), and Billary can talk all they want about winning Texas and Ohio, but Billary only won those a close margin to Obama 50.89%-47.37, she really needed to win those by a large margin to stay in the race, she ain't gonna win. And I predict the stuff with Rev. Wright will blow over, like the stuff with Michele Obama, its just soundbites and Barrack Obama's image as a friendly Black man is infrared in every one that accusations of Black separatism won't stick. Besides, Rev. Wright no longer works at that church, which is very involved in community service and has a few white members. Samantha Powers is extreme, but she's just a staffer, not a cabinet member or advisor, and Obama would never apoint someone so extreme. Besides, considering how screwed up the Pakistani-Israeli situation has been for fifty years, and continues without
signs of abatting, its going to take something radical to get each side something they agree apon.


Keep in mind that the general election is going to be hundreds of times tougher than the Primary. And much of what is keeping Obama in the race, his vagueness, isn't going to fly in the general election.

BHB has shared some of his positions on things like globalized trade(against) health-care(compromised and weak,something I take issue with)illegal immigration(for building the virtual wall) among others, main, I'm getting sick and tired of this lie that Obama is "all style", when he does speak about the issues, its just that the mainstream ignores them, just like his Wyoming victory. Besides, considering McCain is Bush clone with mental problems, Americans may vote for Barack regardless of how "vague" he is. Damn, I'm even willing to bet that if Obama were to lose his voice, he would still beat McCain(the poll I used was from a few years ago, and McCain's prospects look grim).

Personally I've never heard of a non-muslim attending a Madrassa. Why would a non-muslim attend a Madrassa? The primary purpose of a madrassa is the education of young muslims in the Koran.

What was a Christian doing there?

Well the smear attack was based on the assumption that Obama is secretly a Muslim sleeper, or some other such nonsense.

I only watch Olbermann when nothing else is on, otherwise, he fulfills a niche: the leftist Rush Limbaugh, and everybody knows it wouldn't hurt for progressives to have their own attack dog to balance it out.

Anonymous said...

Hillary did what any number of other responsible Black journalist SHOULD have done. He called her on her sleazy race batting "Hard working White Americans" BS!

People...DO NOT EVER say all Jews don't stand and fight when the time is right in defense of Black America! They do...plenty of them.

Hillary/Bill Bob Clinton have run a Republican Willy Horton style smash job on Obama. One that I will NEVER forget...

They are dirt in my book...FOREVER!