Last Man Standing or Punch Did Not Kill Judy, the Puppetmaster Did

[McCamy Taylor]

The past is not dead. In fact, it's not even past.
William Faulkner

Barack Obama should be afraid. He should be very, very afraid. At this point he is like a character played by Alec Guinness in the film Kind Hearts and Coronets . The press is going to get to him sooner or later, the way that it got John Edwards and the way that it is still taking care of Hillary Clinton. Indeed, the early signs of the corporate media’s campaign against the last man standing between McCain and the presidency is already beginning to take form just as I predicted that it would in my journal The Top 10 RNC Dirty Tricks Against the Democratic Primary So Far. Regarding the so called “Race Memo” which I believe (though can not prove) is a RNC plant

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/176

The same corporate media that spread the three distortions above can suddenly correct the record---and accuse the Obama camp of knowingly spreading lies (for the record had already been corrected by the time the “Race Memo” was produced, the media watchdogs sites provide evidence of that). This memo can serve as the smoking gun that the Obama camp resorted to lies in an attempt to portray the Clintons as racists in order to alienate their traditional allies. Obama’s public repudiation of the memo can be portrayed by the GOP biased media as political posturing. This can be contrasted with McCain’s squeaky clean image. If Hillary and Obama are perceived to have parted ways after a bitterly fought primary battle, this “Obama is a Chicago style corrupt politician” smear will be particularly effective.

As Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky write in Manufacturing Consent the single most important influence on the corporate media is the party that controls the federal government, with its oversight of the telecommunications industry and its rule making ability.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Manufac_Consent_Prop_Model.html

The great media also depend on the government for more general policy support. All business firms are interested in business taxes, interest rates, labor policies, and enforcement and nonenforcement of the antitrust laws. GE and Westinghouse depend on the government to subsidize their nuclear power and military research and development, and to create a favorable climate for their overseas sales. The Reader's Digest, Time, Newsweek, and movie- and television-syndication sellers also depend on diplomatic support for their rights to penetrate foreign cultures with U.S. commercial and value messages and interpretations of current affairs. The media giants, advertising agencies, and great multinational corporations have a joint and close interest in a favorable climate of investment in the Third World, and their interconnections and relationships with the government in these policies are symbiotic. In sum, the dominant media firms are quite large businesses; they are controlled by very wealthy people or by managers who are subject to sharp constraints by owners and other market-profit-oriented forces; and they are closely interlocked, and have important common interests, with other major corporations, banks, and government. This is the first powerful filter that will affect news choices.

Notice who is not on that list. Political candidates running for office. The Democratic Party has a little bit of power since it can keep the Republicans from writing legislation that favors the telecoms (like FISA immunity). But it can not write any veto proof laws. Bush can act unilaterally, through the FCC. That makes George W. Bush, Karl Rove and the RNC the equivalent of the Holy Trinity for America’s corporate news media. If the media whores create a new narrative like Edwards is a phony or Hillary is a bitch it is because it helps Karl Rove, not because it helps Barack Obama. Barack Obama has no power to shape the press. Neither does Hillary. We know that Edwards was powerless. That is why he is out of the race.

Unfortunately, when Sean Wilentz wrote his February Race Man he forgot this important fact. He assumed that Democratic candidates have the power to shape the narrative which the modern American news media tells. Any media critic could have corrected him. Indeed, the Daily Howler did just that.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh022808.shtml

We do think this: Many journalists have openly played the race card against the Clintons. Wilentz discusses those card-players too, and we think he’s on solid ground when he does. Please understand: As he does this, he’s discussing journalists whose gruesome bad judgment—and bad faith—have been on display for years.

Here is the gist of what Wilentz wrote:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304

To a large degree, the campaign's strategists turned the primary and caucus race to their advantage when they deliberately, falsely, and successfully portrayed Clinton and her campaign as unscrupulous race-baiters--a campaign-within-the-campaign in which the worked-up flap over the Somali costume photograph is but the latest episode.

However, as I noted when I read the article (and as The Daily Howler points out) Wilentz’s fact filled article is actually filled with instances in which the corporate media makes lies, distortions and innuendos.
It is true that the Obama camp benefited from the corporate media’s Big Lie Hillary is a Race Baiting Bitch (As I have discussed in my journals, Karl Rove has decided that this year’s Democratic convention will be brokered and Obama will be our McGovern. ) There is a significant moral difference between taking advantage of the sins of the press and orchestrating a media smear. If Chris Matthews says on the night of the New Hampshire primary that “Methinks paleface speaks with forked tongue” and implies that Hillary supporters hacked the e-vote, and the rest of the mainstream media seems willing to promulgate the lie, it would difficult for a campaign manager like Axelrod to ignore the obvious advantage that is being handed to him going into the state of South Carolina---an advantage which Karl Rove and the RNC gave to the Democratic underdog on purpose, to even up the race. Especially when the damage was already done, and Obama supporters were already furious with Hillary because of what they had seen on TV. The Obama camp had no power to stop the MSM from spreading its lies---the press answers to its corporate masters who answer to the Party that controls the FCC.

Since Wilentz studies classic American history---Jefferson, Lincoln---he probably does not spend a lot of time thinking about the modern cesspool that is Viacon-CBC, Disney-ABC and the rest, all of them propaganda organs for their massive parent companies. It would not occur to Wilentz that someone like Barack Obama is a fly speck to them. They can build him up----and knock him down---at will. He has no power to influence anything that they do. The same goes for Hillary. And unless their parent companies think that a Democratic Congress and President combination will give them unlimited media mergers and acquisition capabilities---something that is very unlikely---they will work as one to make sure that neither of them ever has any power over them. That means keeping them both out of the White House and keeping a Republican in charge of the FCC and the veto.

As Faulkner wrote, the past is not past. It is here with us, right now. And the past is constantly being rewritten to serve the needs of the dominant hegemony--- the ones with all the power. You thought you heard the real scoop when you were told on the night of New Hampshire’s primary that the voters of New Hamshire were a bunch of racists and later you were told that Hillary said she was better than MLK Jr and later still Bill said that a Black being elected president was a Fairy Tale The press swore to you that that was all true, cross its heart and hope to die.

Or did they? Already, we are beginning to see the early signs that the press has been instructed to change the narrative. That means that the bosses at the RNC, the Big Boss (No, not Hillary. Karl Rove) have told them that it is time to change the lens on the camera. Play Rashomon. Show the folks at home the same events but from a different angle so that it tells a different story.
For that, the work of people like the esteemed historian Wilentz, who has his facts right but misses with his interpretation becomes very important. Also, people like Bill Moyers. Everyone trusts Moyers. In this web page he chastises the New York Times for editing Hillary’s MLK Jr comments. He publishes her real comments then adds

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01182008/profile4.html

BILL MOYERS: There was nothing in that quote about race. It was an historical fact, an affirmation of the obvious. But critics pounced. THE NEW YORK TIMES published a lead editorial accusing Senator Clinton of "the distasteful implication that a black man needed the help of a white man to effect change." Suddenly we had a rhetorical inferno on our hands, with charges flying left and right, and pundits throwing gasoline on the tiniest of embers. Fortunately the furor has quieted down, and everyone's said they're sorry, except THE NEW YORK TIMES. But I can't resist this footnote to the story.

It is important that people like Moyers and Media Matters were able to spot the corporate media’s lies so easily. Had they not been so transparent, then the press would not be able to go back now and say “Hey, maybe Obama lied to us about what Hillary and Bill said! Maybe his campaign was the one doing the race baiting!”

Never mind that the Obama campaign has no access to us except through the press, and everything that the American people hear and see and think (except for a few stubborn, wary individuals) is preselected for us by the news media.

I warned that this was the next logical step in the RNC attack on the Democratic primary. Portray the likely nominee as a dirty trickster in advance of his race with McCain. Hillary was trashed months ago. Look’s like the press has now started in on Obama

Now the Wilentz story has gone mainstream in the Philadelphia Inquirer . Remember, no one makes the MSM publish anything. Not Obama. Not Hillary. The owners----the corporate masters---do what they think is in their best financial interests. A few months ago it was in their best interests to portray Obama as the victim of terrible racist attacks from the Clinton camp. Now, the Philly Inquirer believes that it is in its best interest to turn that familiar history on its head.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/currents/20080330_Obama_was_the_first_to_play_the_race_card.html

Posted on Sun, Mar. 30, 2008

Having injected racial posturing into the contest, Obama's "post-racial" campaign finally seems to be all about race and sensational charges about white racism. But the mean-spirited strategy started even before the primaries began, when Obama's operatives began playing the race card - and blamed Hillary Clinton.

This has provoked the expected flurry of angry responses from Obama defenders. However, this is not going to stop the story, for one reason. Because there is a lot of documentation on the internet that many of the things that Hillary and Bill were charged with doing were never actually done . People like Keith Olbermann bought into the frenzy and repeated some of the crazy distortions and lies. The internet is filled with poorly documented screeds by angry Obama supporters swearing that Bill called the Obama campaign a Fairy Tale or Hillary compared herself to MLK Jr. Seemingly sane people gave into mob mentality. Well, the argument will go, who incited the mob?

Wilentz, the historian and truth teller seeks to uncover what really was said and what really happened. That much is easy. Obama supporters really did respond on cue with outrage to media lies. Motives are much more difficult. What benefits Obama does not necessarily originate in the Obama camp. Motive does not equal opportunity. Axelrod does not have the power to tell the news networks and their whores how to spin the news. And he does not have the power to tell them to back off now that they are preparing to unspin it and weave a new narrative.

Now, since Obama is the McGovern, he is going to be our nominee—Rove decided that a long time ago. The Big Lie Obama is a Dirty Trickster will see most of its action in the general election, which means that if we want to look for it now, we have to look for it in places where Democrats would not normally go---conservative web sites for instance.

http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/ba0cae46-9840-472d-989d-79a8f20e0258

Thursday, March 13, 2008 Obama & The Race Card ... Posted by: Matt Lewis at 5:35 PM

I was just on Neil Cavuto, arguing that -- although Hillary Clinton's campaign has made inappropriate racial comments about Barack Obama -- his campaign has intentionally egged them on, and gone out of their way to keep these stories alive for weeks. In essence, Obama is playing both the race card -- and the victim card. What is more, it is hypocritical because he has always talked about bringing people together, and getting past the politics of the Baby Boomer generation ...

From Pat Buchanan, who knows all about race baiting

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=ba9195c2-cab3-4ddb-84dc-8d9a2e42fea6&headline=Pat+Buchanan%3A+Liberals+are+playing+the+race+card+on+each+other+with+great+proficiency

This time, the liberals are playing the race card on each other, and showing real proficiency.

Now we know why Rupert Murdoch bought the Wall Street Journal. It is still associated in most American’s minds with reliable business information and conservative but not too flaky news. That will change but (he is probably hoping) not before this fall’s election. Here is an article devoted to how Obama uses the race card:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120536677319031953.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

We suppose some of the current back and forth is due to the diversity preoccupations of Democrats. But it bodes ill for an honest fall campaign if Mr. Obama and his allies are going to play the race card to blunt any criticism. A campaign in which John McCain couldn't question Mr. Obama's policies, experience and mettle without being called a racist is not what the country needs. Or wants.

So now the title makes sense, I hope. Neither Hillary nor Obama controls the press. The press controls the press, and it serves the guys in the big board rooms who manage telecom empires that are linked to other businesses like General Electric that have nothing to do with the news media. These companies buy and sell Senators like Obama and Clinton by the dozen. They shot down the Rudi Guilliani campaign when he allied himself with one media company---News Corp--instead of remaining neutral---and they can shoot down any other candidate they want. It would take a miracle for them to select a Democrat over a Republican. So, get down on your knees and pray. And then get out there and register everyone you know to vote. Because that is one thing that the telecoms can not do. Not yet. Though I am sure that they are hoping to bribe President McCain into giving one of their number a contract for computerized voting.

[goldcanyonaz]

1. McCamy, you're amazing! Recommend!

:applause:

[goldcanyonaz]

2. KICK!

:kick:

[Usrename]

3. I don't think you understand how wrong you are about this.

Hillary's MLK v Johnson statement is a just one example.

She was trying to take Obama down a peg with this remark. And that's the whole reason why it's so offensive and also racist. Sure, you can argue (like Bill Moyers does) that in some other imaginary context (like a purely historical discussion of events) that these statements that she made would not be racist or offensive. This still doesn't excuse the fact that she made these remarks in a context that was undeniably directed at denigrating Obama.

It's hard to understand exactly who you are trying to convince with some of these arguments. Maybe you are trying to kid yourself.

[pnwmom]

7. What about the question about Obama's cocaine use?

Some Obama people claimed that was a racist question. Give me a break.

President Bush was asked about his cocaine use -- and refused to answer. Obama, on the other hand, admitted to using drugs. So why was it racist to worry that this could be an issue in the general election? Marijuana was an issue with Clinton, alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine was an issue with Bush. Why should Obama have been exempt from the questioning?

[Usrename]

8. You know, I wasn't really interested in him back then.

It's funny because I don't really have any opinion about his drug use, and I wasn't really following all of the early episodes where these things were an issue, except that I have recently heard stuff about folks questioning if he was a dealer or something. I can see how his approach of being honest about it would be disarming, though. I don't think he necessarily gets a pass because of his heritage, I think if anything it's because of his style.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

12. It wasn't suggested that Bush or Clinton were drug dealers.

Where would Clinton's surrogate get the idea to suggest that Obama was a dealer, based upon his admission of experimentation?

[McCamy Taylor]

9. There WAS not MLK vs Johnson remark. It was JKF vs. LBJ. Did you read the Moyer column?

Hillary said that JFK was unable to pass civil rights legislation and that LBJ--a man with more experience, more contacts, more clout--was able to get the bill through Congress. That is fact.

The NYT altered her words. Media Matters alerted the NYTs three times and still the NYTs continues to run the phony quote in their paper. Even though Media Matters documented the NYTs lies, the Obama camp, Obama supporters and surrogates campaigned throughout South Carolina quoting the NYT's lies rather than the truth as documented by Media Matters and later Bill Moyers.

Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama because he knew what Hillary said---LBJ did what JFK couldn't--he passed the Civil Rights Law.

Hillary was comparing herself to LBJ and Obama to JFK--more glamorous but less experienced. There was no racial context at all. MLK JR was not in the equation at all.

In the "Race Memo" that came from Obama's Camp (which I argue may have come from an RNC mole within the camp) this lie from the NYTs was cited as proof that Hillary was a racist. Since this came the Obama Camp and since it had already been debunked by a prominent Media watchdog site, Media Matters several times and by educated critics of the news media, the Obama camp left itself open to charges that it was peddling lies and falsehoods in order introduce race to the campaign for its own benefit.

When people like you continue to spread the same lies which have now been widely discredited they only help the right wing with the smear job that they are going to do this fall.They will say that it is Obama who is continuing to lie in the face of incontrovertible evidence

[Usrename]

10. You have a real problem. Did you bother to read what you posted?

The quote in question, from the Moyers article that you linked to:

HILLARY CLINTON: Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done"

Dr. King's dream began to be realized....

... you really are kidding yourself, in a big way, aren't you?

[McCamy Taylor]

14. Are you saying that King considered the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Bills insignificant?

That these were not the things which he had been striving for?


http://www.usconstitution.net/dream.html

But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination.

snip

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today.

The Civil Rights and Voting Rights Bills sought to end segregation and disenfranchisement. They would not end poverty and hatred overnight, but they were a bigger step than had been taken in the US since the Civil War. I am not sure that many people besides you would piss on that.

Maybe this history of the King LBJ collaboration will help.

http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content_type=Minisite_Generic&content_type_id=57792&display_order=1&sub_display_order=4&mini_id=1071

[mrreowwr_kittty]

13. The minute I heard the LBJ/MLK remark, I knew exactly what she was trying to do.

It was clearly a scripted, and deliberate, attempt to appeal to white liberals, such as the ones she was speaking to in the diner in NH. It was a coded message to white people who were on the fence between her and Obama. She was telling us that you should vote for the white lady because everyone knows that those black civil rights activists would never have gotten anywhere were it not for nice, white people with connections. You can bet your ass that they planned it and probably focus-grouped it. She would have used it in small all-white groups all across the country had the media not blown it up.

[McCamy Taylor]

15. That's funny. The minute I heard the NYT's lie, I knew it was edited and that if I looked it up

I would find that she was comparing herself to the workhorse LBJ who was unglamorous but had loads of experience and who knew how to get things done. That was because people kept comparing Obama to JFK, who was young and handsome, but face it, he did Bay of Pigs which proved that he had a lot to be desired in the experience department.

I was so certain that the NYTs had misquoted her that I went to Media Matters and looked it up. And they confirmed what I had suspected. Now, if I could tell from context that the lie that was being peddled by the MSM and (by then) a bunch of Obama supporters was bogus, what does that say about the quality of the lie and the desperation of the people peddling it?

And when Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama I think I am the first person anywhere on line to say it was because of what Hillary really said (at that point everyone was pretending that she was comparing herself to MLK Jr) and the press only admitted that the NYT lied because they had to in order to explain the Kennedy endorsement. because they couldn't say that Hillary was comparing herself to both MLK Jr and LBJ.

You guys are so desperate to hold onto this Big Lie that Hilary started some race war that the press really started Why? Are you afraid that you will be consumed by guilt at the nasty way you have treated her? Well, get used to it. People do things they later regret. You make amends and you get on with your life.

Michael Moore and all the people who supported Nader in 2000 have gotten over it by now.

[Usrename]

16. WTF is your malfunction?

She said that King's dream would have remained a dream if weren't for the white folks that had the power to make the laws.

How can you twist what she clearly said into some kind of compliment? You need to get some rest, or join a therapy group.

[McCamy Taylor]

18. There were Black Congressmen too. She did not compare MLK Jr to LBJ.

She compared JFK to LBJ. Her comment was not a comment upon MLK Jr at all. It was a comment about how JFK either could not or would not (because it was costing him too much political capital) fight for Civil Rights.

The NYTs changed her comment to make it seem like she was commenting on MLK Jr.

The Kennedy family understood her clearly enough. That is why Ted endorsed Obama. Because he can not stand to have anyone say that his precious Jack was inferior to LBJ.

Here is the Media Matters link. It has a lot more info that the corporate media likes to leave out.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801120003

I would remind people of how much has been left undone with George W. Bush and how much will be left undone with McCain. Cindy Sheehan has fought valiantly to end the war, but her dream has not been realized under Bush, nor will it be under McCain.

The last link in my last post about how JFK would not go to bat for civil rights but LBJ would is worth reading.

[Usrename]

21. You really should try and get some help.

You have lost touch with reality? Are you pretending to be brain-dead? If not, you have a serious problem.

I'll post the quote once again so that you can see, maybe once and for all, that she really did mention Dr. King. Deny as much as you like, but as a matter of fact, the quote begins with a reference to Dr. King's dream:

HILLARY CLINTON: Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done"

[rodeodance]

33. Another BO fan who thinks he is pop psychologist. Lots on DU lately.

[Usrename]

42. If a lot of other people are advising you to get help, maybe you should.

Just sayin.

:shrug:

[annabanana]

23. Perhaps this post ought to be in GD. It's clear that the point is being missed.

In spite of your clear title and the way you've sourced your post, the eyes are too red in this forum.

[reddconsole]

26. Right

Read post five in this thread.

We need to unify against the Corporate Media or we'll be trashed in November.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

35. Bullshit. I have listened to, and read the whole comment.

She barely touches upon Kennedy in it. Maybe it was an indirect slam on him but the main point was to appeal to white liberals. You can choose to believe the official Clinton version if you want. It's not like she's going to come out and admit what she was doing.

[ProSense]

45. It's a typical distortion fest! n/t

[lefty2000]

27. Why Is It Racist to Take Obama Down a Peg?

Are not candidates entitled to criticize on another. Your deliberate distortion of the meaning of Clinton's comments is obvious and self-serving. You would have us believe that good and decent people like the Clinton's have some secret core of racism that only reveals itself in the heat of a hard fought political campaign.

You are part of a concerted effort to deceive the public.

[papau]

40. nonsense - despite the evidence the OP says Obama was innocent of playing the race card - I doubt it

but it is a nice construct that might get Hillary voters back on board.

There was nothing offensive in discussing history - unless you want to be offended.

[goldcanyonaz]

4. Great reading.

[pnwmom]

5. Another extremely thoughtful post. Thank you. So the bottom line is

get everyone you know registered and to the polls.

[anonymous171]

6. Using that ridiculous "Race Man" article by Clinton friend Wilentz and

completely ignoring Clinton's victim card usage. Can she use that to stop McCain's attacks? Hell no. Remember that "bitch" comment? It will only get worse.

[McCamy Taylor]

11. McCain won't do any "attacks". That isn't his style. He is going to run as "Mr. Clean" a high minded

"straight shooter" "maverick Republican" "war hero" who spent Viet Nam in a box for our sins. He will look soooo saddened whenever anyone launches a nasty attack at his Democratic rival.

That is why the GOP wants to establish that his opponent is a Bitch or a Dirty Trickster in the Democratic primary. Make America hate both Obama and Hillary and see McCain as an honorable alternative.

You know the stories about African-American politicians being threatened if they will not switch from Hillary to Obama? Being told that they will not get elected next time. None of them had better be true. Because if they are and if any of them decides to talk to the NYT, Obama is toast in the general. If any of them are true, the Obama camp had better start mending fences now. And the Obama camp needs to come clean and admit in public that all these stories like "Hillary said LBJ was better than MLK Jr" were media distortions and the Obama camp apologizes if it gave anyone the impression that it believed any of them. Because if they don't do this now, the RNC is going to have a field day with this later. The MSM set the narrative in motion, but a different kind of candidate would have called them out on their lies. A different kind of candidate would not have people like KO still repeating stories that Media Matters debunked months ago as if they are still gospel truth. That candidate would think about KO's career and reputation and would respect the intelligence of the American voter and would think about the Democratic party.

I think Axelrod is not a very good Democrat and not a very good influence on Obama.

[McCamy Taylor]

17. Cliff Notes Version:The Press Played the Race Card, not the candidates.

And the press will try to blame both Democrats for doing it. Which is a bit like trying to stick your own head up your ass, but if anyone can do it, the guys and gals in the mainstream media can.

Stanley Motss: What did television ever do to you?
Winifred Ames: It destroyed the electoral process.
Wag the Dog

[joshcryer]

19. Your reasonable posts are always welcome here.

Even when you are called out, flamed, and hated upon, you *write* with a sincere tone not meant to belittle and hate.

[McCamy Taylor]

20. Just look at this thread that someone has posted the mirror image of "HIllary is so hateful" except

now it is "That Obama is so nasty!" Almost 2000 people have read it. That is 2000 people filled with anger one way or the other, either at Obama or at Hillary. Maybe a third of them are just plain disgusted.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5349292&mesg_id=5349292

Who benefits from this? The RNC. The oldest trick in their book is divide and conquer. For those who haven't read it, I recommend Women, Race and Class by Angela Davis about why we need to work together and how the elite and has been attempting to pit us against each other for almost 200 years.

[McCamy Taylor]

22. I am going to link this here, even though it is about Bosnia, I think this is RNC generated as well.

It accomplishes character assassination of Hillary and Obama at the same time--Hillary for being a liar, Obama for being a dirty trickster. And the Dems keep playing along like we were born yesterday.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5350857

[mrreowwr_kittty]

36. Holy fuck. Now you think she's being unfairly smeared for her sniper lie.

You really do need help. And they say we Obama supporters are in a cult. :eyes:

[papau]

41. 2 weeks after Hill's trip to Bosnia Ron Brown's plane was shot down by sniper fire - the con is

in pretending the area was safe.

[UALRBSofL]

38. McCamy take a look at what Obama said and how Clinton responded to it.

This is a good example of how the media and the Obama Camp are pushing this issue and how it's being used as a wedge against Clinton. Here is the interview Hillary did with Garrett from Fox while she was on the campaign trail.

snip:
GARRETT: You mention Senator Obama. Let me read you a quote from a speech he gave today, saying:

False hopes. Dr. King standing on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, looking out over the magnificent crowd, the reflecting pool, the Washington Monument:

“Sorry, guys. False hope. The dream will die. It can’t be done.”

False hope. We don’t need leaders to tell us what we can’t do. We need leaders to tell us what we can do and inspire us to do.

GARRETT: Would you react to that?

CLINTON: I would, and I would point to the fact that Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, president before had not even tried, but it took a President to get it done.

That dream became a reality. The power of that dream became real in people’s lives because we had a President who said “we’re going to do it”, and actually got it accomplished.

I found two videos, one was the interview and the other is a stump speech addressing King/Johnson and I don't understand how Obama could jump to conclusions that Hillary was racist. I mean, she was addressing what Obama had said the day before, "False Hope". Now to me Obama's statements were more damaging in pushing back identity issues then anything that Hillary said in her interview.

http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/01/07/clinton-talks-tears-with-fox-news/

Noone get alarmed because it's a Fox page but Major did the interview while Hillary was on the campaign trail in NH so I used that site because it has dialogue and an article.

[UALRBSofL]

39. Hey folks, how did my post get lines through part of it?

Anyone know? This is strange.

[livingmadness]

24. Wow. Your post is really well outlined and argued.

I'm a die-hard Obama supporter, who has felt a lot of outrage about the increasing role 'race' has been playing in the primary process. I've felt a lot of bitterness toward the Clinton inner circle for it too. Now, I'm not saying that I recant on that anger - I'm still smarting from some fairly low-ball tactics (IMO) e.g. "as far as I know" ... "Obama only has a speech" and more recently Icke's report to the media that he's utilizing the Wright debacle in his talk with super-delegates - the unelectable argument, Obama disenfranchising voters etc. Now I don't raise these things to snark Clinton supporters here and am well aware we are likely to disagree on the context and meaning of these incidents. I don't seek to start any new arguments about them either - just to emphasize that I'm not saying I fully buy your thesis and 'all is forgotten'. But you have certainly given me much to consider and I think your argument has a lot of merit. And it would certainly help for some of my bitterness to subside. I'm not naive to what the power elite are capable of and in that sense your argument is totally cogent.

Again, if I were to embrace it fully I would remain really disappointed with the campaign Hillary has waged. And feel growing trepidation about what might be ahead in a showdown against McCain. If Hillary were to somehow pick up the nomination, I would definitely vote for her - McWar in the oval office is totally unacceptable to me - my heart though wouldn't be in it; my conscience would.

I wonder about the vocal right-wingers supposed early pick of Romney, disdain for McCain and Romney's ultimate demise. How does this 'against the grain' outcome fit with your thesis? I also think that the media were fairly ambivalent toward Obama in the initial stages of the campaign and were driven to attention in many ways by his enormous groundswell of support. This may not be inconsistent with your argument. I guess, if you're familiar with Popper's falsifiability theory, then you'll understand I'm looking for the black swan, not trying to be contrary!! I look forward to your thoughts, as well as whether you've thought of other instances that perhaps challenge it.

Thanks again!

[leftrightwingnut]

25. Hi, McCamy. Could you post the link to the New York Times article with the misquote?

:hi:
That should clinch your argument.

(On edit: fixed the screwed up emoticon)

[McCamy Taylor]

44. Media Matters does an excellent job, Here is the link

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801120003

[The Wizard]

28. It is indeed a Rove/Republican media

And a very well done deconstruction of how it operates to benefit one party over the other.
In the waning years of the old Soviet Union the citizens knew they were being fed a regular diet of propaganda and outright bullshit, and it was the citizens who marginalized the "official" news.
Ku Klux Karl and his band of goose stepping fascists have a strangle hold on corporate information.
The principles upon which our country was founded are getting buried under the onslaught of Republican lies spread by Republican criminals.
The only thing left is the Internet, and they're working behind the scenes to shut down our ability to communicate with each other.
Republican criminals have studied the Nazis and Soviet totalitarians and learned from prior mistakes. They have perfected propaganda and the spread of false information.
Go back to the 2004 campaign and how all the news broadcasts repeated the Swift Boat attacks against John Kerry. People were duped into thinking they were watching news when in fact it was campaign ads presented as news. The major media corporations made contributions in kind worth millions to the Bush campaign. Since it was reported as news, it was never counted as a contribution by either the media corporations or the Bush Campaign.
It's time for the Democratic Party to call the corporate media what it is and what Howard Dean labeled Fox News, a propaganda wing of the Republican Party.
Whenever possible, embarrass them in public, shame them, curse them, piss on them, slam them like a loose shutter in a hurricane . They are scumbags of the worst order, and deserve nothing less from we patriotic defenders of liberty.
Some wave the flag while others hide behind it. Real Americans defend the ideals and principles it represents.

[MethuenProgressive]

29. McCamy, regarding the "race memo" authored by Amaya Smith.

Has she, or anyone in the Obama Camp, ever denied it?
It lays out a strategy to take various comments and spin them as "race baiting" to the press. (And, when I say that the Obama Camp Swiftboated the Clintons on race" as I often do, I point to this memo.) How could this memo be, in your words, an "RNC plant"?

link to the HuffPo piece about the memo:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/12/obama-camps-memo-on-clin_n_81205.html

[rodeodance]

30. Here is his response to Russert when asked about the 4 page memo:

QUOTE
RUSSERT: In terms of accountability, Senator Obama, Senator Clinton on Sunday told me that the Obama campaign had been pushing this storyline. And, true enough, your press secretary in South Carolina -- four pages of alleged comments made by the Clinton people about the issue of race.

In hindsight, do you regret pushing this story?

OBAMA: Well, not only in hindsight, but going forward. I think that, as Hillary said, our supporters, our staff get overzealous. They start saying things that I would not say. And it is my responsibility to make sure that we’re setting a clear tone in our campaign, and I take that responsibility very seriously, which is why I spoke yesterday and sent a message in case people were not clear that what we want to do is make sure that we focus on the issues.

Now, there are going to be significant issues that we debate, and some serious differences that we have. OBAMA: And I’m sure those will be on display today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/us/polit...PPg1RgmjYp5ZFTw

[MethuenProgressive]

31. Obama confirmed to Russert the "race memo" came from his camp.

Too bad his supporters didn't listen to his words. Words matter (according to Deval Patrick).

[rodeodance]

32. Yes he did---with a bit of weasle talk.

[McCamy Taylor]

43. If the RNC has a mole within the Obama camp. In 1972, CREEP had moles in all the Dems camps

It would not even have to be the one who claimed authorship of the "Race Memo". Some other VIP who is "working for Obama" off the record, in strictest secrecy, could have given them the memo on the condition that someone in the camp claim authorship, knowing that it would be nothing but trouble.Once it was shown to the press, Obama was asked whether he approved (by the press which immediately recognized that the Race Memo was nothing but trouble for Obama and a big scoop if he said "Yeah, I agree with that.' Obama said "Hell, no!" So, the one who claimed authorship backtracked.

Now, it is also possible that the Obama camp actually wrote the thing, but I really doubt it. A person would have to be an utter fool to do work like this within a Democratic primary. I can not see any presidential campaign allowing a person this naive or unstable any position of power within their camp. I can see a campaign trusted an outside VIP who has malicious intent and accepting such a document along with a "Trust me, this will work."

[UALRBSofL]

34. McCamy your spot on again. I have to say you have one of the

best journals on DU because you use critical thinking in laying out your points and it doesn't scream of bias or partisanship. I look forward to reading more. Keep up the good work. However, I would like to add that in addition to the media painting the Clinton's as racists I believe the O Camp has contributed to this image as well.

The race card was a carefully made decision when O did not blow out C in NH. He has no natural constituency so they had to manufacture one. They know they would fragment the party but reasoned probably that Dem's would have to come together for the GE. He had to play the race card for SC because of the Clinton's’ long history of civil rights but that is not enough to win the nomination. Next they went for the “creative” educated class by appealing to their vanity as visionary and able to see into the future and what others “just do not get.” That also is not enough to win the primaries so who could they rope in next. They went after angry white guys and general all around misogynists.

It appears that they believe they have time to repair enough of the damage after the nomination is won but before the election because the alternative will be so horrible. The problem of course is how truly pissed folks are at these strategies and that a large number of Dem's do not hate McCain perhaps enough to vote for O regardless. The rifts in the party may never fully heal.

[McCamy Taylor]

46. Its all perspective. Obama camp is largely supporter driven and folks on the ground and in the

streets are easy prey for the RNC and their opo, which they do 24-7. They turn out press releases which the guys and gals in the MSM respond to religiously in a way that they would never respond to anything from Obama or Clinton (except maybe to tell the public, snidely, "This is story Clinton is peddling now " or "This is the memo Obama sent out. Let's examine it to see how bad it makes Obama look." When the RNC peddles a lie, the corporate media sells the lie .

So, if the RNC is combing the internet and archives for stories to shoot down Hillary and handing them to the press, the Obama camp will bite, because Obama's camp is the man in the street first and then the leadership second. The Hillary Camp will be slower to respond to RNC provocation (or at least it used to be) because the command was from the top. However, the Obama camps sniping has made the Hillary supporters so mad that they are now fierce in their support of Hillary, which has given them added weight within the campaign. meaning that the woman in the street now has more clout within the Hillary campaign. Soon we will see pressure within the Hillary campaign to respond to every RNC lie about Obama. That is when his Teflon within the Democratic primary will wear thin.

[UALRBSofL]

37. I also want to

K/R :)

[McCamy Taylor]

47. Quick note, please check this thread. Obama tried to say Hillary not a racist before So Carolina

This was after the Race Memo. So he is on the ball. Did the MSM publicize his story? Hell no! They ran with their RNC script! This proves that even Obama has no clout with the MSM.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5355716&mesg_id=5355716

He is now going to be facing a shit storm of people saying "How could you accuse Hillary of being a racist when you admitted that she wasn't?" when he actually tried to say that she wasn't but the MSM kept on with its splitter divide and conquer lies.

Obama and Hillary are both in the cross hairs. We really do need to stop attacking each other and focus on the common enemy.

RUSSERT: In terms of accountability, Senator Obama, Senator Clinton on Sunday told me that the Obama campaign had been pushing this storyline. And, true enough, your press secretary in South Carolina — four pages of alleged comments made by the Clinton people about the issue of race.

In hindsight, do you regret pushing this story?

OBAMA: Well, not only in hindsight, but going forward. I think that, as Hillary said, our supporters, our staff get overzealous. They start saying things that I would not say. And it is my responsibility to make sure that we’re setting a clear tone in our campaign, and I take that responsibility very seriously, which is why I spoke yesterday and sent a message in case people were not clear that what we want to do is make sure that we focus on the issues.

Now, there are going to be significant issues that we debate, and some serious differences that we have.

OBAMA: And I’m sure those will be on display today.

What I am absolutely convinced of is that everybody here is committed to racial equality — has been historically. And what I also expect is that I’m going to be judged as a candidate in terms of how I’m going to be improving the lives of the people in Nevada and the people all across the country, that they are going to ultimately be making judgments on can I deliver on good jobs at good wages; can I make sure that our home foreclosure crisis is adequately dealt with; are we going to be serious about retirement security; and are we going to have a foreign policy that makes us safe.

If I’m communicating that message, then I expect to be judged on that basis. And if I’m not, then I expect to be criticized on that basis. That’s the kind of campaign that we want to run and that we have run up until this point.

RUSSERT: Do you believe this is a deliberate attempt to marginalize you as the black candidate?

OBAMA: No.

[Bette Noir]

48. Paranoid much?

I hope you'll take it back, when President Obama is sworn in.

[McCamy Taylor]

49. Take what back? That the RNC is doing oppo and the Bush adm. abuses its power to pimp McCain?

Never. That does not mean it will work. Karl Rove played the same tricks in 2006 and I watched him do it and knew that he was going to fail and I knew why he was going to fail but I never posted why until after the election. I only posted what he was up to. It isn't my job to tell the RNC what they are doing wrong, only my job to alert Democrats what dirty tricks the opposition is using.

Remember, just because it is a dirty trick, that does not make it gold plated. There is a lot that can go wrong. For instance, Democrats can anticipate the dirty tricks and take measures to counter them. Some of them can be used to Democrats' advantage. Some of them will not work (I am not saying which ones those are and which ones are going to backfire right in the RNC's face).

This is not 1968 or 1972. Pat Buchanan wrote the script but he is not running the show. Lee Atwater repented and died. Karl Rove is not particularly creative and he does not have his pulse on anything except maybe his own dick. He screwed up 2006 , because he forgot basic rules of propaganda. That is a beginners mistake.