Olbermann takes on Clinton
Many of us have come to enjoy MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann’s ‘Special Comments,” not only because they tend to highlight the outrages of the Bush administration in stark and powerful terms, but also because Olbermann has a tendency to say things no one else in television news is willing to say. When Olbermann gets into high dudgeon about torture, Iraq, or telecom immunity, it gives voice to a perspective that broadcast audiences simply never hear.
But last night, Olbermann went in a slightly different direction — he challenged Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in a surprisingly forceful way.
The impetus for Olbermann’s outrage was Geraldine Ferraro’s racially-charged criticism of Barack Obama, not just published in one small California newspaper, but repeated on far-right talk-radio shows and Fox News, both before and after the report in the Daily Breeze. Speaking to Clinton, Olbermann said:
Senator, as it has reached its apex in their tone-deaf, arrogant and insensitive reaction to the remarks of Geraldine Ferraro, your own advisers are slowly killing your chances to become president.
Senator, their words, and your own, are now slowly killing the chances for any Democrat to become president. In your tepid response to this Ferraro disaster, you may sincerely think you are disenthralling an enchanted media and righting an unfair advance bestowed on Sen. Obama. You may think the matter has closed with Rep. Ferraro’s bitter, almost threatening resignation.
But in fact, Senator, you are now campaigning as if Barack Obama were the Democrat and you were the Republican. As Shakespeare wrote, Senator, that way madness lies.
Now, as it turns out, Olbermann’s timing may have been off slightly. The underlying point of his commentary was to implore Clinton to distance herself more forcefully from Ferraro’s transparently ugly remarks, after initially declining to do so (Olbermann said, “You have missed a critical opportunity to do what was right”). Of course, around the same time, Clinton was, in fact, doing just that.
But the “Special Comment” was not exclusively about Ferraro.
It was also about what Olbermann suggested might be a pattern.
To Sen. Clinton’s supporters, to her admirers, to her friends for whom she is first choice, and to her friends for whom she is second choice, she is still letting herself be perceived as standing next to, and standing by, racial divisiveness and blindness.
And worst yet, after what President Clinton said during the South Carolina primary, comparing the Obama and Jesse Jackson campaigns; a disturbing, but only borderline remark.
After what some in the black community have perceived as a racial undertone to the “3 A.M.” ad, a disturbing but only borderline interpretation …
And after that moment’s hesitation in her own answer on 60 Minutes about Obama’s religion; a disturbing, but only borderline vagueness …
After those precedents, there are those who see a pattern, false or true. After those precedents, there are those who see an intent, false or true. After those precedents, there are those who see the Clinton campaign’s anything-but-benign neglect of this Ferraro catastrophe, falsely or truly, as a desire to hear the kind of casual prejudice that still haunts this society voiced and to not distance the campaign from it.
There are those “see an intent,” I’m just not sure if it’s there or not. The problem, at least for me, is that genuinely offensive examples have been juxtaposed with unpersuasive examples, and both have been treated with nearly equal weight.
I found Ferraro’s comments repugnant, but I found talk about the Clinton campaign “darkening” Obama in an ad unpersuasive. I found the racially-charged comments around the South Carolina primary to be insulting and odious, but I found the racial analysis of the “3 a.m.” ad unconvincing. Some of the controversies have been real and unworthy of a fine senator’s campaign, and some of the controversies feel manufactured and exaggerated. Given this, it’s difficult to automatically make the leap that Clinton has a real desire to “hear the kind of casual prejudice that still haunts this society voiced,” presumably for electoral gain. Not impossible, but difficult.
That said, Olbermann’s charge from the outset — that Clinton is now “campaigning as if Barack Obama were the Democrat and you were the Republican” — strikes me as far more persuasive. Towards the end of his commentary, Olbermann said, “This, Sen. Clinton, is your campaign, and it is your name. Grab the reins back from whoever has led you to this precipice, before it is too late.”
Putting aside Ferraro and whether the racial component of the race is intentional or not, that may be sound advice. I frequently get the sense that there’s a growing number of Democrats who admire and respect Clinton far more than they admire and respect the Clinton campaign. That’s not a healthy development, but it is one that can still be remedied.
Why is everyone still acting like she’s a contender?
There is an “intent,” and a “practice,” and a “result.” All one has to do to see it is stroll through these threads and read anything by “Mary,” “Comeback Bill,” “Greg,” or any of the other Clinton trolls.
I have to admit, I never realized how vicious and mendacious the clintonistas could be till these past three months. It’s truly surprising (and disappointing) to see how many of my “fellow Democrats” believe in the Imperial Presidency and want an Imperial Succession.
I frequently get the sense that there’s a growing number of Democrats who admire and respect Clinton far more than they admire and respect the Clinton campaign.
count me as one of them thar’ except that I one of ‘them Independents……
seriously tho, even if Clinton is not responsible for it or even means it is not really the point. The point is while that garbage has been vaguely implied or thrown by and vaguely attributed to Clinton’s campaign, it is representative of what the GOP will trow at Obama come the general election.
She is either smart and practicing tough love “seasoning” Obama and helping him practice on how to respond to the GOP or she is utterly clueless and doesn’ t give a damn about anything but winning and is tearing him down because thats all she has.
Being an Independent, I’ll say its a bit of both
Clinton is competing with Obama for the democratic nomination, remember? Women are supposed to be sugar and spice and everything nice. Clinton is getting far more flack than Obama.
Personally, I saw Ferraro’s point, but the wording was open to negative interpretation, and since that’s what people want to hear, that’s what they hear.
I remember one of the debates when John Edwards was still in the running, he made a comment that basically said who’d a thunk a white male would be at a disadvantage, and everybody laughed, and everybody understood.
I tuned out Olbermann’s rant… it was way over the top. And I thought less of Obama for pouncing on the comment as racist.
America is more than ready for president that isn’t the plain vanilla white male. Exciting!
It is probably true that some of the accusations of race-baiting don’t hold up. The problem is that there are so many clear episodes that other borderline items are also looked at more suspiciously than they might otherwise be.
What is significant is that this pattern of use of race exists, regardless of whether some of the examples (such as darkening of the ad and the racist interpretation of the 3 am phone call ad) are truly part of this pattern.
The Special Comment was announced the previous day, which might account for why he had this aired after Ferraro resigned. Besides, Ferraro’s resignation certainly did not include any recognition that what she has said was wrong.
HERE’S SOME WIT:
Well I don’t know why I came here today
I’ve got a feelin’ that somethin’ ain’t right
I’m so scared in case I fall off my chair
And I’m wonderin’ how I’ll get down the stairs
Harangues to the left of me, harangues to the right
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you
Yes, I’m stuck in the middle with fools
And I’m wonderin’ what it is I should do
It’s so hard to keep this smile on my face
Losin’ control, yeah, I’m all over the place
Olberman to the left of me, Hannity to the right
Here I am stuck in the middle with fools.
Well you started off with nothin’ and
You’re proud that you’re a self-made man, yeah
And your friends they all come to Obama
Slap you on the back and say
Please… Please…
Trying to make some sense of it all
But I can see there makes no sense at all
Is it cool to go to sleep on the floor
I don’t think that I can take any more
Farrakhan to the left of me, Limbaugh to the right
Here I am stuck in the middle with you.
[Originally recorded by Stealer’s Wheel]
It’s the duplicity of HRC that is the real problem. If she wants to go down this racist path, and it is racist under any definition, I don’t mind as is it her candidacy. It’s wrong to me and I thought the Democratic Party was way beyond this, but if that his her choice, either directly or by her campaign and condoned by her, then be it. We know where she stands. But she always wants it both ways, all the time chiding her opponent for exactly the thing she is doing.
And this, at least until recently, from the champion of African Americans. But they are now dispensable as they can’t give her what she needs, so she gives them up. But not without using their defection, which she and Bill caused, as a political weapon to attack her opponent. This is Clinton Politics.
If she would spend her time and effort doing positive things, she wouldn’t be in this loosing position.
Besides, Ferraro’s resignation certainly did not include any recognition that what she has said was wrong.
And Hillary’s ‘reject and dneounce’ moment that CB linked to ocurred two weeks too late and only after her initial failure to do so began to cause an uproar.
Obama’s handling of the Powers flap stands in stark contrast (much like everything else about his campaign).
The damage they wanted Ferraro to do is done. I see Clinton didn’t say that in front of the Archie Bunker crowd she’s seeking to woo.
What’s funny is that in 2006, Ferraro said the exact opposite now.
I quote:
“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.”
Clearly now that her prize pony is in the race she’s spewing her bullshit with the intent to sway Angry White Fe/Male vote.
the kitchen sink includes a poison pill.
in an odd variation on Oedipus Rex we stare bleakly into the Delphic Oracle and see the mother, for the sake of her husband, attempting to kill the son and rightful heir to the throne.
this tragedy coming to a theatre in denver soon.
To people who don’t think the comment was racist get a clue. As if a Harvard educated lawyer with more legislative experience is the Affirmative-Action candidate.
Just listening to The Empress on a special NPR interview with Steve Inskeep where he asked her about this comment and she said she has nothing to apologize for, that it’s “just politics” and she is determined to proceed to the end and “just see where things are.” She also said she is right to go for the Michigan and Florida delegates because “everyone knew” those votes would ultimately be counted, so anyone who took their name off the ballot was “naive.”
It was breathtaking, to listen to her calmly and coolly say this stuff.
She is truly deluded, and unfortunately I don’t think she would stop if every super-delegate in the party rose up and screamed “STOP!” at her. She drips arrogance and denial, and she is indeed willing to tear down the house if it can’t be hers.
Samantha Power was right. She is a monster.
The fatal flaw of Hillary Clinton that is exposed here is the same that was in evidence with the 60 minutes flap. She had an opportunity to the right thing as a democrat and the right thing as a human being. To clearly, unequivocally state that this sort of thing was outrageous and unacceptable and to distance herself from it. She failed at this simple test of decency.
Barack Obama has acted with greater rigor in cases of less severity to ensure the moral defensibility of his high road stance. Drawing an ever starker contrast between the “old politics” of coded words and personal destruction and the “new” wave of civilized standards in competition.
The Clinton campaign widens this decency deficit with each new attempt to allow it’s allies to make these attacks while remaining detached from any responsibility.
I’ll say again…
The fact that there is any ambiguity about the Clinton campaign’s motives should be proof enough that the ambiguity is intentional.
They’ve had 13 months to take a strong stance on these things, and none of us can say for sure where they stand.
Ask yourself, why is that? The answer seems clear to me.
John S wrote:
I don’t see any superiority in the way Obama handled the Power flap. Once both remarks became public, both campaigns gave gentle criticism of the remarks to separate the campaigns from the remarks. Then, both campaigns allowed the supporter to resign from the campaign. Power was much closer to Obama than Ferraro was to Clinton. Ferraro hasn’t apologized for the comments (and Clinton can’t make her apologize) where as Power did. Ferraro took longer to resign. Clinton has praised Obama in comments afterwords and said about Ferraro’s comments:
As far as I can tell, Obama has let his initial “decrying the comment” stand as his only statement on Power’s comment.
Gorobei, please point out to me where “Barack Obama has acted with greater rigor in cases of less severity to ensure the moral defensibility of his high road stance.” What has Obama personally said about Power’s monster comment? Obama didn’t fire Power, he let her resign just as Clinton let Ferraro resign.
Why is everyone still acting like she’s a contender?
You know, in baseball, if you bat 3 for 16, it’s still…
Actually, it’s 2 for 16, since Obama got more delegates in Texas…
Yeah, that’s a pretty bad batting average. Shouldn’t even get you an outfielder’s spot in the majors. What is up with that?
With every move Clinton makes, she reinforces the image that she, like Bill Clinton, will do anything to win. Maybe this makes Obama a wimp, but I don’t get the same feeling from him and neither do his (especially young) supporters. He could have taken PAC and lobbyist money instead of raising cash from small donors — but he chose not to. He could be using the odious Republican attacks on Bill Clinton to damage Hillary (via surrogates) — but as far as I can tell, he isn’t doing that. The man is trying to be what he says he is, someone who wants to change “politics as usual.” And the more HRC throws at him, the stronger that image becomes. It seems to be a big part of the very smart campaign Obama is running.
I’m not sure how much I buy this myself, but it doesn’t seem that unreasonable (if one assumes a lack of scruples) for a campaign which had counted on a fair amount of the black vote, trying to garner some of the racist vote (or at least try not to antagonize it) as soon as it becomes clear that this is not forthcoming. This could be accomplished in many indirect ways, such as tepid denouncements and such, I can’t hear much of the dog whistle stuff that an actual racist might.
“If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn’t be in the race.” – Geraldine Ferraro, April 1988.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/A_Ferraro_flashback.html
I’m waiting to hear the words “reject and denounce.” Waiting. Waiting.
Exactly who is doing the race-baiting and who started it is a good question that should be addressed but isn’t being done by Olberman who has made his bias clear.
ABCnews and others are now pointing us to some uplifting sermons from Obama’s pastor.
During this Christmas sermon, Wright tried to compare Obama’s upbringing to Jesus at the hands of the Romans.
“Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people,” Wright said. “Hillary would never know that.
“Hillary ain’t never been called a n*****. Hillary has never had a people defined as a non-person.”
In his Jan. 13 sermon, Wright said:
“Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain’t! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty.”
These sermons and others can be purchased in videos sold by Obama’s church.
Such nice unity statements in support of Obama’s campaign by a man who is Obama’s “uncle” mentor.
And notably these statements were made long before the Clintons supposedly started the “nastiness” by Bill’s campaigning in South Carolina.
There is certainly evidence in these sermons and in the memo circulated by the Obam campaign naming “racial incidents” and in a lot of other places to support the contention that it was Obama’s campaign who had the desire and incentive to falsely portray the Clinton as racists so they could cement 1) the black vote in South Carolina (which was previously split based on the Clinton’s long career supporting civil rights) and 2) the NPR liberal vote in college towns in small caucus states that he needed to win and so they deliberately started twisting innocent comments like the “fairy tale” statement – which was about Obama’s supposed opposition to the Iraq war despite his inaction in the senate- into racial insults.
Ferraro may be inarticulate and a loose cannon but there may have been a grain of truth in what she said that Olberman completely misses since he is too busy pandering to Obama. If we condemn the crazy aunt- why does the crazy uncle who says a lot worse IMHO get a pass?
Yes—as Tom points out, Hillary IS a monster; yet in the greater venue of these things, she has also chosen to surround herself with monsters. Of the many things that Obama should do to counter this, one of the very first should be to reinstate Samantha Power as a member of the campaign. You don’t just cut someone loose for speaking the truth. Edwards did it, and look how that turned out—it blew a hole in his campaign large enough to sail the Exxon Valdez through! If Obama want Pennsylvania—and wants it badly enough, he will immediately shift from the tepid counter-comments regarding the Clinton campaign, and go to a “total-war” offense. Clinton must not merely be countered in the eyes and minds of Pennsylvanians—she must be reduced to nothing more than a pile of political rubble.
Pennsylvanians are screaming bloody murder right now about things like property taxes, school taxes, sales taxes, and the insane prices of gasoline and utilities. These things will not be fixed by means of “status-quo” Democratic thinking only; they require innovative resolutions of a hybrid variety—and the only candidate who can muster even the will to imagine such “new-fangled” ideals is Obama. But the key to presenting “the bold and new” is to first crush the addictive desire for the old….
Ferraro isn’t the only Hillary supporter pushing this crap.
Gloria Steinem in Texas: “A majority of Americans want redemption for racism, for our terrible destructive racist past and so see a vote for Obama as redemptive.”
Me, I never saw Obama as the black candidate. I was just thrilled to be able to vote for any qualified alternative to Clinton who won’t win. Eliot Spitzer didn’t think she was going to win and was positioning himself to run as the first Jewish candidate in 2012.
What a lot of people don’t know is that Clinton didn’t support H. Carl McCall, the first black candidate for governor, in 2002 because Spitzer wanted to run in 2006. There is an infamous photo, taken during the campaign, of Clinton gazing up at George Pataki with admiration so Clinton could claim credit for creating eight jobs in western NY.
H. Carl McCall would have been a great governor because he singlehandedly prevented Pataki from raiding the state pension funds. Instead, we got Spitzer and see how well that worked out.
Spitzer – Another fine example of Clinton’s judgment.
America is more than ready for president that isn’t the plain vanilla white male. Exciting! -Nell
I agree, but I’m seeing the racism apologists touting this line a lot today, as if there is no difference between being excited about breaking racial or gender barriers and accusing someone of only achieving because of the race or gender.
It’s a nifty little rhetorical trick, but it isn’t going to work here. The collective IQ is entirely too high.
And its a nice- but false- rhetorical trick to accuse Ferraro of saying that it was the ONLY reason why Obama was doing well when she never did. She explicitly stated he was running a good campaign and had other strengths but noted that it was a hook that the media loved.
And I thought less of Obama for pouncing on the comment as racist.
Barack Obama’s comments on Geraldine Ferraro: ” I don’t think her comments were racist. I think they were ridiculous.I think they were wrong-headed,” he said at a Chicago news conference. “The notion that it is a great advantage to me to be an African American named Barack Obama and pursue the presidency, I think, is not a view that has been commonly shared by the general public.” Obama explicitly said he didn’t think the comments were racist. He did say they were ridiculous and they were.
What is it with Gerry Ferraro? Why raise the issue of race in this way? She repeated these remarks a number of times, including on ding bat John Gibson’s show on Fox News and made the exact same comment about Jesse Jackson in 1988.
“I frequently get the sense that there’s a growing number of Democrats who admire and respect Clinton far more than they admire and respect the Clinton campaign.”
I’m sorry, but the two can’t be separated. The Hillary Clinton campaign and Hillary Clinton are one and the same.
And the Barack Obama campaign which calls his opponent a monster? Is he to be distinguished from this or not? I had given him the benefit of the doubt but if there’s no difference between the campaign and the candidate then…..
Under that logic are Barack Obama and these race divisive statements made by his close advisors and supporters (on Christmas day no less) equally one and the same.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Wright_on_film.html
If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. -Ferraro
If A, then not B.
Truthsquad fails logic, reading comprehension, and life.
She explicitly stated he was running a good campaign… -Truthsquad
Blah, blah, blah. She also said that he’s only where he is because he’s not white.
If I said you were a doing a great job at being a fucking moron, you’d probably focus on the insult, not the part where I said you were doing a great job.
This has really gotten way out of hand. I supported Clinton at one time before all her surrogates got in the way. Now I believe she is tearing the Democratic Party to shreds just to win. Then I was impressed and inspired with Obama as he made his way across Texas and I voted for him in the primary. Then all this crap about Obama’s “mentor” (TRUTHSQUAD #21) has me doubting if there are any candidates worth earning my vote in November. And it’s only going to get worse!!
I’m somewhat shocked you’re not persuaded by the case that HRC’s campaign altered Obama’s photo. Photoshop experts have already weighed in and the changes made were not accidental, and were only present in brochures distributed where such darkening and “stretching” could be expected to impact the vote in Clinton’s favor.
This doesn’t mean Clinton ordered this to be done, but given the North Korean levels of secrecy and top-down authoritarianism used to run that campaign, this is all part of an obvious pattern.
You do not smear your opponent openly, you do so subtly and in a way that’s deniable. That’s what’s so damning. If these things were more blatant, I’d be inclined to believe the denials. It’s their consistent subtlety that constitutes a smoking gun.
Meanwhile, Obama continues to run a color blind campaign while the Clinton team continues to run a “women’s” campaign. City Pages has an appropriate video about how hard Hillary has fought for women.
This is about vision vs. opportunism, and transparency vs. Nixonian duplicity.
What can Clinton say at the convention to make all of this okay if Obama doesn’t get a knife in the back at the eleventh hour?
“I was merely engaged in typical, craven political distortion when I said Senator Obama wasn’t presidential material”?
“I have no idea why I praised John Sidney McCain as presidential and Obama as an also-ran.”?
This woman didn’t concern herself with post Super Tuesday and it’s clear that she, like George Bush, had not bothered to envision any type of orderly withdrawal in the endgame.
Between this painting herself into a corner, budget mismanagement, poor judgment in legislative decisions, and now the racial crapola spewed by her blind syncophants, does anyone need more proof that it is SHE who is not commander-in-chief material; that it is SHE who needs substantially more political seasoning before she should consider taking up this quest again?
#4 Nell : I thought less of Obama for pouncing on the comment as racist.
I don’t ever remember seeing Obama “pouncing” on anything as racist, even this, which obviously was.
#15 Dennis_D I don’t see any superiority in the way Obama handled the Power flap. Once both remarks became public, both campaigns gave gentle criticism of the remarks to separate the campaigns from the remarks. Then, both campaigns allowed the supporter to resign from the campaign.
You seriously don’t see any difference? Powers made an off the cuff remark she immediately regretted and apologized for (despite the fact that truer words have seldom been spoken, IMHO), and she immediately left the Obama campaign allowing him to distance himself from it and minimize the damage to the campaign. The issue evaporated almost immediately. Ferraro repeatedly made the same statements, to multiple people over the course of about 2 weeks. She never apologized or softened her stance in the slightest. And there’s the “superiority” (I would say maturity) in Obama’s campaign versus Hillary’s. Powers left before Obama needed to fire her, and I’m certain he would have asked her to leave had she not. Hillary sat back and let this fester until the outrage in the party boiled over, and only then did Ferraro resign, and she didn’t apologize even then.
#21 Truthsquad Olberman who has made his bias clear.
Olbermann has used his Special Comments to defend both Hillary and Bill Clinton in the past. The only bias I’ve ever noted in KO is for doing the right thing, being honest and fair. This makes him singularly unique in the MSM and this “bias” is what continually puts him at odds with the Bush Administration, O’Reilly, Limbaugh, and most of the Republican Party, for whom honor, honesty, fairness, and doing the right thing are campaign punchlines.
What I konw for sure is this: if your a democratic candidate for anything and Keith Olbermann is calling you out, you’ve seriously F***ed up.
My 2c…
Pat
I have come to a reasoned conclusion that Obama would be better for the long term prospects of the party and the country. But I don’t support those who choose to ascribe the worst possible motives to every single action coming from Clinton or her supporters.
Really people, she’s not THAT bad. And, shockingly enough, a LOT of Democrats really like her and a lot of them seriously think she would be a better president than Obama. When I see Obama partisans immediately latching on to the worst explanations (e.g., the alleged “darkening” of Obama’s image in a Clinton ad) all I can think is that this is incredibly insulting to Democrats who have made the choice to support Clinton (just as Clinton’s “dismiss the significance of states I lose” strategy insults people who have made the choice to support Obama).
I just have to keep reminding myself that every candidate has partisans that go “to far” in their enthusiasm and that we shouldn’t necessarily judge the candidate by the most extreme examples. But it gets hard when those extreme examples become all that anyone talks about.
@9: The damage they wanted Ferraro to do is done. I see Clinton didn’t say that in front of the Archie Bunker crowd she’s seeking to woo.
Bingo.
If she wants to erase our suspicions that she’s using racism to try to bolster her otherwise failing campaign, then she needs to take her message to rural Pennsylvania and not just to the National Newspaper Publishers Association, a group of more than 200 black community newspapers across the country. Otherwise, she’s talking out of both sides of her mouth.
Is anyone else noticing the trend among Clinton supporters to deny reality and to absolve people like Ferraro of their actions, when those same actions would cause righteous indignation if perpetrated by a Republican?
I never thought I’d have to explain an example of overt racism to ‘fellow Democrats,’ and having to do so over the last few days has left me dumbfounded. I’m really starting to doubt the Democratic, progressive, and liberal claims of several commenters.
Olbermann, who is typically revered among progressive circles, is suddenly deemed unwatchable and outrageous by the Clintonistas, and for what? Simply doing what he always does: having the guts to tell the truth.
Doubtful
Your ability to sink to personal insults so quickly again shows your lack of arguments.
I note you conveniently forget to quote the part of Ferrao’s statment where she said her point i.e. that people were “caught up in the concept” of his candidacy.
Again, nowhere did she say that was the only reason he was doing well- just that it was a factor that was a big advantage in his campaign because of the media attention it brings.
And the results of Mississippi which show that 90% of blacks are “caught up by the concept” of and inspired by the idea of Obama as a real chance to vote for the “first black president” shows that are statement had some accuracy.
Impartial @28,
If you can’t distinguish between an one-time gaffe from somebody who was enormously remorseful and deliberate pattern from people who refuse to take responsibility, then I can see why the determining who to support might be difficult for you.
I also found the overt racism of the Reverand Wright to be appalling as I am sure do all real democrats. I hope to hear condemnation of it soon.
Thats right. I love Obama. Why is that? Because the man can’t lose. He is a Politically Correct dream. He can call any white who doesn’t vote for him a racist. Forget about the black vote 92% advantage, they can’t be racist. Anyone who mentions Obama’s race or color is a racist. As an Obama supporter I am the most self righteous person who ever lived. Doesn’t matter if I ever laughed at a joke about a minority or ever made a comment about them. I vote for Obama, I am on the high road while you racist, stupid, ignorant bastards who vote for a white boy or girl. Doesn’t matter that his policies are a carbon copy. Doesn’t matter if his speeches are copied word for word. Hell doesn’t matter if Obama actually becomes president, because if he loses, because America is not ready for a black president. Obama has it made, I got it made because I am better than everyone else.
Now just got to pick a running mate that will share my vision of change and inspired the voters like I have. Gee, wonder if George Lopez is available?
Truthsquad:
Don’t hold your breath.
Chicagopat
I think your comments are sincere. Just think of this, though, are you perhaps supporting Olberman as impartial because his bias happens to coincide with yours. He is clearly a democrat and he has made it clear recently that he is pretty much supporting Obama as is most of the boys club of MSNBC. The SNL skits were def. overthetop (and Armisen does a bad impression) but there was a reason they hit a chord because they had some truth.
CJ @39
And I have seen the “monster” epithet repeated on this blog and others many times since.. Such remorse!
Olberman has been outright whoring for the Obama campaign for some time. Like Matthews, Scarborough, and others at NBC it is his policy to have only guests that concur: e.g. Richard Wollff, David Shuster, Jonathan Alter, Eugene Robinson etc.. At one time, they would have Craig Crawford on but he pointed out how slanted their coverage was, so he disappeared into the night. Can’t have someone who isn’t a member in good standing of the NBC boyz club.
If Obama isn’t paying Olberman $4300 per hour, he’s getting a bargain. However, the NBC gang will all tilt to McCain come Fall..
The Obamabots remind me of the dupes who insist that Al Gore said that he invented the internet. This entire meme that the Clintons are racist is a MSM concoction to divide Democrats. It has now gotten to the point where people are telling us that they know what the Clintons were thinking at one tme or another. The idea that the statements of Geraldine Ferarro are part of some grand Clinton plan are beyond absurd. Barack Obama has behaved like a gentleman throughout his campaign I only wish his supporters would follow his lead. Ridiculous stories about the Clintons altering photos, trysting with the Drudge Report and similar smears are like the Republican rantings about looting Air Force One and ransacking the West Wing in both cases they are crackpot fantasies with no basis in fact.
Obama has noted and repuditated numerous statements by Rev. Wright, and has made it clear that he does not agree with everything his pastor says.
Google time? About .5 seconds.
Google also shows a truthsquad who posts comments at NewsBusters. Any relation?
(TRUTHSQUAD #40) I find it appalling too. Hagee, Parsley, Wright – they are all the same to me – that’s why my decision is now so up in the air. HELP!!
Wow, talk about the invasion of the truthsnatchers! Have any of you folks actually watched Olbermann’s comments?
These remark about Olbermann being pro-Obama make absolutely no sense if you’ve seen the video.
Divide and conquer…it’s happening on this blog too! And I thought we were all loyal Democrats!!
Truthsquad and Mike – I get the vast majority of my news from Blogs and the internet. In my experience the MSM has been and will likely to continue to be way behind the curve on facts and the important issues. I watch Olbermann because he seems to be the only anchor on TV capable of calling a lie a lie without parsing or hedging or making excuses. I’m tired of watching CNN report “the Repuclican Senator from where states X about Y, the democrats disagree” without taking the extra step of fact checking and stating that the republican position is glaringly false. But I digress. Olbermann has called out the democratically controlled Congress for failing to act in Iraq in rather string terms. think Oblermann has been fair to both parties in the Democratic primary. Recently, however, the Clinton campaign has had one badly managed gaffe after another, and its hard to find anyone with a sense of objectivity that will defend them.
I have to agree NBC (although probably not KO) will surely assume the position for McCain when the time comes. He cooks some mean ribs, after all. Lightly seasoned with their professional integrity and braised with the rendered remains of their self respect…
Your ability to sink to personal insults so quickly again shows your lack of arguments. -Truthsquad
I’m not sinking to personal insults, just giving you an example. 😉
But by taking offense to my example, you prove my point.
And if I did sink to insulting you, it wouldn’t be so quickly. You’ve been an ignorant thorn in the reality based comment community her for a while now.
Again, nowhere did she say that was the only reason he was doing well… -Truthsquad
You can repeat this falsehood as much as you want, it will never make it true. It just makes you guilty of using Republican style create-your-own-reality tactics.
Obama has noted and repuditated numerous statements by Rev. Wright, and has made it clear that he does not agree with everything his pastor says. -Mark Gisleson
Truthsquad and Partial don’t know how to use Google, nor do they ever tire of being wrong or ignorant.
“…the results of Mississippi which show that 90% of blacks are ‘caught up by the concept’ of and inspired by the idea of Obama as a real chance to vote for the “first black president” shows that are statement had some accuracy.”
I call complete and utter bullshit on this.
The results of Mississippi show that Hillary Clinton, who initially had an advantage among African-American voters, has insulted blacks (among others) with her disgusting pattern of race-baiting specifically to highlight that Obama (as specified in her campaign’s post-South Carolina press statements) is the “black” candidate. This, she believes, would create the perception that Obama maintains “radical” views, is somehow outside the mainstream or is an empty suit who benefits from personal affirmative action statements made by individual voters at the ballot box.
Ridiculously stupid comments like Truthsquad’s above (since blacks are voting for Obama in high numbers, it must be because he is black) only serve to reinforce the false perceptions that Hillary Clinton is trying to create and are a sad indication that her continual race-baiting, for some people, works.
Impartial @44,
You changed the subject. I’ll take that to mean that you concede the point.
Glad we could find common ground.
P.S. You might want to consider a new moniker. The one you’ve selected isn’t a good fit.
CJ
No, I didn’t. And my monniker fits me more than it possibly could any other blogger on this site with the exception of Truthsquad who already has an apt one of his own. The bulk of people posting here have a single viewpoint and do not welcome those who disagree.
Obama repudiates Wright’s support of Farrakhan yes and says he has disagreed with some of Wrights statments and agrees with others. Notably he has never ever specified which is which. So no he has never repudiated these statments and since he continues to attend Wright’s Church and financially support it, I have to think he might agree with them.
But more importantly, Obama continues to associate with Wright and include him in his campaign. Wright has a role on Obama’s religious advisory committe and Obama continues to call him his spiritual advisor so its not just limitied to him attending Wright’s church where this invective is regularly spewed- which would be bad enough. (Google is a good source but maybe you should check all links)
The bulk of people posting here have a single viewpoint and do not welcome those who disagree. -Partial
Because facts are not debatable and the bulk of us choose to accept them.
Doubtful
Your “facts” are skewed by your obvious partiality o one candidate to the point of blindness to any objective observation. Truthsquad also sees this and comments on it.
Your hero worship is rather jejeune.
“This entire meme that the Clintons are racist…ridiculous stories about the Clintons altering photos, trysting with the Drudge Report and similar smears…”
Some of you people have short memories:
January 27, 2008 — Clinton Camp Says Obama Is Now “The Black Candidate”
Amy is 1000 percent correct. Clinton is trying to create a false impression (as she described) to discourage whites from voting for Obama. If she has to insult the black community in the process, then so be it.
Anybody who puts the blame on so-called “Obamabots” for calling Hillary out on her sick behavior is only asking for more of it.
Amy
It nice to know that you can read the minds of every black voter in Mississippi so you can explain their motivation.
The funny thing is that it is you, not I , who have the problem with some Blacks supporting Obama because they are proud to support the first potential black president. Its not racist for them to do so, just like its not sexist for some women to want to see the first female president. Its clearly part of both Obama’s and Clinton’s appeal to their strongest demographics.
But by the same token, its not racist to point out that the concept of being the first black president is a concept that helps Obama get votes – which is all Ferraro did.
The screaming of racism is nothing but an attempt to divide the party and try to force Hillary out of the race.
That type of race-baiting is what causing the issues- not the Clinton’s comments .
Olberman’s failure to address both sides of the issue and instead start bringing in ridiculous comparisions to David Duke and South Africa is really just pathetic.
And the sad thing is for those who support him, I doubt its based on any true support of Obama. Its just meant to grab ratings- and he will be glad to turn on Obama if he thinks that will jack up his ratings a percentage point. Just like Chris Matthews- Bush’s biggest fan- turned on him when it helped his ratings to do so.
I really honestly don’t want the democratic equivalent of Bill O’Reilly. A pandering idealogue is distasteful no matter what side of the aisle he is on.
For those of you who have said that you don’t see the difference in how Obama handled the Powers incident and how Clinton handled the Ferraro incident(s) I say this: wake up! Seriously, Powers calls Clinton a Monster and in a very short time Obama distances himslef and Powers was forced out. Clinton let Ferraro go on and on for weeks with barely tepid attempts to distance herself from the comments. And when it finally happened the letter was no appology at all, but an attempt to some assign blame to Obama. Please…to call how these two incidents were handled similar is rediculous.
I don’t see any superiority in the way Obama handled the Power flap. Once both remarks became public, both campaigns gave gentle criticism of the remarks to separate the campaigns from the remarks.
Powers resigned the day after her comments were made public. She bowed out gracefully and without further comment besides an apology.
Ferraro didn’t resign for weeks after her comments went public. She first took to the full media circuit to complain and further push her ugly remarks before she bowed, and did so gracelessly with her letter.
You really see no difference?
The sad fact is that Hillary could _so_ say the right thing, and yet she fails to say it. Somehow I think that she doesn’t distance herself very effectively supports the unintentional nature of the attacks. She talks about things happening inside her campaign as if they happened inside a foreign government. When asked about this stuff, that is the time to show outrage. Somehow she perceives this ‘give in’ as failure. But she would reap high returns among Obama supporters.
#35 Chris Andersen
Well said. Bravo
#41 obama supporter
Well said. Bravo
Don’t you wish there was a way to recommend comments?
I find if funny that the Obama camp has turned around accused the Clinton camp who is pulling the race card out. Let me tell you, it’s REALLY working so far.
Your “facts” are skewed by your obvious partiality o one candidate to the point of blindness to any objective observation. Truthsquad also sees this and comments on it. -Partial
I don’t particularly care if Trollsquad agrees with your asinine claims of bias. I readily admit I support one candidate over the other, and I don’t need to pretend I’m impartial to lend credence to my comments.
But where, oh where, dear troll, have I ever used facts that we’re not indeed, fact?
It may look like hero worship from the point of view of the sorest bunch of losers the internet has ever known, but it’s really just reality. The sooner you move on from anger to acceptance, the better off you’ll be.
In case there is any lingering doubt, those who feel the need to purport their truthfulness or impartiality through self-selected handles, are typically neither truthful or impartial.
I am, however, doubtful you’re even a Democrat, given your chronic aversion to reality.
It’s so disappointing to see this kind of debate going on in a progressive blog. I never imagined that a Democratic candidate would engage in race-baiting tactics as the Clinton campaign is doing…both explicitly (see the link in comment 59 above) and implicitly. And I never imagined that progressives would defend such tactics while accusing those who criticize them of playing the race card.
Olbermann is right…Hillary is running as a Republican.
Don’t you wish there was a way to recommend comments? -Nell
I’d rather have a way to ban racists.
John S.
“weeks?” Please. You are well aware that Ferraro’s statements didn’t hit the radar until this Monday and she resigned Weds. so we are comparing two days to one. You may as well count from the day Powers gave the interview. Under your logic, why didn’t Powers resign right then when she made the comment and instead wait so long until the news had hit the american press?
In both cases, the campaigns responded when the statements became an issue and not before.
And Powers was a senior advisor, Ferraro one of hundreds on a finance committee.
Roncocco
When you are reduced to citing to anonymous unsourced “quotes” that are attributed to unnamed “clinton strategists” to support your attacks you might wonder whether all you are really showing is that your claims are highly questionable.
In fact, the first person who portrayed Obama as the “black candidate” was his mentor Reverand Wright who did so proudly in his Christmas Sermon while needlessly denigrating the Clintons because they are white Europeans. Maybe you should buy the video.
Amy,
I think more damage was done by Ferraro’s explanation of the comment. She said she was trying to account for why Obama and Hillary were essentially tied. She said it wasn’t experience, and wasn’t because of a difference in ideas, so it must be race.
But calling race the difference, implies that otherwise Obama would be behind, so his success is not valid. Just like caucus results are not valid. The overall point is to invalidate some part of the Obama vote, not all of it. This allows the super-dels to rethink their support. This helps Clinton explain her losses. This is what Bill was doing in SC: explaining the loss.
Something else: if you voted for Obama, because he was ahead, and looks electable, maybe rethink that position. Maybe you were bamboozled.
The really disgusting part is that Hillary is trying to create groups of irrational votes for Obama. And her campaign slammed Obama when his campaign created a demographic map back in January. Probably she slammed him because that was her tactic.
Doubtful
Your post @66 says it all. Anger and bias. Read your own stuff.
Truthsquad, I’m finding it VERY difficult to see you as anything but a scorched earth Clintonista. Your comments about Obama not specifically repudiating the Rev. Wright’s more sensational comments are absurd. In each news article I’ve Googled, Obama’s “responses” were made in direct answer to questions about specific quotes. You seem to think the repudiation doesn’t count unless Obama repeats the offensive comment before rejecting it. That’s called creating soundbytes for McCain’s attack ads.
This is what Tim Russert did when he REFUSED to accept Obama’s rejection of Farrakhan’s unsolicited endorsement, and insisted on making Obama use Russert’s language to denounce Farrakhan.
But I think the Orwellian use of pseudonyms here speaks for itself. I comment under my own name, and if you Google me you’ll find an Edwards supporter who has reluctantly picked up the Obama banner. Not because I am that excited by Barack, but because I know Hillary’s record all too well.
Sorry I am so late in commenting, but I just finished a 2 week laugh over Gerry’s comment that being African-American helps Obama. You see, I live in ALASKA. That’s right, ALASKA. African American people are, to put it lightly, somewhat rare in these parts. Obama stomped Hillary badly up here. People were walking 2 miles in 30 below 0 weather because parking was impossible to find at the polling places. It wasn’t Hillary who inspired us, and it wasn’t Baracks ‘exotic’ blackness either.
Re: Truthsquad (so-called) @69
“anonymous unsourced ‘quotes’”?
The link provided says “…Clinton campaign strategists denied any intentional effort to stir the racial debate. But they said they believe the fallout has had the effect of branding Obama as ‘the black candidate,’ a tag that could hurt him outside the South.” (FYI, Huffpost is quoting language out of an AP article. That the AP chose not to name the strategists for their story does not make mean that the source was not who the AP reported, i.e. “Clinton campaign strategists”).
In fact, “the fallout” didn’t brand Obama “the black candidate”, Clinton branded Obama “the black candidate”.
Here’s another reminder from PBS —
Truthsquad (so-called) may not like the facts, but that does’t make them any less true.
Steve,
what does it take to convince you? here’s a complete technical analysis of the darkened obama ad:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/berni_mccoy/249
Read your own stuff. -Partial
Great suggestion. I did reread it, and aside from being a well written evisceration of your ignorance I said, “I readily admit I support one candidate over the other.” Like I said, I don’t hide behind an assumed but unearned air of impartiality.
Just because I have a candidate preference doesn’t mean I’m biased. My issues with Hillary’s campaign are all rooted in fact.
I noticed how I challenged you to prove your assertion and you failed to even attempt to. Par for the course.
Hell yeah, I’m angry. I’ve been listening to and reading ignorant dipshits for the last three days defending blatant racists remarks. The same idiots were defending Clinton’s praise of McCain last week and supporting her denigration of Obama as an ’empty suit,’ and anger is my natural reaction when dealing with willfully ignorant trolling asses on the internet pretending to be Democrats.
Let me ask you a question. If you such a die hard Democrat, why do you only comment on article that have to do with the primary? Why such selective reading?
Before Truthsquad burns up any more pixels trying to change the subject from Ferraro to Wright, Josh Marshall — our best journalist-blogger — has an interesting summary of the Rev. Wright’s comments.
I just know that I find it refreshing to have a candidate who is intellectually and morally secure enough to enjoy provocative sermons even when he knows he may disagree with them. What a wonderful change of pace from the lockstep groupthink espoused by our incurious president.
And I’m glad Sen. Clinton finally apologized for Ferraro’s remarks, even if her defenders in this thread aren’t at all embarrassed by them.
Mark Gisleson
My point is really that “rejecting” some of his statments seems a little hollow when Obama continues to have Wright as part of his campaign and continues not only to go to but to financially support his church.
Moreover, Obama tries to excuse these ugly racial divisive comments as “just my old Uncle” implying that its a unwanted connection that dates from childhood not one that Obama freely chose as an adult. So again, he seems to be wanting to have it both ways.
I do truly question if Obama’s unity- race transcedent vision can be genuine, when he continues to tie himself closely to someone who spouts this type of ugliness. I also question the judgment of Obama when he has as his spiritual advisor someone who turns the Christmas story into a parable on how the whites oppress the black man.
Are you truly telling me that you aren’t appalled by the video and it doesn’t bother you that when he was a full blown adult- Obama chose this man as his mentor?
And its sad when I am called a troll and ugly names just for raising the question- when inflammatory statements like “Powers was right Hillary is a monster” is considered acceptable discourse on this board.
dont forget, Hillary used to be leading in the polls among african americans. it wasn’t until they started race baiting that her numbers in the black community started going down.
How in the world is this racist on the part of black people? A politician insults a certain community, which causes the community to throw their support behind the other candidate, and now the community is accused of being racist?
Hillary is bush lite! the logic of her campaign is the same kind of logic I’ve heard for the last 8 years used to justify everything. It’s the same logic that bus supporters use, twisting facts into pretzels.
So Obama just likes uncensored thought provoking comments. Unless of course they are made by Ferraro or any Hillary Supporter than they are outrageous statements that must be condemned and censored.
Clearly the efforts made by Obama supporters to excuse the hypocrisy of his campaign are truly sublime and industrious.
Again though, I am not derailing- I have asked a simple question- how are Wright’s statements not more racist than anything out of the Clinton campaign? and how can these comments- which came first- not be considered worhty of mention by Olberman when he decided to engage in lecturing on racist comments and accuse people of injecting race in the campaign? As the Video made clear, the Obama campaign has been injecting race since before Iowa.
I was just pointing out the one-sided nature of Olberman’s comments and of all the Obama supporters on this board.
But clearly while Obama enjoys thought provoking commentary none of his supporters on this board wants to hear it unless it conforms with their world views.
let me explain something to all the non black people who can’t seem to understand things. Obama’s pastor comes from a very different time in american history. he comes from a time when black people were actually second class citizens. he lived thru segregation and jim crow. he witnessed politicians openly declare that their mission was to keep black people down.
No one who did not live thru that time period as a black person, can understand the hell that daily life was for black people. if this man is still bitter about that, then no one has the right to criticize him for his views. not hillary, and certainly not obama. all americans, but especially black americans owe people like him a debt of gratitude, not criticism. we would not be where we are today as a country, if people like the reverend had not stood up against the power structure of this country.
As I said above, I’m delighted Obama chose a church with a pastor who does not hesitate to throw out moral challenges to his congregation.
And, as a blue-eyed Norwegian-American with a minor in African American studies, nothing said by any African-American minister from the pulpit frightens me. But the fact that so many non African Americans are so easily alarmed by angry words from survivors of the American Holocaust saddens me. The Rev. Wright is not a spokesman for Obama ’08, and he does not speak for Obama. Were he so easily recruited, I suspect Obama would have found another church to attend.
And perhaps you should consider the possibility that it is Obama’s willingness to listen to dissenting voices that has given him the strength to create a transcendent, post-racial vision of America. I for one am tired of decades of bedwetting fearmongering and negativity driving our political discourse.
80. Truthsquad
how are Wright’s statements not more racist than anything out of the Clinton campaign?
“In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01,” Wright wrote in a church-affiliated magazine. “White America and the western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns.”
In one of his sermons, Wright said, “Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!…We [in the U.S.] believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.”
Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr.
Please, give me comment from the Clinton Camp that comes anywhere near this bullshit. BTW I could also put comments from the a praised member of the church Mr, Louis Farrakhan, but this blog would be overloaded
80. Sorry Truthsquad, I read your comment incorrectly on comment 83.
Manny, what’s your point? Wright’s speaking about the country we live in a truthful and honset manner. What has he said that you’ve quoted that you disagree with, and why?
And how can these words be read as an attack on Hillary?
Way to go Keith !
The Clinton Camp and her supporters are going to have some answering to do after this campaign comes to an end. The Clinton’s are going to have to be reevaluated as to the place they fill in Democratic politics. So far they have demonstrated complete abandon for the party to feed the Clinton ego. As for Clinton supporters … You have shown yourselves capable of becoming just the female version of ‘angry white males’… abandoning any sense of purpose or morality to support your one cause whatever other hard fought cornerstones of humanity be damned to the feeding fires. Pathetic.
Chris Anderson,
When I see Clinton partisans immediately latching on to the worst explanations (e.g. the alleged misogyny in the phrase “…periodically, when she’s feeling down..”) all I can think is that this is incredibly insulting to Democrats who have made the choice to support Obama.
See how easy it is to demagogue? And before you denounce me as a rapid Obama supporter, try actually searching the comments here to find some evidence of that. Or trust me and don’t waste your time because you wont find any.
85. Mark Gisleson
Manny, what’s your point? Wright’s speaking about the country we live in a truthful and honset manner. What has he said that you’ve quoted that you disagree with, and why?
I put these out because I thought Truthsquad was saying Wright’s comments are no worse that what Hillary’s camp said. I read it wrong and appologized. To you are you fucking kidding me? 9/11 was a cowardly attack from a terrorist organization, nothing to do with racism, it was an attack on ALL of us.
And how can these words be read as an attack on Hillary?
They are not, just showing the ideals this church has.
BTW your remarks strike me as a very Antiamerican. If thats the case why don’t you go back to Norway and preach your bullshit there.
why don’t you go back to Norway and preach your bullsh*t there.
Because I’m a third-generation American on my dad’s (Norwegian) side, and my mother’s family came here in 1648. But that doesn’t change the fact that you don’t seem to believe in Freedom of Speech.
Manny, you don’t sound much like a Democrat. I thought only Republicans were incapable of seeing past the literal words to the deeper meaning beneath. Wright sounds like a very interesting speaker. Or maybe you’re happier with George Bush’s version of 9/11?
Doubtful at #76
There is no point in attempting rational discourse with this. My point is proven. You are evidently incapable of tolerating disagreement of any kind.
“…your remarks strike me as a very Antiamerican [sic]…”
There’s nothing more anti-American than labeling others who differ with you as anti-American.
Allen
Wright’s statements were said a mere month or so ago- they are not historical relics that need to be put into the context of age.
Wright like the rest of us- is part of the present age.
We all have history- and while discrimination exists against whites, women, asians, jews etc- that doesn’t give anyone a free pass to spew invective- any more than the fact that one has been abused as a kid lets you go on to abuse your own kids and say others shouldn’t condemn the abuse because you had it tough.
truthsquad,
your analogy is false. the better analogy would be if you’ve been abused as a child, then you have every right to hold bitterness in your heart and not give any forgiveness.
Wright was abused by white america and he has no obligation to let go of his bitterness.
you also state that we all have history and discrimination exists against all. how true, but please tell me where in US history that white americans experienced anything equal to what black americans experienced.
as I stated earlier, your comments show your ignorance on this subject. all discrimination is not equal, some groups in this country have experienced much worse than others. by your logic, a paper cut is the same as being stabbed, because they both bleed.
Truthsquad (so-called) and Partial don’t want to talk about
– how Hillary will enforce her health insurance mandates,
– why Hillary has supported NAFTA all these years,
– why Hillary is against the cluster bomb treaty,
– why Hillary, in true Bush fashion, places loyalty before experience when staffing her campaign
– why Hillary’s campaign accepts money from oil and insurance companies,
– why Hillary voted for the bankruptcy bill,
– why Hillary takes credit for accomplishments she had nothing to do with (e.g. Ireland),
– why Hillary voted for and supported the war in Iraq,
– why Hillary voted for Kyl-Lieberman,
– why Hillary refuses to release her donor lists, white house records and tax returns (despite the fact that she demanded the same from her Republican opponents),
– why Hillary’s failure with her health care proposal in the 90’s isn’t a demonstration of her poor leadership skills
So, like the one they support and, in theory, the Republicans they oppose, they want to talk about everything else…anything else…even if it divides us along racial lines. Well done guys.
You are evidently incapable of tolerating disagreement of any kind. -Partial
You are correct.
But wait, if I say you’re correct, then I am capable of tolerating disagreement, thereby rendering you incorrect!
OH NO!
The very fabric of the universe is unraveling!
Allen
To answer your question – I think those americans who personally lived through the holocaust have experienced a lot worse than those. like Obama, who is the prep-school educated son of a Kenyan national and a white mother living in Hawaii.
Or is your claim that anyone who has darker skin gets to proclaim victim status worse than anyone else- including women who have been forced in America to be sex slaves (As has happened to a mexican women according to today’s headlines)..
If so, that seems the most racist statement of all. I judge all people as individuals and while i admit that many have it tougher because of discrimination- that doesn’t give you a free pass to discriminate against others. Moreover, just because Wright is Black that doesn’t autmoatically mean he was abused by white America- there is no such thing. America is a melting pot.
Kristen
I will gladly talk about all those things in threads where they matter and show where you are wrong and even agree with you if you have something legitimate to say.
But truly since this posting is about racist coments all you are trying to do is derail this thread with things that have nothing to do with the topic. Just proving the point that Obama supporers, like you, blindly refuse to even consider their own candidate’s possible failings.
Unfortunately for you, those independents who you kept touting as the key to Obama’s victory in November are not ignoring these issues.
Good lord Truthsquad, don’t you know anything about American history? Melting pot? Please explain to me when the descendants of slaves brought here in chains from Africa got to melt in?
Speaking as a white person, you’re embarrassing me with your childish argument that scrapes up every Jim Crow excuse available to you. And please show some respect and capitalize Holocaust when you use it.
Btw, the Rev. Wright is a survivor of the American Holocaust: 400 years of slavery and racial oppression unique to Africans.
Sex slaves? You will drag anything into this thread to change the subject.
Fair warning: I’m off sick today and can camp out here as long as you can keep trying to distract Steve’s readers from the fact that Hillary Clinton apologized for Ferraro’s remarks. The fact this thread is still going is a tribute to you and the other Clinton supporters who seem to think her apology requires you to extract a pound of flesh from Obama.
this is exactly why she didn’t apologize right away, why her apology was half assed at best, and why it was directed specifically at black journalists.
she doesn’t want to piss off people like truthsquad who live in PA. They want to blame all their own personal failings on some imaginary black person. I didn’t get into college because a black guy took my spot. Never mind that I didn’t study and goofed off in school, it was my spot and he took it.
I didn’t get the promotion because of affirmative action, not because I’m lazy and barely competent.
I dont want to here black people talk about discrimination over 400 years, because yesterday some black guy looked at me funny and i felt uncomfortable.
Everybody has experienced pain. I know what it was like to live thru the Holocaust because yesterday I stubbed my toe, and it REALLY hurt.
Camp out all you want. Wright was never a slave and so is only the survivor of discrimination as are many people including american indians, jews, and women. Your attempts to make all blacks into a victim class who should be excused for wrongheaded statements or actions as you are doing for Wright and Farrakhan is the real racism here.
I have enough respect for Mr. Wright as a man to treat him like the responsible adult he is who must be held accountable for his words.
Do you really think Obama wants your kind of BS argument in support of his candidacy- if so you must truly be as sick as you claimed to be to your boss today.
I strongly suspect that you are a republican who is just trying to be divisive.
Well, I find responses of the Obama camp and its followers, a bit overheated… and perhaps THAT might be contributing to any weakening of Democratic chances of victory in November.
In reality though, November is a long way away. I think all, including Olberman, should really try to cool down.
Mark Gisleson you are so transparent. Obviously you are a young college student who took a couple courses in African-American studies and decides he is an expert on racism and the plight of blacks in this country. So you find yourself questioning the views of American society and want to be crusader for the rights of minorities in this country. That’s why you are questioning the Jim Crow south and the American Holocaust, probably because that was part of some lecture.
Me, I grew up in the south, Virginia to be exact. I know racism exists. I know hatred exists. I also know that as much as you support the causes of people like Rev. Wright, in there eyes you are the enemy. Obama, I do not believe sees America that way but, to paraphrase Machiaveli, “If you to see how the world views the prince, look at the company among him”. That is why Obama is distancing himself from Wright.
Wright is a racist against whites. Clinton may not be completely innocent, but is nothing like that guy.
Young man, you need to get into the real world, and have some real life experiences before you can honestly say you have fought the world fight.
Lastly, I take much offense to your support of Wrights view on 9/11 which you were obviously too young to really know the impact of that event. You say that I am a Republican because I differ from this view? Fine. I’d rather be a Republican and love my country than be a democrat and hate it.
It doesn’t matter what Samantha Powers said. She was an adviser, not a spokesperson. Her comments were her personal thoughts made while promoting her book.
It doesn’t matter what Geraldine Ferraro said. She was a fundraiser, not a spokesperson. Her comments were her personal thoughts made while earning money for herself as a public speaker.
If Hillary Clinton wants to make mountains out of molehills (Powers), then she should expect the same in return (Ferraro). Hillary can’t expect to try to gain cheap points on Obama by raising holy hell over a gaffe without anticipating that he’ll seek to expose her hypocrisy by doing the same in return.
“I’d rather be a Republican and love my country than be a democrat and hate it.”
Fortunately, most of the time, CB’s blog provides an oasis from such idiocy.
Jake Rhodes.
I totally agree with your sentiments. But I would note that Obama’s supporters have been making mountains out of molehills for a month before Powers including attacking Rendell for being racist.
And truly Powers was fired more for her comment pointing out that Obama wouldn’t rely on his campaign plan for Iraq rather than the “monster’ comment. That just served as a convenient excuse for distancing themselves from her more troubling comments.
But to bring this thread back where it belongs the beginning- your whole point is right it is tit-for-tat amongst the cmpaigns which just makes Olberman a biased tool for being Obama’s mouthpiece on a overheated outrage on Ferraro’s comments while ignoring those from the other campaign.
Um … you do realize that Rev. Wright isn’t actually part of Obama’s campaign, don’t you? Thus, the comparison is invalid.
Dear f***ing lord … this primary has brought out idiots from all sides, has created more mountains out of more molehills than I thought possible, and shown some people in a light I wish I had never witnessed.
It’s funny how truthsquad and Manny would rather speculate about me than pop my name into google. I’m a 55-year-old former Iowa farm kid, and my degree studies were taken in my thirties after spending a decade building tires in a WWII era Firestone plant. In my spare time I used to be an officer of the Democratic party in Des Moines, and worked for various campaigns including Sen. Tom Harkin’s first re-election bid.
Later, as an older student I took mostly advanced level classes and studied under published professors with very solid reputations. I didn’t apply to graduate, btw, and don’t pretend to have a degree even though I completed all the requirements. And I didn’t just study African American history, I took every undergrad writing class offered by the University of Iowa, as well as some Comp Lit classes on psychology and communication.
Since college I’ve made my living writing various types of marketing materials. Manny, you’re just a partisan hothead (gotta love ya for that), but TS? I wouldn’t be at all surprised if you were on Clinton’s payroll. You’re very slippery and good at what you do, and what you do is stir up sh*t when a thread’s topic threatens your candidate.
Anyone who wants to study the art of disruption should read each of TS’s comments. He/she consistently rebuts what he/she can, ignores the rest, and then throws something new and anti-Obama into the mix.
First you tried to make this about Wright instead of Ferraro, then you quick threw out some sophisticated explanations (“a nice- but false- rhetorical trick”) as to why Ferraro is innocent of race-baiting, then you throw in an anti-Obama link from The Politico (NewsBusters with table manners). After letting everyone get riled up you then suddenly pop back up and throw Mississippi into the mix.
Next comment in you take the high road asking all good pure Democrats to join you in condemning the evil nasty Chicago minister. Then you go for some psychology and try to woo an Obamaite with flattery. Then more misleading patter about Wright, followed by a sarcastic put down leading into hearts and flowers about Clinton and more aspersions about Obama.
You did get in a good dig when you corrected the commenters who were saying weeks when they meant days (re: how long Ferraro kept twaddling her divisive bile) before again dragging in the Rev. Wright. Really, by that point I had trouble not seeing your treatment of Wright as astonishingly aggressive and suspiciously well informed (i.e., campaign talking points???).
And then you locked horns with me. Dude (and you are a dude, I would bet money on it), we can dance all night. Say whatever you like, I just want it to be plain that you are an anonymous commenter who consistently attacks Obama and keeps twisting this thread off topic. This post was about Hillary Clinton and her surrogates who have sought out public forums in which to spill their bile. The Rev. Wright has not held any press conferences, and, were it not for oppo research, only his parishioners would have a clue about his sermons. And NONE of us heard those sermons so we don’t know the full context, or what he was trying to tell his congregation.
In high school I once quoted Billy Graham as being in favor of premarital sex. It was an accurate quote but completely dishonest. I don’t think many “thinking” Democrats would have problems with Wright’s sermons if they sat through one from beginning to end.
And I don’t think Truthsquad would ever agree to identify himself to our host so as to establish that he is not in fact a Clinton operative trolling well read blogs.
I am who I say I am, and Google will back me up (you’ll get my blog Norwegianity, which I killed last week because I’m not an Obamaite and can’t argue the vision thing appropriately). When I google Truthsquad, I get a lot of matches from a lot of blogs where you or other Truthsquads have been very busy.
What’s up with that?
Larry Mondello
Fortunately, most of the time, CB’s blog provides an oasis from such idiocy.
Unfortunately idiots sometimes miss the concept. I am not a Republican, I was just making a point.
Mark D.
um..when did I say Wright was part of the Obama campaign? Allow you to direct you to post#84 and 88, hopefully that will explain things. I do agree with you on one thing, but I think the media is doing all this for ratings by focusing on these petty issues.
Mark
I am not a member of the Clinton Campaign nor have I ever worked for them and I have no plans to. I am just a yes well -informed person from Pennsylvania who doesn’t fall for hype and points out hypocrisy where I see it. As I did in the threads on Spitzer where I called for his resignation.
Engage in all the conspiracy theories that you wish to try to detract from arguments that you can’t defeat on their merits. But believe what you will. The point is that my comments on this thread were all directed at one thing. That was pointing out that Olberman’s comments were the biased unjustified BS that they were because he didn’t look at the question of who was really injecting race into the campaign. The Wright videos were just the best example.
Any side roads were merely responses to Obama supporters who were trying to change the topic- like you are by going into your life story and trying to paint those who disagree with you as part of a vast clinton conspiracy.
Given your vast amounts of free time and willingness to divulge- do you want to tell us how long you have been working for the Obama campaign?
Truthie, given that Steve Benen knows me and that I blogged under my own name from 2003 until last week, your question is deliberately offensive. I am not an unknown person even if you don’t know me. The bio was at Manny’s request as he thought I was a college kid for some reason.
You are not a “member” of the Clinton campaign. Fine, I guess I’ll take you at your word for that but as I outlined in great detail above you are the one who keeps trying to control the flow of this thread away from the post topic. Steve’s done a post on the Rev. Wright since this thread started, but I don’t see you taking your anti-Wright jihad there. Why’s that?
Wright is simply a tool you’re using to keep people from talking about Clinton, Ferraro and race baiting. That’s an established story that’s been widely written about. The Rev. Wright is an emerging story and so far his side hasn’t been presented. Not that you can’t talk about it in Steve’s other post thread.
“Olberman’s comments were the biased unjustified BS that they were because he didn’t look at the question of who was really injecting race into the campaign. The Wright videos were just the best example.”
Rev. Wright has not injected ANY race issues into this campaign. Republican and HRC oppo researchers have injected Rev. Wright into the campaign. Sermons given by Rev. Wright long before Obama ran for president can hardly be considered a fit subject for Olbermann’s Clinton-specific special commentary.
You’re an argumentative partisan and all your arguments address the thread topic by with YES BUT OTHER PEOPLE DID OTHER THINGS SO LETS TALK ABOUT THEM INSTEAD.
“Vast amounts of free time”? I have the flu and am not sharp enough to work on paying projects today. Be glad I’m off my feed or I’d change the setting from mince to puree.
I have a John Edwards bumpersticker on my car. It’s not coming off ever. And don’t expect me to apologize for having invested a lot of time into studying American racism, or why most white Americans don’t “get it.”
This thread is about Geraldine Ferraro and the fact that Sen. Clinton (whose husband I voted for twice) had to apologize for her. If you tried sticking to that topic maybe others would stay on topic as well. And if you want to talk about Wright, I’m sure you’re hurting Steve’s feelings by not going to the post he just wrote about Rev. Wright.
Mark
I will move to the other thread if I have anything to add as I don’t want to bother a sick man. But the statements we are talking about from Wright were made in December 2007 and January 13- in the middle of the campaign and were race based attacks on Hillary so are absolutely relevant to my point. Your pretending otherwise doesn’t help your case.
manny from miami… do you have any thoughts on why any mention of building 7 was totally omitted from the 9/11 commision report? i dont believe they mentioned it once, which seems odd.
After years of cheering on Keith’s exposures of GWB and the Republicans, I have been disappointed that he joined in the bigotry his colleagues have toward the Clintons. The worse thing is that he denies it even as he frames his questions to guests with blatant bias.
The Clintons: The Sultans of Spin.
Let’s see, how many times have they changed their labelling of him? Just in the last few weeks, it was inexperienced, then not ready as Commander-in-chief, then Vice Presidential material, then the affirmative action candidate. What will they think of next? It better be something, because nothing sticks.
The spin on the race? First, it was winning states, then after losing Iowa, then it was the delegate count, then after getting behind in the delegates, it was the big states, then it was the important states (which, of course, are the only ones that she wins)…
The spin on the DNC rules? First, it is the agreement to uphold the rules, disqualify FL and MI. Then, when she needs it, it is “oh, we cannot disenfranchise them…”. Pledged Delegates (not the Supers)? First, the vote must be respected, then it is “the rules allow us to persuade them to change their vote.
My fiance and I were initially favorable to Hillary. She is the best policy wonk ever, and it seemed like it might be good to leverage some of Bill’s overseas credibility. But, the way they shown their complete lack of character, judgement, and respect for the people in this campaign, we will NEVER vote for them. If she somehow steals the nomination, I’m *working for* McCain.
Oh yes, and saying that Hillary has executive experience is like saying Yoko was a Beatle. Sorry, but Residency does not equal Presidency.
Olbermann says that Clinton has a pattern of being borderline on the issue of race. This is reaching for ratings more than serious journalism. It would be more appropriate to use items that are clearly over the border.
Read for yourself and decide: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/12/obamas-controversial-pastor-puts-church-in-hot-water/
Oberman was rediculously upsetting, this is tooooooo much. I am a minority person and I think this is getting out of hand. obama and the rest of the people that think Ferrara insulted obama are out of your minds.
Ferrar has the right to say what ever she thinks, its her first Amenment right!
As long as she is not insulting. Obama is taking us back to horrible times with
all this rediculous accusations. If any of you know about Geraldine Ferrara she
is not a racist and you should all really Google her so you know what she is all
about. obama is bring us to a Freedom of Speech intimidation.,
I am sorry to say, he will only bring us dispair!
Folks, let’s be for real, do we really want a person like Hilary Clinton as the next president of the United States of America?
Soooo!!!! What is the problem with Ferraro’s comment?
He has no right to talk to anyone that way. I am a firm believer that everyone must answer to someone. Since Olberman’s boss’s encourage behavior like his, I guess he will have to answer to God. I am sick of the media using the airwaves to paint the Clinton’s as racist to help Obama win an election. The hatred pouring out of his nasty mouth was repulsive to me and to most good people I would think. Obama’s preacher, his guru Farakan? not racist?? Give us a break.
Byron
Ah we have a conspiracy theorist in the midsts(maybe more than you). I have to admit, does sound fishy with building 7. However, I can tell you for a fact that a plane did hit the Pentagon. Our companies HQ is right across the street and not only could they hear and see the plane, many witnessed the crash and I have seen the photos. Now unless we crashed our plane, I’d say that is pretty hard evidence.
Clinton Polarization of America by Race and Gender.
Bill and Hillary are polarizing Americans once again this time through their surrogates (Geraldine Ferraro).
Obama if he were only white, or black and female, things would be different. Now race and gender are both being polarized by the Clintons.
Not long ago Bill and Hillary said that it took a white President to put into law the activist activities of a black man (Martin Luther King Jr.).
When will Bill and Hillary admit that a black man has what it takes to unite America?
Isn’t the Clinton attempt to polarize Americans obvious? Will there be a backlash? Will Americans both white and black, male and female say no to race-baiting and gender-bashing? Shame on you Bill and Hilliary!
By the Clintons’ attempt to polarize America, will Americans both white and black, male and female, defeat the “Clinton Dynasty” attempt?
Wow, that Rev. Wright, just scathing. This country controlled by rich white people? No way! It’s the poor minorities that are in control. Hillary never called a n*****? No way! I’m sure she’s heard it a lot. Bill riding dirty? No way! He’s the cleanest president we had since the last one who was impeached.
Sheesh
I really like how Obama’s people dance around the issues. Obama himself has done nothing but recite the liberal wish list and co-opt Clinton policies. He has a record in the senate of non performance. And he’s played the race and youth cards nonstop, with his wife implying Bill is a racist on national tv and talking about ‘a new generation of leaders’. Such rhetoric, with the percentages of black people and young people voting for him, tell it all.
We Clinton supporters try to bring up issues and policy and are met with smarmy insults. Used to be such venom came only from the republicans. As for the media smear campaign, educated people are revolted by that as well. That you would repeat any of Olberman’s comments after he has thrown mud at Hillary for so long, shows you don’t know the difference between empty smears and adult conversation. Folk who copy the media’s contemtuous tone have serious issues.
The Clintons are the greatest policy experts of our time with a spectacular governing record a mile long. But you don’t want to look at that. You’re too busy with rhetorical tricks, like using false categories and comparisons, trying to make your guy look better than he is. Obama has no experience? Hitler had experience and look what happened. Obama is a lanky politician. He’s Lincoln! Obama has no policy expertise? He’s only been in office four years. The last three don’t count because he was absent. So he’s Mr. Agent of Change! And don’t you dare say one word about the silly promises to the far left he won’t be able to keep. That’s a new suit he’s wearing! He’s Mr. Agent of Change!
Now if only someone got worked up about the sexist undertones of the campaign! (although arguably Ferraro has, though her message comes across as negative!) People wake up, the Clinton’s are not racists! Its a difficult position for Hillary Clinton since anything negative that his said by her or campaign people is perceived as racist. Ferraro’s comments are open to interpretation in my opinion they can be seen in a negative way and just as a general “innocent” statement. Thought her choice of wording was poor in both in the initial statements and “apology”, I must admit! What saddens me is two ideal (imo) candidates duking it out like this.
Ferraro is saying Mr. Barack Obama doesn’t deserve to be where he is…he hasn’t earned it. She says he achieved his current position by “luck”.
What does she mean by that? Lucky that he was born black in a white man’s society? Lucky that his parents divorced when he was 2 years old, growing up without his father? Lucky that he graduated from Columbia University? Lucky that he decided to forgo monetary pursuits to work as a community organizer as Director of the Developing Communities Project, helping low-income residents?
Or, maybe she means Obama is lucky that he graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School? Lucky to get a job back in Chicago as a lawyer representing people in discrimination claims and voting rights cases? Lucky to get hired as a lecturer of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School? Lucky to win election as a state Senator for Illinois? Lucky to win election to the U.S. Senate?
This guy Obama must be blessed by God almighty to have that kind of luck.
If there were ‘clear examples’ then Ron or Tom’s comments might hold weight.
But there aren’t, and they (and others, arguably a large portion of the blogosphere) go on at length about these racist call outs.
Maybe the poster above me should shut up before they realize they’re talking about something they didn’t bother to investigate… Like how old Ferraro was when she was campaigning for VP.
The hilarious (perhaps “Hillary-ous” would be a good term here) irony of the conversation is that the only actual “tool” left for the Hillistines to deploy is their own vacuous version of a Friedman Unit. Their entire argument now hinges on the need for Obama supporters—actually, the need for all those not openly and rabidly supporting “Fortress Clinton”—to simply “stfu” and let things play out until the convention—all the while, of course, while the Clinton camp continues playing out its “kitchen sink” strategy.
Ferraro, of course, is a component of that strategy—as are her comments and self-anointed status of victim. The feigned resignation from the campaign is nothing more than an empty, hollow attempt at giving Clinton a ridiculously shallow aura of credible deniability. It is nothing more than a further continuation of a “say-this, do-that” policy.
I, for one, hope she keeps it up for another six weeks. There are a lot of people in Pennsylvania who are sick and tired of the “say-this, do-that” excrement of business-as-usual politics.
Here’s a good example of “business-as-usual” in Pennsylvania. Channel-Lock gets a 50% reduction on their property taxes, and then gets to appeal the decision, hoping for even a bigger break. Meanwhile, residential tax rates continue to go through the roof—as do utility rates. All, of course, with the blessing of the Ed Rendell (D-ClintonLand) administration.
Here’s a pattern:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2_mcgO3Iva0
Olberman–you are an idiot. Have you seen Obama’s preacher being racist to ALL white people and especially to Hillary Clinton. Did you hear him damning the United States. He said we deserved what we got in 911. You have the gall to attack Clinton over innocent remarks that Mrs. Ferrero said. GET A LIFE! Obama is very much associated with this man and I don’t hear you saying anything. That is why the IRS is investigating Obama’s church as a front for the campaign. Why do you think Michelle Obama said she has never been proud of our country and why he won’t salute the flag. Maybe not always–but I saw a picture where everyone was except him. With Hillary–what you see is what you get. Obama is no different than this preacher, just classier and more discreet. Go back to just reporting the news instead of being any kind of commentary. Better yet–get off the news.
It is becoming alarming and chaotic, this time in this presiderntial sequential moment that we all have enjoyed every 4 years, from my early witness of previous election, especially during the Carter/Reagan presidential election in 1979, race took stage in an ugly manner at the expenses of decency and loyalty of a few, hurting the democratic process, treating its survival and a better future in this great nation for all of us and it never stopped to reinvent itself by looking the other election that follows with Jesse Jacson and Dukacus and Clinton. When it is not about race, it got to be something else…the government agenda.. that all the candidate will carry to the oval office not all their promises to their parties’ allegiance
It seems that, there is a psychological effect on that contagious behavior because of the way people perceive times and event and reasonning.
It did not stop there, during the elder Bush Campaign, race again play a major factor on the issues, and of whom will be the next president of the United States then.
Race play a role in all facets of life in the country, from the school ground to the door of the employers and the work place. This is something that, even the law of nature could not change amongst people. People have a tendency to borrow from old time sake to look for dirt to disqualify others because they look different or they think or behave differently.
From looking at the whole perpective of being human, we all know the important elements that make us all ” a being” to our man-made world society, it is with a lot of sadeness and cyninism and disturbance that a few will use race as a power of self destuction to lower the standards of self achievement and without any respect of thyself, will continue to use this practice when they are not able to deliver the most important values and needs to people who deserves them the most, not realizing they will become a complete failure to society at large for forgotten the real sense of life and our common existence in this planet.
People should really look at this website of FOX to see extracts from Obama’s pastor during his sermons. http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/index.html
He was completley racists (repeatedly emphasising the difference between black and what he called “rich white people”) and, to my horror, full of obscenities and foul language (and this happened in a church!!). Being a Christian for over 20 years, I feel deeply ashamed to have anything to do with this group of barbarians who claim to be sharing the same faith in the same God with me.
It calls into question of Obama’s judgement, if he has attended this church for so many years and even asked this FAKE, RACIST and OBSCENE pastor to marry him and his wife.
I am a Afro-American in this country who thought highly of Bill and Hillary Clinton in the past, but I cannot believe what I am hearing coming from her mouth. I have compared Hillary Clinton to President Bush and have come to realize this Fact. Bush has never apologized for anything he ever done that was wrong. Hillary hasn’t either. She always seems to want to cry about anything that does not go her way. She is very divisive for our country. She brings along with her a lot of unresolved baggage. Whitewater, Travelgate, those secretive files she was collecting on her fellow peers to use as leverage. The outstanding Paul -vs Hillary trial in San Francisco. Now she is race-baiting. She will use any and everything to drum up sympathy for her failing campaign. My Afro-American people will not vote for her if she gets the nomination. She lost my peoples vote After New hampshire. She can never be trusted my American Citizens. She will say and do anything to get what she wants. Will we trust the Whitehouse to such a person. Not hardly. She is using race to win Pennsylvania because she knows that they are sensitive to that issue. Barack is trying to define America to the outside world as America is better than that. She is one sad and sorry individual. Why does’t the News media highlight her failures when her husband was in office?
I use to really like Olbermann, but his Obama slant as really turned me off, actually I am tried with all of MSNBC. When Fox News is the Fair and Balanced reporting we are all in trouble. I would not be surprised to see Olbermann wearing a I voted for Obama T-shirt soon. I am not the only one, lots of me liberal friends, I live in Berkeley, have all stop watching him. When Obama goes into the general elections, and the press turns on him the way they have on Clinton will see how he acts. He is already complaining about Fox’s coverage, and let see if MSNBC gives as much time too McCain and Clinton’s passport breach, I doubt they will. The problem is Olbermann is not helping Obama and when he loses in the general election the press can blame themselves. McCain’s numbers get better while Obama weaken, I am a Democrat, and if it comes down to Obama McCain, McCain gets me vote. Maybe I’ll vote Nader.
The press does use race, but not saying anything negative about Obama, everyone concentrates on what Bill said, what about the things Michelle Obama has said about Hillary. No one wants to be labeled a racist so they say nothing. And Hillary’s failures, health care. Yes the big boys in WA do not play fair, but somehow Obama thinks he is going to go into WA and change all the rules. Yes we need change, but we have real problems: People without health care, losing jobs, losing their homes. I fear Obama will spend so much of his time talking about change and trying to prove something that he will do nothing. He is running his whole campaign on the fact he do not vote for the war, well he did not vote against it either. If that is the standard by which to be elected, then Ron Paul, the only senator who actually voted against war would win. Obama says he wants to unite, but his voting record speaks very different he votes down party line every time, McCain voting record speaks far better than Obama. And Obama sounds a lot like Bush to me. Unitor, President by committee , we have heard it all before.