Does Clinton get called out for everything said by everyone even loosely associated with her campaign? Of course. Does Obama get called out for anything said by anyone even at the top of his campaign? No.
Keep beating that dead horse Turkana!
i doubt you'll consider it a dead horse, when the same dynamic turns against obama (in the corporate media, anyway), should he be nominated.
Posted by Turkana at March 13, 2008 04:05 PM*yawn*
Posted by Seven of Six at March 13, 2008 04:15 PMWell, Turkana, that can encapsulate your response when the pro-Obama supporter start to complain about the media un-fairly targeting Obama.
Posted by linnen at March 13, 2008 04:47 PMAs with so many of the really stupid questions the media insists on asking -- harkening back to Bernard Shaw's asking Michael Dukakis what he'd do if someone raped and murdered his wife -- the proper answer should be: What a stupid ass question.
That's the response HRC should've given here and the response BHO should've given when asked about Farakahn.
Why the candidates never, ever respond that way baffles me. Are they afraid to piss off the media? Especially given how HRC has been treated by the media, would she have anything to lose?
Posted by kaleidescope at March 13, 2008 05:05 PMWhen Clinton answered the question the first time, her tone clearly said "what a stupid ass question." It was a shocked "no of course not" answer with a tone of "why the hell are you even asking?"
Posted by CG at March 13, 2008 05:07 PMYou go, Turkana! I really admire your work. Keep telling the truth and calling out the liars and distorters!
Every time one of these big Hillary "outrages" blooms, I go watch the actual clip like a good little soldier. And what do I find each and every time? That they've completely distorted what she's said and done. Never fails.
Keep up the good work!
Posted by at March 13, 2008 05:41 PMgreat post as always Turkana. I always felt that before every primary that involved a substantial African American population the Obama campaign somehow dredged up a fake racial controversy. His followers attributed his defeat in NH to racism, he played the race card ineffectually with Hispanics in Nevada, he did it before SC in effect calling the Clintons racist which is unconscionable (his minions are out there on Wikipedia writing this shit), then there was the fake Somali dress story which was from Free Republic on Drudge and yet the Clintons got blamed, there was the now infamous Obama-made-darker controversy that Kos generated and Olberman trumped on his stupid show and failed to retract when it was debunked, and now that the "3AM" national security ad is having such an effect his follower in NYT that the ad reminded him of the celebration of the Klan in Birth of the Nation. How seriously unhinged are these people? How far will they go to make stuff up to divide the party along racial line (and in effect calling all Hillary supporters racist or Uncle Toms)?
Which brings me to the Geraldine Ferraro controversy. I am not cognizant with Ms. Ferraro's race relations but while her choice of words were poor (lucky...well not really shrewd and brilliant politician yes) attacking someone who has been a pillar of Democratic party as racist falls along the pattern of the Obama campaign. What she said is not much different from what Elizabeth Edwards had said once : "We can't make John black, we can't make him a woman". She was not berated as racist or sexist. Geraldine Ferraro's major fault then was that she belonged to the Clinton campaign and after losing Samantha Powers the Obama campaign was out for blood and this is their way of getting back...nothing like smearing someone as racist. It did not help Ms. Ferraro that she did not back away from her comment but on the other hand I can see the reason why she lashed out in anger and has kept doing so even after resigning from the Clinton finance committee. Sean Wilentz wrote another brilliant piece about Obama campaign's use of race so cynically and effectually.
Which brings me back to the November scenario. Now that he has pissed of a large block of the Democratic electorate by labeling their candidate and by extension them as racist if they decide to sit out (like myself) what will he do? And what will he do if his opponent in the GE (if he becomes the nominee) has an African American vice-presidential candidate like Condi Rice or Michael Steele? Or when the real racism starts who will believe the boy who creid wolf one too many times? Already the media scrutiny has started with his pastor and this is just the beginning.
Thanks, Turkana, for pointing this out. It's pretty annoying how quickly this planted meme became common wisdom.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 13, 2008 05:51 PMI wouldn't get too invested in your second choice, you might need to change your choice again, or you can always support McOld over Clinton...that's the way to get him out of your state most of the time anyway.
So Seven, will we see you vigorously defend Clinton when she becomes your parties candidate?
Posted by peter at March 13, 2008 06:40 PMRepublican Sen. Wayne Allard of Colorado made Democrats put their votes where one of the Democrats nominee’s rhetoric is.
Allard sponsored an amendment to the budget that included everyone of the $1.4 trillion in new spending — $1,400,000,000,000 — $1.4 million million — over five years that Obama has proposed on the campaign trail.
The Senate shot it down, 97-0.
Even Sen. Obama voted against President Obama.
It was just like his campaign staff assuring the Canadian government that Obama had absolutely no intention of doing what he told Ohio voters he would do on Nafta.
“The amendment offered $1.4 trillion in new spending over five years and the equivalent tax hikes required to pay for it, covering 111 proposals that cost estimates could be generated for. Obama has at least another 77 proposals that weren’t included in this amendment.”
Can we promise crap we have absolutely no intention of delivering?
Even Sen. Obama voted against President Obama’s tax-and-spending package.
YES WE CAN!
Posted by peter at March 13, 2008 06:47 PMThe guy asking her the question was a dick. I think she could have left out the "as far as I know." I would presume that her campaign actually did some research about Obama and she was quite sure of his religion. In retrostpect it seems like such a minor thing with the Ferraro eruption, though.
Now we can all agree. No more racist fear-mongering from this point on.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at March 13, 2008 07:30 PMthanks Turkana! why somebody would come to your site to say yawn and insult you is beyond me. Dont people have jobs? I thought Obama people were busy having lattes and counting their money while reading Cicero. Oh wait, that's me!!!
hahaha.
Posted by me at March 13, 2008 07:40 PMExcellent post. Thanks!
Posted by tdraicer at March 13, 2008 08:22 PMThe Obama team (and surrogates) has succeeded (again) in making race as an issue in the democratic primary.
So what could the Clinton team (and surrogates) must do in order to counteract it? Geraldine Ferraros' resignation and Sen. Clintons' apology are right steps in the right direction. Unfortunately, only time can cool the the heat that was stoked by the Obama team (and surrogates).
The only thing that they (Clinton team and surrogates) could really do is to be careful of what they say in public so that the other party (Obama team and surrogates) would not have any ammunition for race baiting. Because that is what it is. Race baiting. Remember the time when the Somali tribal dress that Barack wore in 2006 and was leaked thru the Drudge Report? David Plouffe immidiately accused the Clinton team of ’shameful offensive fear-mongering’. Then there is the op-ed of Orlando Patterson in the NY times which tried to put race in the 3am ad of Sen. Clinton.To qoute the 1st paragraph of the op-ed:
"On first watching Hillary Clinton’s recent “It’s 3 a.m.” advertisement, I was left with an uneasy feeling that something was not quite right — something that went beyond my disappointment that she had decided to go negative. Repeated watching of the ad on YouTube increased my unease. I realized that I had only too often in my study of America’s racial history seen images much like these, and the sentiments to which they allude." And that is only the 1st paragraph.
And then this. What else has the Obama team and surrogates has on their sleeves? I wonder...
Posted by lemonv at March 13, 2008 09:47 PMAnd how is the Obama fans' claiming racism anyh different from the incessant whining about sexism from the Clinton fans?
But what I find interesting is that so few people seem to see the REAL problem with all this stupid discussion about whether Obama is or has ever been a Muslim. Suggesting snidely that he may be a Muslim, or was once a Muslim or might have some "Muslim ties" is no more of a smear than is all the ardent denial. In fact, in some ways the people who are falling all over themselves to assure the world that Obama is NOT a Muslim are delivering a far worse smear. The thing is, though, it is not Obama they are smearing.
Posted by Shirin at March 14, 2008 12:44 AMRead DailyHowler's post (couple of days ago) on this topic. Hillary Clinton called it a smear . Of course, you don't see that part quoted.
Posted by ghost2 at March 14, 2008 05:18 AMpants pissing peter: "...So Seven, will we see you vigorously defend Clinton when she becomes your parties candidate?"
Hell YES when the alternative is John "Bush's third term" McCain
pants pissing peter: "...Allard sponsored an amendment to the budget that included everyone of the $1.4 trillion in new spending — $1,400,000,000,000 — $1.4 million million...."
why don't you inform us of how much Federal debt Dear Leader has built up? just how much money has Bush charged on his Chinese Express credit card
hell, I almost feel sorry for McSame having to run on Bush's record
Posted by Gay Veteran at March 14, 2008 05:33 AMOlbermann pushed that blatantly absurd "darkening" story? Good Lord. Everyone needs to understand that color and tone change completely depending on the device you use to record, alter, or even watch videos. Especially after the image they say was a YouTube copy of the original. It's absolutely laughable!
And yet people believe it.
@Shirin: I agree. I was most disappointed that Clinton joined the Obama's camp narrative of pushing Muslim = smear. Awful. Both, or at least one, needs to stop this. Now this is an actual case of bigotry and it is absolutely foolish for Obama to have ever pushed it since it only serves to accentuate the bigotry (i.e. fear).
Posted by Nathan at March 14, 2008 09:41 AM