Putting All The Race Cards on the Table: "The Race Memo"

[McCamy Taylor]

I. What Is the “Race Memo”?

On January 12, 2008 The Huffington Post demonstrated that it is a journal of integrity and not another corporate media propaganda organ. When someone at the journal received a document that would later be labeled “The Race Memo” from the Obama camp, rather than disseminating it to pro-Obama journalists to serve as the basis for Clinton bashing articles or depositing it in the trash, the Post decided to print it. I am sure that this was a difficult choice. The Obama camp had come in for criticism the year before when the “Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)” memo was revealed. In that instance, the memo was distributed to the press on a “you didn’t get it from us” understanding that the press promptly broke, since there was more news in “Obama smears Clinton and offends Indians” than in “Indians like Clinton.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/15/us/politics/15clintons.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5088&en=02b5bf8e901baebf&ex=1339560000&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Shortly after the Clinton campaign released the financial information, the campaign of Senator Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat, circulated to news organizations — on what it demanded be a not-for-attribution-basis — a scathing analysis. It called Mrs. Clinton “Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)” in its headline. The document referred to the investment in India and Mrs. Clinton’s fund-raising efforts among Indian-Americans. The analysis also highlighted the acceptance by Mr. Clinton of $300,000 in speech fees from Cisco, a company the Obama campaign said has moved American jobs to India.

A copy of the document was obtained by Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, which provided it to The New York Times. The Clinton campaign has long been frustrated by the effort by Mr. Obama to present his campaign as above the kind of attack politics that Mr. Obama and his aides say has led to widespread disillusionment with politics by many Americans.

Asked about the document, Bill Burton, a spokesman for Mr. Obama, said: “We did give reporters a series of comments she made on the record and other things that are publicly available to anyone who has access to the Internet. I don’t see why anyone would take umbrage with that.”
Asked why the Obama campaign had initially insisted that it not be connected to the document, Mr. Burton replied, “I’m going to leave my comment at that.”

The “Race Memo” was more of the same but even more inflammatory. Through the use of three lies and distortions of things that Sen.Clinton and surrogates had done or said, it sought to paint the Clintons as racists in the lead up to South Carolina. Here is the Huffington Post article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/12/obama-camps-memo-on-clin_n_81205.html

Here is the post a week later that makes clear that it really did come from the Obama camp, since Obama himself publicly disavowed it—after a very bad week for the Clintons in which the press accused them of being bigots out to smear their opponent. No one stopped to ask the obvious---how making racist attacks could help Hillary Clinton going into a Democratic primary in a state with a large African-American population.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/17/obama-unhappy-with-aides-_n_81990.html

The memo, which was obtained by the Huffington Post and has been made public elsewhere, is believed to have been given to an activist and contains mostly excerpts from different media reports. It lists the contact info and name of Obama's South Carolina press secretary, Amaya Smith, and is broken down into five incidents in which either Clinton, her husband Bill, or campaign surrogates made comments that could be interpreted as racially insensitive.
The document provides an indication that, in private, the Obama campaign is seeking to capitalize on the view - and push the narrative - that the Clintons are using race-related issues for political leverage. In public, the Obama campaign has denied that they are trying to propagate such a perception, noting that the document never was sent to the press.

While the Obama camp claims that only the Post saw this memo, I will show that many journalists used the stories contained within this memo in the days surrounding its release, suggesting that the Obama camp either lied and did distribute it to others or that some in the press seized upon the Huffington Post article and used the lies it contained for articles or that some other organization, such as the RNC under Karl Rove was disseminating the same lies in an attempt to divide and conquer the Democratic Party along racial lines and boost the campaign of Barack Obama to achieve a Brokered Democratic Convention, just like in 1972.

First, about the charges contained within the Race Memo, three were based upon distortions or lies which widely read media watchdog sites such as Media Matters have debunked. For a presidential campaign to release inaccurate inflammatory statements about an opponent which a shoestring media watchdog organization can refute points to either extreme sloppiness or deliberate malice---or an RNC mole playing at 1972 divide and conquer politics. We all need to keep the last possibility in mind this election. For the sake of brevity, I will refer to the "Race Memo" as coming from the Obama camp in the rest of this article, but always keep in mind that the force pushing the narrative it contains could just as easily be the RNC.

The Clinton MLK LBJ misrepresentations have been thoroughly debunked by Media Matters

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801120003

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801160002

Clinton’s full quote was a statement that LBJ passed the Civil Rights laws that JFK hoped the pass but could not. In her analogy, Obama was JFK and she was LBJ. The press later admitted that the reason Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama was because he took offense at the slight to JFK. She described both men as helping MLK Jr and if you read

This online document provides moving testimony of how hard Dr. King, Johnson and Vice President Humphrey worked together to ensure passage of Civil Rights legislation in 1964. And, to be fair, its passage owed a lot to the sympathy surrounding the martyrdom of Kennedy. But no one is running for national martyr.

http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2004/summer/civil-rights-act-1.html

Half of the drug use charge is an out and out lie, as David Axelrod is well aware since he was there at the time. The Hardball episode in question was an All-Obama All-Drugs show in which Matthews kept asking “Do things really go better with coke?” His quests were Axelrod, Penn and Trippi. Since Axelrod was there, the Obama camp must have been fine with an hour long discussion of Obama and drugs. Tweety kept asking Penn what he thought of Obama’s drug use, a subject that most people only know about from the Senator’s autobiography. At first, Penn was reluctant to answer. Finally, when Penn attempted to answer a question put to him point blank, Trippi and the others accused him of introducing the subject of “cocaine” even though Mathews had been alluding to it all show. In retrospect the possibility that Penn was set up by Matthews and Axelrod must be explored since a number of MSNBC pundits including Schuster later went on the repeat the lie that Penn introduced the topic of Obama and drugs out of the blue, and the Obama campaign has repeated the lie. Here is Media Matters again.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801240011

http://mediamatters.org/items/200712140011

http://clips.mediamatters.org/items/200712170004

http://www.mefeedia.com/entry/msnbcs-odonnell-claimed-penn-on-his-own-brought-up-cocaine-but-matthews-started-conversation/5313566/

http://clips.mediamatters.org/items/200801240011

As for Bill Clinton calling it a “fairy tale” for Obama to dream of being president, I think that most people know by now that he was referring to the Senator’s statement that his public opposition to the war has never varied. Now, this is a matter of opinion, and as they say, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I have never understood why the Obama camp got into this once, because it isn’t a good fight for them. But once engaged, they apparently decided that there were political points to be had from misrepresenting the ex-presidents words. Because here we have a document that criticizes “Bill Clinton For Comparing Obama To A "Fairy Tale" ‘ Once again, Media Matters had the situation in hand.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801150015?f=s_search

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801170009?f=s_search

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801260002?f=s_search


II. Why Haven’t I Heard About the Race Memo?

If you have heard the three lies above a hundred times but have not heard a word about the “Race Memo”, blame it on the corporate media, which chooses to craft a narrative that goes Hillary is a dirty trickster but does not choose to craft a narrative that goes Obama is a dirty trickster even though Obama’s campaign is lead by David Axelrod who does not have a reputation for playing nice.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/magazine/01axelrod.t.html?ei=5124&en=c8e20f4144cbf908&ex=1332993600&partner=newsvine&exprod=newsvine&pagewanted=all

Note that the NYT article that include “Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)” placed that story on the second page of an article about Clinton. It was not a headline piece. It was an afterthought. Clinton bites Obama is news. Obama bites Clinton is “so what”. The mere choice of where to put a story can influence to public perception of candidates. If a very real “The Race Memo” appears only in the Huffington Post, it will not affect anyone’s perception of the candidates, whereas the mindless repetition of the same lie---Clinton called Obama’s campaign a “fairy tale”---becomes a huge dirty trick by the process of amplification.

Here is how the WasPo chose to deal with the “Race Memo”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/11/AR2008011103662.html

“Clintons Move to Ease Some Racial Tension” Ann Kornblut and Shaliagh Murray Jan 12, 2008 Washington Post

Note the misleading title, and the fact that the article opens by listing several of the charges in the “Race Memo” as if they are fact.

Publicly, Obama's campaign has so far only echoed the concerns expressed by others, without directly accusing the Clintons of trying to inject race into their primary showdown.

Buried in the article is a mention that a memo was released but without a link so that it will be difficult for anyone to find the document. The article also quotes Donna Brazile early on with more anti-Clinton criticism before vaguely addressing the point that Bill did not call Obama a “fairy tale” and that the Obama camp is once again having to disavow another smear memo aimed at Hillary Clinton.

This is not an unbiased attempt to cover the “Race Memo”. This is an attempt by the Washington Post to bury it.


Here is Eric Boehlert on the Media Bias against Hillary Clinton

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200801150004

The press has literally forgotten how to do its job, forgotten how to simply be spectators instead of trying to insert themselves as players. As Tom Brokaw famously mentioned on MSNBC on primary night, (arrogant) journalists need to remove themselves from the process and stop trying to affect the outcome. Elections are about voters, not journalists.

Snip

The disdain for Clinton has been openly broadcast by journalists. Appearing on CNN's Reliable Sources on December 30, The Washington Post's Milbank announced: "The press will savage no matter what."
And just hours before primary day, The New Republic's Jason Zengerle filed this dispatch from the campaign trail:

I was at a dinner tonight with various political reporters who are up here to cover the happenings, and it was pretty funny how giddy/relieved they were at the prospect of a McCain-Obama general election campaign, as opposed to, say, a Romney-Clinton one. Suddenly, the next 11 months of their lives look a whole lot more enjoyable.

Now we know why we haven’t heard about “The Race Memo.”

III. Is There Any Indirect Evidence That the “Race Memo” May Have Had An Effect on the Press?

No one in the press is going to say “Look, I got this oppo from the Karl Rove/Mark Penn/David Axlerod and I am basing today’s story on it.” It does not work that way. However, a lot of TV journalists are lazy. Even some pundits in the press let the campaigns do their legwork for them. Even some politicians get stories from candidates and do not investigate to see if they are true. When people start taking sides, they are especially easy to influence.

Here are some stories that bear an uncanny resemblance to the “Race Memo” in timing, bias and substance.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/11/politics/main3702777.shtml?source=search_story

“Racial Tensions Roil Democratic Race” Jan 11, 2008 CBS

A series of comments from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, her husband, and her supporters are spurring a racial backlash and adding a divisive edge to the presidential primary as the candidates head south to heavily African-American South Carolina.

The comments, which ranged from the New York senator appearing to diminish the role of Martin Luther King Jr. in the civil rights movement - an aide later said she misspoke - to Bill Clinton dismissing Sen. Barack Obama’s image in the media as a “fairy tale” - generated outrage on black radio, black blogs and cable television. And now they've drawn the attention of prominent African-American politicians.

“A cross-section of voters are alarmed at the tenor of some of these statements,” said Obama spokeswoman Candice Tolliver, who said that Clinton would have to decide whether she owed anyone an apology.

snip

Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., through a spokesman, used even stronger language. "Following Barack Obama's victory in Iowa and historic voter turnout in New Hampshire, the cynics unfortunately have stepped up their efforts to decry his uplifting message of hope and fundamental change.

"Regrettably, they have resorted to distasteful and condescending language that appeals to our fears rather than our hopes. I sincerely hope that they'll turn away from such reactionary, disparaging rhetoric."

The article has the MLK Jr. misquote. It has the “fairy tale” misquote. It has Shaheen, It even has “shuck and jive”. That is 4 out of 6. And it appeared before the Huffington Post story on 1-12. Pretty strange coincidence, that.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/opinion/12herbert.html?ex=1357794000&en=4ff779c9e67fdd95&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

“Of Hope and Politics” Bob Herbert Jan 12, 2008 NYT. This article came out the same day that the Huffington Post published “The Race Memo” so it was probably written no later than the day before.

So there was the former president chastising the press for the way it was covering the Obama campaign and saying of Mr. Obama’s effort: “The whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.”
And there was Mrs. Clinton telling the country we don’t need “false hopes,” and taking cheap shots at, of all people, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
We’d already seen Clinton surrogates trying to implant the false idea that Mr. Obama might be a Muslim, and perhaps a drug dealer to boot. It struck me that the prediction of so many commentators that Senator Obama was about to run away with the nomination, and bury the Clintons in the process, was the real fairy tale.

Again, remarkable similarities to the Race Memo.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/11/AR2008011103281.html

“Will They Play The Race Card” Matjorie Valbrun Jan 13, 2008, Washington Post.

She uses the Billy Shaheen remarks and mirepresents Hillary Clinton’s remarks about Dr. King, both straight out of the “Race Memo.” Note the close timing of her article, Bob Herberts , the CBS story and the “Race Memo”.

Those were just a representative sample. I have many more below.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/us/politics/11clyburn.html?ex=1357794000&en=2fe657eca309a1ff&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

“Civil Rights Tone Prompts Talk of an Endorsement” Carl Hulse Jan 11, 2008

Did the Obama camp circulate the “Race Memo” to Rep. James Clyburn? Check out this interview he gave to the NYT before the South Carolina primary just one day before the Huffington Post printed the “Race Memo” story in which he said that he was rethinking his neutral status, because of Hillary’s remarks about MLK Jr and because Bill Clinton called Barack Obama’s campaign a “fairy tale”.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/opinion/09wed1.html?ex=1357621200&en=212c0077fb157369&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

January 9, the NYT has an editorial devoted to chastising Hillary Clinton for words she did not say about MLK Jr---and for which Media Matters had repeatedly called out the NYT, every single time they got the quote wrong. It is one thing for a newspaper to print a quote wrong. It is another for it to base an editorial on a misquote. Were they basing their editorial on oppo from the Obama camp because they were so eager to interject race into the race?

Here is Media Matters:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801120003

Summary: A January 11 New York Times article marked at least the third time that a Times article, editorial, or blog post truncated Hillary Rodham Clinton's January 7 comments about civil rights. Each of the articles quoted Clinton's statement that "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964" and that "it took a president to get it done" but omitted Clinton's reference to former President John F. Kennedy. Clinton had also said that passing a civil rights bill was "something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried."

http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/01/another-isolated-racial-insult-of-obama.html

“Jack and Jill Politics” Jan 10, 2008 This site has it all. Shuck and Jive. Penn. Shaheen. MLK. Fairy Tale. And more. It claims to be devoted to African-American bloggers but one poster used the give away term “Clintonista” indicating that the RNC has infiltrated the site. That means that Karl Rove may be playing CREEP styles dirty tricks here. Oh fun.



http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/bill-clinton-tries-to-tamp-down-fairy-tale-remark-about-obama/

Also NYT, January 11, 2008 By Carl Hulse and Patrick Healy 752 pm

Wow, look who knows the real words that Hillary spoke about LBJ. Someone at the NYTs. Too bad the authors of this piece could not have told their colleagues.
And look, the article addresses what Bill really said about “fairy tale” , too.
So why did Bob Herbert write his piece with the distorted versions for the 1-12-2008 issue of the NYT?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Bill_on_the_fairy_tale.html

No, don’t read the Politico article, scroll down to the post that sounds just like someone familiar with the “Race Memo” posted it on Jan 11, 2008

Here is what is wrong with Clinton's statement (and why reasserting it is a major blunder): first, he claims that Obama didn't take a stand against the war in 2004, when the video and the transcript of that interview clearly show that Obama has been unwavering--so Clinton is either a liar or he doesn't know how to read. Second, he is basically calling the campaign a fairy tale all over again. Add it up: Shaheen + Penn + Hillary (MLK) + Cuomo + Andrew Young. It is a systematic attempt to bait Obama and to garner the Dixiecrat vote. They suck, they really and truly suck.

No name, so we don’t know who did it, but they included Penn (one that almost no one uses because it is so esoteric and such an obvious lie, if you google Penn and Shaheen you get Media Matters within the first four hits).

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801130003

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011728.php

Jan. 13, 2008 Tim Russert interviewing Hillary Clinton on Meet The Press is caught in the act by Media Matters and the Left Coaster playing truncated video of Bill Clinton and reading a truncated quote by Hillary Clinton to make the points that the Obama camp was trying to make in its “Race Memo”. Note that Russert also points out that a newspaper in South Carolina has also run the Obama camp story the day before. Be sure the watch the video. Clyburn and Brazile are used as “not supporters of Obama” to demonstrate that there is a consensus of African-Americans who are offended by Clinton.

Note that MSNBC, owned by GE, which makes billions off nuclear energy, which Obama believes is “Green energy” and which he has supported through legislation like the Cheney Energy Bill, has been one of his staunchest allies this primary.

And, another GE associated publication, Newsweek which is partnered with MSNBC and which regularly sends its journalists on that network and which writes articles promoting GE business interests also promoted the “Race Memo” at the same time.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/91795/output/print

“Letting Hillary Be Hillary” by John Meacham Newsweek Jan 12, 2008

In New Hampshire, Bill Clinton appeared to dismiss Obama's campaign as "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen," a remark that infuriated many African-Americans. "When has 'black' and 'fairy tale' ever been mentioned in the same sentence?" asked Todd Boyd, professor of African-American and Critical Studies at the University of Southern California. "That was just insulting, and he needs to be very careful." Clinton called Al Sharpton's radio show to clarify, arguing that the "fairy tale" remark was limited to Obama's claim that he would have opposed the Iraq War if he had been in the Senate in 2002–03 despite expressing some doubts to The New York Times in 2004: "What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made." And when Hillary Clinton noted that while Martin Luther King Jr. marched, it "took a president"—Lyndon Johnson—to get civil-rights legislation passed and signed, the comment prompted some Obama supporters to say that Clinton was minimizing King. By late last week, South Carolina Rep. James E. Clyburn felt compelled to issue a statement calling for a ceasefire: "I encourage the candidates to be sensitive about the words they use. This is an historic race for America to have such strong, diverse candidates vying for the Democratic nomination." John Lewis, the Georgia congressman, civil-rights veteran and perennial optimist, said, "I hope we will put these issues of gender and race to rest and return to the marketplace of politics."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/13/574170.aspx

On Jan 13 Sen. Obama told a fib. He told it to his biggest media backer, MSNBC/GE which is counting on building lots of nuclear reactors once the country gets over its fear of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island under a “nukes are green” administration that it can trust.

“Obama: Clinton’s MLK Comment’s ‘Ludicrous’” Sunday Jan 13

Obama called the "notion" that his campaign is responsible for the backlash Hillary Clinton has faced about her comments on Martin Luther King Jr.'s role in the in the civil rights movement "ludicrous" in a conference call today to announce the endorsement of Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill.

"Well this is fascinating to me," Obama began of Clinton's remarks on Meet the Press, in which she accused the Obama campaign of stirring the pot among African-American leaders about her remarks that it "took a president" to pass civil rights legislation.

Obama characterized Clinton's remarks as "tired Washington politicians and the games they play."

"She made an unfortunate remark about Martin Luther King and Lyndon Johnson,” he said. “I haven't remarked on it. And she offended some folks who thought she diminished the role about King and the civil rights movement. The notion that this is our doing is ludicrous.”

Note that just the day before the Huffington Post had published the “Race Memo”. On the day that Obama made these remarks, Bob Herbert would publish a NYT op-ed that would echo three of the main charges in the “Race Memo”. Someone convinced Donna Brazile and Rep. Clyburn of distortions of the truth. Who gave these people the wrong facts? The same people who wrote the lies in the “Race Memo”?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/13/AR2008011303624.html

On Jan. 14. Barack Obama again entered the fray publicly.

“Clinton’s King Comment Ill Advised Obama Says” By Anne E. Kornblut and Perry Bacon Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, January 14, 2008

COLUMBIA, S.C., Jan. 13 -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton defended her recent remarks on civil rights Sunday, as Sen. Barack Obama weighed in on the controversy for the first time, describing Clinton's earlier comments about the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. as "unfortunate" and "ill-advised."
Obama had previously tried to sidestep direct engagement in the debate over race. But the recent controversy has touched a nerve with many African Americans, including some sympathetic to the Clintons, and Obama chose to address it Sunday.
The primary source of the debate is a comment Monday from the New York Democrat: "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act," she said, adding that "it took a president to get it done." Critics read that as playing down King's importance in the civil rights movement. Clinton said Sunday that the Obama campaign was "deliberately distorting this."
Asked whether he had taken offense to Clinton's remarks, the Illinois Democrat said he had not been the one to raise the subject.

Um… but the Huffington Post had published the “Race Memo” in which his camp most certainly did attempt to raise the issue just two days before. And as I have shown, a whole bunch of journalists, as one, suddenly began writing about the stuff contained in that memo as if they had heard the arguments and were using them even before the memo was published.

Note that the Washington Post does not mention the “Race Memo” nor does it give the facts about the Clintons’ remarks. The opening paragraphs give the impression that the distorted views are correct and the corrections are presented through the mouths of the Clintons, making them suspect.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801150010

Monday, Jan 14, 2008, Fox, which has the original footage, misquotes Hillary Clinton about the MLK Jr story when they report on Obama’s criticism of her.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/14/michelle-obama-reinforces_n_81318.html

Jan 14 Michelle Obama mischaracterizes Bill Clinton’s “fairy tale” remarks.


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june08/race_01-14.html

Also on Jan 14. PBS provides a forum to disseminate the stories about “fairy tale” , MLK Jr and Shaheen again. Note that every time Clinton supporter tries to do this

REP. JOHN LEWIS: Well, I think it did come out of the language that Mr. Obama is using, but the Obama camp is also doing something else. They're sending out memos to members of the media, trying to suggest that the Clintons are playing the race card.

The Obama supporter Rev. Joseph Lowery changes the subject or says in effect “don’t go there.” Why not? The Obama camp went there? The press is going there?

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0801/14/sitroom.02.html

CNN provides minimal coverage: Jan 14 The Situation Room

MARTIN: You know what; it's one of those things where you say who through the first punch? And so always it's the person who gets the second punch in the NFL when they throw the flag. It really did start in terms of these sort of little jabs with the Shaheen comment, Bill Shaheen when he referenced that republicans are going to say was Senator Barack Obama, a drug dealer. A lot of African-Americans were offended by that comment because here was a candidate who was being very open about it. You had the back and forth. Then you had a comment from New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo when he talked about this whole shuck and jive. So then, of course, followed by the fairy tale and the MLK deal. So the Clinton people are saying look, the Obama camp, they are pushing this. They're sending memos out with these various talking points. The Obama campaign is saying look, we don't even want to touch race. It is a very fine line, Wolf, as Carol outlined that Obama is trying to walk. I call it the dance, the dance that an African-American has to do running in the mainstream sort of situation. You don't want to be overtly racial. You also have to recognize that African-Americans want you to appeal to them as well in order to get those votes. There's a very delicate balance there.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jan/14/obama-gloves-off/#/Obama_at_Culinary_Union_226/

Jan 14. Law Vegas Sun, a Nevada Paper does the Shaheen story, MLK and “shuck and jive”.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-race15jan15,1,4887643.story?coll=la-politics-campaign

Tuesday Jan 15, LA Times “Race Enters the Race” Richard Fausset and Janet Hook

Once again Hillary Clinton’s remarks about LBJ are misquoted.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801150015

Also on January 15, Newsweek, already on notice from Media Matters, repeats the lie about Bill Clinton calling Barack Obama’s campaign a “fairy tale”.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801150016

Tuesday Jan 15 was a really bad news day for Clinton. AP repeated the lie about LBJ in papers everywhere (though they have removed the article now, but Media Matters writes about it still) in reporting on Rep.Clyburn’s criticism of the altered comments.

So now, people all across the country know that Clinton has been called out for disrespecting Dr. King. With his birthday coming up January 21. Coincidence?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801150018

Tuesday Jan 15 and more from the GE empire. Tweety telling more Tweety lies. Note that drug use is not even racially charged, so I am not sure why we are talking about it…. Oh, yes. That is right. It is on the Race Memo. Why did all those people get the idea that drug use was racially charged at the same time?

http://thehill.com/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=70725&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=70

“Clyburn mulls mission to end racial clash?” Mike Soraghan Jan 16, 2008

The top African-American member in Congress’s leadership is considering flying home early to South Carolina this week on a mission to cool a raging racial debate that has engulfed the Democratic presidential contest.
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said he may leave Washington before the end of the week to try to soothe tensions that have broken out just a week before his state’s crucial Democratic primary. The tensions mounted after controversial comments on race and the civil rights movement by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and former President Bill Clinton were seized upon by supporters of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

The author of the article then does something totally irresponsible. He goes back in time a week to before Clyburn spoke to the Clintons and lifts Clyburn’s words from the original NYT’s article to make it appear that he still believes the corporate media/ “Race Memo” lies. (even after having the record corrected by the Clintons).

He also said Bill Clinton’s description of Obama’s campaign narrative as a “fairy tale” seemed insulting.
Clyburn said it misses the point to argue whether Martin Luther King Jr. or President Lyndon Johnson was more important to the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1964.

This dirty trick by the author makes Clyburn look like a dirty trickster or a fool. It is the most shameless kind of media duplicity. Someone scanning the article would not understand where those words came from at all. One would suppose that the author did not want Clyburn to end the feud, stabbing him in the back like that.


IV. Why Does It Matter? Can’t We Just Discard Hillary Clinton as “Tainted Goods” and Keep the One “Fresh” Candidate We Have

From the Left Coaster link above

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011728.php

This is the latest episode in a series of false insinuations from the Obama campaign that the Clintons are racist. This is the kind of campaign that will lose Sen. Obama the general election if he becomes the nominee because there are a lot of Americans who are not in the least bit racist who will start believing that Sen. Obama is a divisive figure, a person who will repeatedly and falsely paint opponents or critics as being racists in order to win the election.

This is not the Republican Primary in which George W. Bush gets patted on the back for calling John McCain an enemy collaborator and the father of an illegitimate mixed race child in order to win a nomination. This is the Democratic primary. The last time we let the Republicans define our nominee, straight talking war hero George McGovern as a dirty trickster, back stabber, just another politician who would do anything to get elected and who would not come through for anyone in a pinch, guess what happened? He lost by a landslide. Voters---especially those in need--are not going to trust candidates who engage in this kind of politics. That is why the RNC has been planting Freeper moles on the internet and stirring up trouble.


Now, as we move towards North Carolina, I see signs that the exact same players are about to repeat the exact same mistakes. Oh, I am sure that this time no one in the Obama camp will hand any memos to anyone. But the RNC can always get someone on tape, saying the wrong thing. They own the news media. For all we know Karl Rove instructed members of the press to step up the playing of the race card bs last January because the "Race Memo" was outed, and he knew it would make a great story for McCain to use in September or October. If someone in the Obama camp says the wrong thing again, the press will initiate another race war---and it will be Obama's fault a second time. All the reporters will be waiting for some sound bite they can edit to change the meaning. We can not stop them from doing it, but we can refuse to rise to the bait. And when the RNC moles planted among us rise to the bait, we can refuse to follow their lead.

Rush is not going to get his riots in Denver. Not if we have an open dialog about what happened in January, including the miscommunication and the role that the news media played, so that we can learn from our mistakes and keep it from happening again. I know for a fact that some people (I even know which ones) are going to say that no Democrat should ever criticize another Democrat by posting anything like this---even though everything I have written I collected with Google in about 12 hours, meaning that the folks at RNC oppo already have and do not need me to do their research. It is time to stop pretending that what we know happened in January did not happen. Race was introduced to hurt Hillary Clinton and to help Barack Obama (in the very short run) and---more than likely---to hurt the Democratic Party's chances in the fall election. If we heal the party now, then the Republicans have not won.

Obama says he wants no distractions.

Hillary Clinton has apologized for Bill Clinton's "Jesse Jackson" comment and has repudiated Geraldine Ferraro's remarks.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8VC9QC80&show_article=1

But to hear the press talk, they are just salivating at the thought of Race Wars Round II.

[chimpymustgo]

1. McCamy Taylor, thank you for doing what our news media will not. TRUTH about the "race card"!

I know it's a lot to read for some around here - but it's well worth it. K&R!!!

[youngharry]

5. the race card

Mr. Taylor, once again I find your rants manipulative, intellectually and morally dishonest. Please go back into your Clinton cave as you will need more propaganda to sway and convince voters that Obama first used the race card and that he is not the candidate of a lifetime.

[ScarletSniper]

17. Uh yep! Bill couldn't keep his tongue in his mouth anymore than he could his pole in his pants

[JoFerret]

27. You have the unfailing ability

to bring any thread down to the lowest possible common denominator.
You have an obsession with various body parts and how they are used.

[ScarletSniper]

32. Why thank you Ferret...

[JoFerret]

33. You are welcome

This was a good try but not down to your usual standard of name calling and bodily function.

[Jakes Progress]

41. I have noticed a preoccupation

that many of the Obama supporters have with Bill Clinton's private parts. Just sayin'.

[JoFerret]

45. Similar to the preoccupation

...the r/w had circa late nineties.
Same themes, same names, same abuse, same tactics.
What does it mean to be preoccupied with the private lives of others?

[Straight Shooter]

56. "What does it mean to be preoccupied with the private lives of others?"

It means you're a f*cking conservative, is what it means. It means you're puerile, juvenile, and relegated to a state of arrested development.

[JoFerret]

63. True - up to a point

The personal is political and etc.
However the obsession with sex that the r/w displayed re President Clinton was very revealing about them.
And when I hear the same things on DU it is most revealing about the people who say them. And very disappointing.

[Straight Shooter]

99. I have always been repelled by the notion that someone's sex life is anyone else's business.

If it's between consenting adults, that's their business and they need to work out the dynamics of the relationship themselves. I do, however, consider it my business if there's a minor involved, especially one who is 15 and younger. 16 is kind of iffy.

Ken Starr revealed the perverted voyeuristic face of the GOP, and apparently there are people on DU who relish reliving that ridiculous era in America's past, as if a sexual peccadillo years ago has any relevance today.

[ScarletSniper]

58. Why thank you again Ferret Ferret..I'm honored

[JoFerret]

117. Did you enjoy this one?

http://sugarnspice.typepad.com /

[emilyg]

66. Nice obsession you have - Bill's penis.

[rodeodance]

92. Lots of Obama folks are OBSESSED with Bill's penis--you are one of them.

[ScarletSniper]

106. Lmao..Rodeo..you dance beautifully

[flpoljunkie]

28. Yes, HRC called herself the "Senator from Punjab" at a fundraiser. As for the memo, it was a list

of things the Clinton camp had done to play the "race card." Why do you insist on trying to make this what is is not? I suggest you not waste our time. It was obvious to anyone with half a brain, the Clinton, having lost black voters, were playing the "race card."

The memo, which was obtained by the Huffington Post and has been made public elsewhere, is believed to have been given to an activist and contains mostly excerpts from different media reports. It lists the contact info and name of Obama's South Carolina press secretary, Amaya Smith, and is broken down into five incidents in which either Clinton, her husband Bill, or campaign surrogates made comments that could be interpreted as racially insensitive.

[JoFerret]

107. That's a nice thing to do

Ich bin ein Berliner etc.

[Evergreen Emerald]

29. What? Yes indeed. Keep your eyes closed and ears covered and shout

lalalalal to avoid the TRUTH. Obama has been running the same old negative-style campaign that we have seen for generations. Nothing new in Obama, except one thing: he does not pull punches, when Clinton does. He is even willing to call Clinton "Racist!" if it gets him the nomination.

Intellectually and Morally dishonest? Manipulative? Please. You have just defined the Obama Campaign.

[emilyg]

67. Hear. Hear.

[Jakes Progress]

43. Of course

you can't point to any errors or give us details about your findings. Just the strong indication that you have not read the post nor followed any of the links. Sort of like the book burners who don't have to read a dirty book to know they wouldn't like it. Just be honest and say you don't like any post that comes from someone who doesn't worship Obama and that you won't read them.

[rodeodance]

98. You have provided NO evidence to disprove the OP--just a Im-mature name-calling RANT.

[PaganPower]

120. Morally dishonest?

I find your comment lacking substance.

[jasmine621]

62. The info is out there but you haven't seen it pumped by the media

and you haven't heard any Obama supporters like Richardson, Robert Reich, The Black Caucus, or others apologize or criticize Obama about it the way former Clinton-supporters attacked her as being divious, negative, and dishonest. I wonder if they even know about all this info? It would be good to send your report to CNN, MSNBC (especially KO) and see if it gets any play at all.

[rodeodance]

113. they know but it would be political suicide for them to acknowlege it

[annie1]

123. i love that pic of the edwards'.

[stillcool]

2. Clinton Apologies...the beginning....

December 10, 2007
Third Clinton Volunteer Knew Of Smear E-Mail
A third volunteer for Hillary Clinton's campaign was aware of a propaganda e-mail alleging that Barack Obama is a Muslim who plans on "destroying the U.S. from the inside out. "Let us all remain alert concerning Obama's expected presidential Candidacy," the email reads. "Please forward to everyone you know. The Muslims have said they Plan on destroying the U.S. from the inside out, what better way to start than at The highest level."

Two Clinton volunteers, Linda Olson and Judy Rose, have already been asked to resign from the campaign for their roles in forwarding the e-mail. The AP reported yesterday that Olson, a volunteer coordinator in Iowa County, sent a version of the e-mail to 11 people, including Ben Young, a regional field director for Chris Dodd's campaign. Young passed it on to the AP.
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/12/third_clinton_v.html

Kerrey Apologizes to Obama Over Remark
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=4031436
Kerrey's mention of Obama's middle name and his Muslim roots raised eyebrows because they are also used as part of a smear campaign on the Internet that falsely suggests Obama is a Muslim who wants to bring jihad to the United States.
Obama is a Christian.
The Clinton campaign has already fired two volunteer county coordinators in Iowa for forwarding hoax e-mails with the debunked claim. Last week, a national Clinton campaign co-chairman resigned for raising questions about whether Obama's teenage drug use could be used against him, so Kerrey's comments raised questions about whether the Clinton campaign might be using another high-profile surrogate to smear Obama.

Hillary: Sorry for Any Offense Campaign (Bill) Has Caused
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FB65wJ6Rcfs

Bill Clinton Asks for a Second Chance
By Liz Halloran
Posted February 11, 2008
The morning after his wife, Hillary, was routed in three state contests by Sen. Barack Obama in their dead-heat battle for the Democratic nomination, former President Bill Clinton made his case for her before a packed Sunday service at one of the largest black churches in Washington, D.C.
But first he offered an apology of sorts for racially tinged comments he made about Obama and his candidacy that have triggered a backlash in the black community and among many other Democrats.

Clinton invoked his "worship of a God of second chances" in pronouncing himself glad to be at the Temple of Praise, which claims nearly 15,000 members. His invocation of second chances echoed comments he made early last week at black churches in California, where he campaigned for his wife before that state's
Super Tuesday primary, which she won.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-

2008/2008/02/11/bill-clinton-asks-for-a-second-chance.html

Source: Newsday
Posted on Sunday, December 16, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Barack Obama Accepts Apology From Hillary Clinton
Washington D.C. 12/15/2007 09:17 AM GMT (FINDITT)

Hillary Clinton went straight to Barack Obama with an apology following a staffer's remarks about any skeletons that may be lurking in Obama's closet, pointing out that she had accepted the staffer's resignation over the disparaging remarks. Obama accepted her at her word, according to his campaign staff, and is moving on without letting it interrupt his campaign plans.


Obama is currently leading the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, the two early primary states often considered key to the process, according to numbers at usaelectionpolls.com, but on a national level Clinton still holds a huge lead. The most recently posted poll results show Obama with 31 percent of the
probable voters in New Hampshire backing him with 29 percent showing support for Clinton.
http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=30629&cat=5

Clinton Camp Pushes O-Bomber Links: Ignores
Her Own Radical Ties
By: Justin Rood

ABC News - The Hillary Clinton campaign pushed to reporters today stories about Barack Obama and his ties to former members of a radical domestic terrorist group -- but did not note that as president, Clinton's husband pardoned more than a dozen convicted violent radicals, including a member of the same group
mentioned in the Obama stories."Wonder what the Republicans will do with this issue," mused Clinton spokesman Phil Singer in one e-mail to the media, containing a New York Sun article reporting a $200 contribution from William Ayers, a founding member of the 1970s group Weather Underground, to Obama in 2001.
In a separate e-mail, Singer forwarded an article from the Politico newspaper reporting on a 1995 event at a private home that brought Obama together with Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, another member of the radical group.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4330128&page=1

Bill Clinton To Apologize At LA Black Churches
Once again, Bill Clinton is ready to repent.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/02/bill-clinton-to-apologize_n_84573.html
On Sunday the former president is scheduled to visit black churches in South Central Los Angeles, where he's expected to offer a mea culpa to those who "dearly loved him" when he was their president, Rep. Diane Watson (D-Calif.) says. Watson, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus who has endorsed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), tells us she'll usher the former president to more than half a dozen churches in
her district where she says he needs to "renew his relationship" with congregants who were turned off by his racially tinged comments in the days leading up to and following the South Carolina primary. (Such as when Clinton compared Sen. Barack Obama's landslide victory to Jesse Jackson's wins in 1984 and 1988.)

http://graphics.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20080112_nevada_lawsuit.pdf
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/a-feisty-bill-

clinton-defends-nevada-lawsuit/
CLINTON ALLIES SUPPRESS THE VOTE IN NEVADA...
On Meet the Press on Sunday, Hillary Clinton said her campaign had nothing to do with a lawsuit--written about by Nation Editor Katrina vanden Heuvel--that threatens to prevent thousands of workers from voting in the Nevada caucus on Saturday.
Back in March, the Nevada Democratic Party agreed to set up caucus locations on the Vegas strip for low-income shift workers, many of them members of the state's influential Culinary Union, who commute long distances to work and wouldn't be able to get home in time to caucus. It was an uncontroversial idea until the Culinary Union endorsed Barack Obama and the Nevada State Education Association, whose top officials support Clinton, sued to shut down the caucus sites.
The Clinton camp played dumb until yesterday, when President Clinton came out in favor of the lawsuit.
Clinton's comments drew a heated response from D. Taylor, the head of Nevada's Culinary Union, on MSNBC's Hardball. "He is in support of disenfranchising thousands upon thousands of workers, not even just our members," Taylor said of Clinton. "The teachers union is just being used here. We understand that This is the Clinton campaign. They tried to disenfranchise students in Iowa. Now they're trying to
disenfranchise people here in Nevada, who are union members and people of color and women."
Rank-and-file members of Nevada's teachers union also come out against the lawsuit filed by their leadership. "We never thought our union and Senator Clinton would put politics ahead of what's right for our students, but that's exactly what they're doing," the letter stated. "As teachers, and proudmDemocrats, we hope they will drop this undemocratic lawsuit and help all Nevadans caucus, no matter which candidate they support."
The lawsuit's opponents make a persuasive point. Creating obstacles to voting is what the GOP does to Democrats, not what Democrats should be doing to other Democrats.

Clinton adviser steps down after drug use comments
Earlier Thursday, Clinton personally apologized to rival Obama for Shaheen's remarks.
Obama accepted her apology, according to David Axelrod, the top political strategist for the Obama campaign.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/13/clinton.obama/index.html

January 6, 2008, 5:18 pm
Edwards: No Conscience in Clinton Campaign
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/edwards-no-conscience-in-clinton-campaign/
By Julie Bosman
KEENE, N.H. – John Edwards angrily took on Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton at two news conferences in a row on Sunday, saying that her campaign “doesn’t seem to have a conscience.”

COMPTON, Calif. (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton and her campaign tried to mend ties to black voters Thursday when a key supporter apologized to her chief rival, Barack Obama, for comments that hinted at Obama's drug use as a teenager. The candidate herself, meanwhile, praised the Rev. Martin Luther King and promised to assist with the rebirth of this troubled, largely black city.

Bob Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television, apologized for comments he made at a Clinton campaign rally in South Carolina on Sunday that hinted at Obama's use of drugs as a teenager.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-17-

johnson-apology_N.htm?csp=34

Clinton Surrogate Compares Obama Ad to Nazi March
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080201/cm_thenation/45278988_1
Fri Feb 1, 2:23 PM ET
The Nation -- On a media conference call organized by the Hillary Clinton campaign today, Clinton surrogate Len Nichols compared an Obama health care ad to Nazis.
----------
Accusing political opponents of Nazism is an outrageous smear. Raising the specter of a Nazi march in response to a health care mailer that evokes the insurance industry is so absurd, it would be hard to take the attack seriously, were it not launched from a high profile national campaign conference call in this crucial stretch of the presidential race. And political observers know, of course, that the Clinton Campaign regularly arranges opportunities for surrogates to launch these kind of smears, which are later followed up with apologies. (See: Bob Johnson, Bill Shaheen, Bob Kerrey, and Francine Torge, to name the most recent offenders.) For his part, Nichols did not immediately return a call requesting further comment.
-------------------------
Len Nichols, Director of New America's Health Policy Program, stated, "For nearly 17 years I have worked tirelessly to reform our nation's struggling health system. Today my passion overwhelmed me. I chose an analogy that was wholly inappropriate. I am deeply sorry for any offense that my unfortunate comments may have caused.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

[DeanDem10]

36. Thank you....

With all due respect to McCamy, this journal covers only part of the story. And you (stillcool47) have added substance to the debate.

There's a huge difference between the Hillary statement on MLK and some of the more recent events, statements, and email pushes did. Bill Clinton's infamous SC attempt to diminish Obama, ala Jesse Jackson was also transparent.

There has been a steady amalgam of sludge coming from Clinton's campaign attempting to "Willie Horton" Barack Obama. The injection of Farrakhan into the PA debate,and the outrageous conflation of out-of-context quotes by Rev. Wright, with something Obama is supposedly responsible for is an overt attempt to play the race card. But what really stinks is that she also wrapped all of this stuff into impugning Obama's patriotism. And I wish some of you, including McCamy, would stop pretending Hillary is an innocent victim. I have seen and listened to her debate performance and her comments and speeches. Hillary has terribly divided Democrats. She continues to do so. And you should stop pretending she is innocent. She isn't.

PS Why are not not then also questioning Hillary's playing the gender card? The shameless emails (Robyn Morgan commentary) which even Chelsea has sent around the internet and around the country would have us believe we women must vote for HIllary or we are essentially self-hating women. And BTW I didn't get this from the media. I got such an email. I have also unsubscribed from NOW electronic newsletters because I am so sick of this garbage.

Essentially they (the Hillary "feminists" flip feminism on its head. Feminism is believing (and hopefully working toward) equality regardless of gender. And here are the Clintonistas and their cohorts from NOW and other women's groups suggesting we should do the opposite. Vote for Hillary because she and we are women, they say. That would mean they are anti-feminists. Sign me an enlightened feminist. I am not buying into this sexist drivel coming from the Clinton camp.

In all fairness, McCamy, you need to admit what the Clinton campaign HAS done. AND it is far from a fabrication. It's there for all of to see in plain sight./

[stillcool]

91. I ran across these articles..

about the 'gender card'....

Did Hillary "Play The Gender Card"?
By Greg Sargent - November 2, 2007, 3:51PM

So what really happened here, anyway?
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/11/did_hillary_play_the_gender_card.php
After the debate, Hillary's campaign sent out an email describing her as "one tough woman" and deriding the nature of the "piling on" that had ensued. And the next day, AFSCME president Gerald McEntee endorsed Hillary with remarks that almost certainly had plenty of input from the Hillary campaign: "Six guys against Hillary. I’d call that a fair fight. This is one strong woman.:
So just after the debate the campaign didn't argue that she was being attacked because she's a woman. But the campaign clearly did try to strongly emphasize the gender picture here.
--------------------

Hillary pollster Mark Penn subsequently said in a conference call that the image of six men beating up on Hillary would play well with female voters. And anonymous Clinton advisers told the Associated Press that "there is a clear and long-planned strategy to fend off attacks by accusing her male rivals of
gathering against her." Though one should approach anonymous stuff with caution, this doesn't seem especially difficult to believe.
---------------------------------------------------------
Bottom line: As best as we can determine, Hillary never explicitly made the accusation that the men were piling up on her because she's a woman. But you'd have to be very credulous indeed not to believe that the campaign is explicitly trying to emphasize, for various political reasons, the fact that she's a woman getting hammered by a bunch of men. I don't know if that constitutes "playing the gender card" or not -- the exact meaning of the term is unclear, at least to me -- but that's obviously what's going on.

Sunday, November 4, 2007
CLINTON PLANNED TO USE GENDER CARD ALL ALONG

RON FOURNIER, AP - Clinton's advisers, speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss internal matters, said there is a clear and long-planned strategy to fend off attacks by accusing her male rivals of gathering against her. The idea is to change the subject while making Clinton a sympathetic figure, especially among female voters who often feel outnumbered and bullied on the job. As one adviser put it, Clinton is not the first presidential candidate to play the "woe-is-me card" but she's the first major female presidential candidate to do it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071101/ap_po/on_deadline_c...

[McCamy Taylor]

102. Oh, I agree, Clinton has used the gender card openly. It works in some places

mostly states with a high Catholic population, like California, Texas. Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, since Catholics revere the Virgin Mary (whom Protestants basically ignore or even think of as the "Great Whore" if they are sort of extreme) and believe is their intermediary to God. Other places, her gender hurts her, especially in certain protestant communities.

Skillful use of any "card" that makes voters identify with you or believe that you belong to a group that will look out for their best interests is as old as politics. It is not running on the issues, but everyone does it. Obama campaigns on his youth and education and his race and his gender (he has the male vote).

Playing cards is not the problem in itself. It is how you do it. If you stoop to lies or deception, then it becomes a problem. Obama supporters were angry, because a woman could cry and get votes. A man cries and he gets booted from the race, like Muskie. We women know that tears are one of the few things that we have that protects us. Nature gives us less strength, but we can use tears (if they are honest) to over power men in a way that anger can not. That strikes some people as unfair. But it is just a difference, In the same way, the Clintons can do all kinds of things to help African-Americans but they will not win the same automatic trust that Obama will by being African-American. That also strikes some people as unfair. But it is also just a difference.

Unfair is when you make up shit about your opponent behind their back.

[cloudythescribbler]

3. Thoughtful material but facile and on some points simply factually wrong ...

On the Martin Luther King/LBJ statement the idealist v person of power contrast WAS of King and not focused (at least not exclusively) on JFK. I think the author here has picked up on a talking point that morphs two separate passages together.

Even the NY Times, who, as you know, has endorsed Hillary Clinton, referred in an editorial (I think it was on or around Jan 9) to HRC's "peculiar" remark on Dr King and LBJ. Are we to assume that the mainstream liberal media, including the Gray Lady are all either systematically bamboozled or rewriting history as it unfolds to help Obama?

I think that a better job on this point needs to be made.

I notice also that there's no mention of the egregious "shuck and jive" remark by Andrew Cuomo or a number of the other egregious quite deliberate and reasonably obvious race-baiting put out by the Clinton campaign and its surrogates.

As for the explanation of motive being wrongly understood by those (including me) who saw a CLEAR pattern of race-baiting, the point was not the S Carolina primary, which HRC had written off and which there were rumors that she might/should skip campaigning there altogether. Remember that the BIG cheese at that point (not to mention the immediately previous MI and FL primaries, to which the HRC campaign, in a sense to Penn's credit, devoted much more oblique attention, especially keeping HRC's name on the MI ballot) was Super Tuesday. Tsunami Tuesday was the day that was supposed to knock Obama out or at least nearly out of the race. I had by that time contributed more than once to the Obama campaign already (I think 3x by Feb 5, all modest-sized), and very much thought that at best Obama would only barely survive. That he came out with at least a draw is a real testament to his political strength as a candidate.

Remember that on Super Tuesday, even the Democratic Primaries and Caucuses were in so many states that it was reasonable to expect the front-runner in national polls at that time, and presumptive nominee, Hillary Clinton would be able to swamp Obama. Hey -- if a little race-baiting would do the trick, who is really going to be so naive as to think that, after 8 years of Clintonian manipulations and throwing authentic progressive issues and constituencies under a bus, they would never stoop to that.

The supposedly 'hard-nosed' analysis here is quite facile on this key point.

It is especially galling, as HRC not only continues a campaign that becomes less and less POSSIBLE for her to win by the day, but decides to take "the low road", throwing the kitchen sink at Obama, as in HRC herself in one TV debate trying to link Obama to Farrakhan over the semantics of "denounce" v "reject" (in which the latter was perversely cast as the stronger verb!), with the transparent attempt to stop him from being winnable in 08, either to gain the nomination and/or to prevent his election. (The last point is what many consider "cynical" speculation, but as Walter Karp, the famous political scientist once said -- "the cynics are not cynical enough!")

[zabet]

4. k and r

Thanks! :patriot:

[Name removed]

6. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KSinTX]

7. Welcome to The McCamy Taylor Comedy Hour

These is always among the most amusing reads of my visits. Not that the attempt to ascribe validity to the invalid isn't always fun to behold, it's just that it always takes so darn many words to come to the wrong conclusion. I particularly loved the post about Facism on DU. These words can be debunked on so many levels, there's not enough hours in a day I'd care to devote to it. But they ARE a fun read. Can't figure how the featured front page journals are selected, but they all, by in large, consist mainly of such fallacy-filled primary angst.

[ekwhite]

10. That brings up the question

How are journals selected for the front page?

[Jim Sagle]

54. Whatever you don't like gets the nod. Works for me!

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KSinTX]

22. Please understand my "wrong conclusion" statement

It has nothing to do with support either for or against any particular candidate and has everything to do with poorly developed arguement and logic. It abides on both sides (which should be one side but isn't). We all know that "figures lie and liars figure" and facts can be manipulated to any desired outcome. For her part, she at leasts attempts to link her "research" to causation; unlike one post that "rocked DU" recently having said simply, "REC this post if you think HRC should drop out of the race" (or words to that effect). Something like 1,000 recs? Really.

I'm just confused about the front page "one trick ponies," is all. I'd like to think we're more balanced and well-rounded than this.

[Bjorn Against]

8. There is no such thing as a race card that can be played to the advantage of minorities

The very notion that blacks have some magical "race card" that they can play to give themselves an advantage in an election is a false notion, and it is a false notion that is rooted in racist stereotypes. The fact is that black candidates have always had a disadvantage in national electoral politics, if there really were a race card we would have already seen many black Presidents and our house, senate, governors, and state houses would be filled with blacks. But instead politics is still dominated by whites, apparently the existence of this "race card" is a lie.

But racists in this society love to talk about the race card. They love to talk about blacks using the race card, while they cheer on people like Geraldine Ferraro who claim that Obama got where he is only because he is black. They cheer on people like Hillary Clinton who tries to tie Obama to Louis Farrakahn. They cheer on on people who attack black churches, and claim those black churches are racist against whites. They cheer people who pass photos of Obama dressed in traditional African garb, and in doing so try to spread the notion that someone who respects African traditions does not belong in the White House. And yet the people who engage in these types of attacks are never accused of playing the race card, they are more than willing to accuse a black person who points out the real racism that exists in our society of playing the race card, but when the campaign of a white candidate stokes racial fears they don't get the same charges of playing the race card.

Let's face the very term "race card" is racist terminology that is used almost exclusively against blacks. There is no race card, and there sure as hell is no race memo.

[cliffordu]

11. That's right- "race card' lets them off the hook, and they can close

their ears to anything further -

Kind of like more taxes equals "redistribution of wealth" equals socialism.


edited for brevity and brilliance

[tishaLA]

12. "But racists in this society love to talk about the race card"

:thumbsup:

[McCamy Taylor]

46. There is a "Race Memo". Obama had to distance himself from it. This kind of politics does not work

except for the GOP---as everyone with an ounce of sense knows--and I am sure that Obama himself was just plain horrified when he found out. I am surprised at Michelle for her "fairy tale" remark in the middle of all the controversy. Maybe she was playing to the audience. I do not suppose that we will ever find out who really put the memo together, but let's just say that every campaign can make mistakes. Intelligence does not mean being perfect to begin with, it means learning from ones mistakes.

[cliffordu]

9. IF you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, bury them in bullshit, eh??

I refuse to read anything UNDER 250,000 words from you.

[lwcon]

13. K&R -- a tremendous piece of work

Still, this is the era of truthiness, so it's rather inconsiderate of you to challenge Obama fans to reconsider their acceptance of the bogus Clintons-as-racists meme. After all, they have so much invested in it, and it may well have punched Obama's ticket all the way to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

So what if a couple of committed Democrats (and the half of the party that voted for Hillary) have to be sacrificed in the name of "hope," "change," and "unity"?

The good news is that virtually none of those Obama fans will listen....

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[RaleighNCDUer]

87. Uh, if Hillary had half the party

SHE WOULDN'T BE LOSING.

[lwcon]

110. Uh, more people have voted for Hillary in the 2008 primaries than for Obama

Also, the states where Hillary has received the most votes add up to more electoral votes.

But, true, she hasn't matched Obama for gaming the undemocratic caucus system.

Anyway, please carry on believing that Hillary doesn't have the support of about half the party. It's the half that doesn't have a voice on DU, Kos, etc., so sorry to interrupt the frat party.

Oh, and BTW, Al Gore got more votes than Bush in 2000. Even if we must accept the Supreme Court's undemocratic ruling, it didn't make the people who voted for him not exist.

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[Hansel]

14. The Clinton's and their surrogates have been blowing the racist..

dog whistle since Iowa. Having grown up in a northern blue collar working class neighborhood full of overt racists, it is easy to see the intent of the Clintons' campaign. Having lived in Mississippi as a teenager while segregation was openly practiced, it's clear to me what the Clintons are up to.

Obama is a professional and accomplished man. When he 1st began his campaign, he easily transcended race and made white folks feel ok. He was nonthreatening. This was okay as long as Clinton thought she had this thing sewn up. But Iowa changed that. Her campaign needed to do something to lower people's opinion of him, to remove the sheen. Invoking racism was the easiest way to do this. It was the easiest way to manipulate people in a country where pervasive racism lies just beneath the surface.

The comments about "shucking and jiving" and "dealing drugs" were meant to conjure up the stereotypical images of blacks that are fed through our TVs on a daily basis via crime dramas and news reports. Those who were just beginning to feel, "hey, this guy is different" were reminded he's not. They were warned that he is fooling them, that they're being taken in by the "cult" leader. They're warned not to listen to his "fancy speeches", don't embarrass yourself in front of your neighbors by joining the cult. She pushes the Rev Wright story and "bittergate" because they feed into their fears. The Clintons, like the NC GOP, know the power of racism in this country.

Hillary's comments about Martin Luther King and Lyndon Johnson might have been factually correct, but they were spoken in the context of denigrating Obama's qualifications to be president by comparing him to King. Obama = inexperienced and incapable. Clinton = experienced and capable. King = the less capable person who couldn't get it done try as he may--'bless his little heart'. Johnson = the man who could.

But there was one added bonus for her in this analogy. She could invoke the old racial superiority that most whites felt at that time and still do. Her analogy was no accident. Everyone who lived through that time knows that the number one reason that King couldn't get it done. It was because he was black and he had no standing in the white political establishment or the white establishment at all. And her objective was to invoke that feeling again. "Barack's okay, but..." wink wink nudge nudge. This is where she lost me.

Whether or not you think the Clintons are racist is beside the point. They are playing the race card just like the Republicans and "Mourning" Joe and Buchanan and Hannity and Rove and all of the rest of them are. This is still a racist country and it was easier for Hillary to invoke bigotry than it was for her to run a positive and effective campaign. To me it is a sign of laziest and ineptness and lacks imagination. It reminds me too much of Georgie's playing of the "fear card" on terrorism. Most of all it shows she lacks the qualifications to be president in this very serious time.

[defendandprotect]

15. Love Rep. Chas. Rangel's take on "white superiority" . . . and there's a video of this

which should be seen . . .

Rangel said that Bush puts an end to the myth of white superiority . . . !!!

[Hansel]

26. LOL. Gotta love Charlie.

[ScarletSniper]

19. Extremely Excellent Post! Keep up the good work..call them on their bullshit

[RaleighNCDUer]

88. Well said.

I keep trying to say the same thing, but the obscenities keep getting in my way.

I am SO pissed at the disingenuousness of it.

[defendandprotect]

16. This isn't just about Obama, this is about a growing majority of people of color with

expectations who are registering to vote ---

BIG problem for the elites and the DLC ---

[JoFerret]

20. Another invaluable post.

.

[RaleighNCDUer]

89. 'In' means 'not, right? Indecent. Incredible. Invaluable.

I agree. A worthless post.

[Hamlette]

21. If the Clintons don't want me to think they are racist, they need to act like they are not racist

as a neutral observer this year...both of them fueled my belief that they are either racist or trying to win by making racists hate Obama.

Either way, it stinks.

And I lost all respect for both of them over it.

As did thousands like me.

[McCamy Taylor]

52. KO makes this argument in his "special comment" Even if Hillary is not racist

if anyone perceives that she is, it is her responsibility to convince people that she is not.

This is a flawed argument. Mostly, it is paternalistic. It assumes that the majority of people are not capable of investigating media bullshit stories for themselves. Rather than demanding that politicians, celebrities--and also heroes like Joe Wilson or his wife Valeria Plame and other opponents of the Bush administration---spend hours defending themselves against lying attacks from ruthless enemies that have the mainstream media in their pocket, it is better to teach people the simple tools they need to decipher media lies. Like going on line, reading Media Matters.

I was surprised when KO used that old MSM argument "our victims have the responsibility of proving that they are innocent in the court of public opinion, otherwise we can declare them guilty" since up until then he had been such a staunch critic of media bullshit games. It revealed that once journalists allow themselves to become invested, they lose their rationality and descend to the level of the herd.

Hillary and Bill appear to have made many, many racist remarks over and over again, because over the course of a week the MSM, esp the GE's subsidiaries kept repeating several lies over and over again. CBS, which I have shown does what the WH tells it so that it does not have to sell off TV holdings also helped out. So did the NeoCon Washington Post and NYT and AP. I could find no McClatchy stories based upon this constellation of "Race Memo" lies. No ABC-Disney story (they despise McCain for business reasons relating to cable) and only one CNN story. It also appeared in a number of papers where primaries were going on. The people pushing it all had political reasons for doing so.

Bill and Hillary have been the target of attacks from the MSM since the 1990s for a variety of reasons which have been thoroughly discussed elsewhere and which I address briefly in the article.

Rather that insisting that Hillary battle the press single handedly, it is the duty of citizens living in a democracy to learn to see through the propaganda which the corporate media throws our way. I am not a journalist. I have no ties with the news media. My only special qualification for analyzing the news is that while I was getting my BA before going to medical school I got a degree in English Literature for fun and I write science fiction, also for fun. And I have been a Democratic politics junkie for as long as I can remember. That does not give me any special training, but I am able to see through the lies when I watch the news. That means that anyone can see through the lies, if they really bother to watch and listen. It helps to have come of age around 1970 when all histories were being presented from the viewpoint of oppressed people---i.e women's history, gay history, Native American history, Black history, Marxist history.

There is a group of people in the U.S. that is already very good at seeing through the lies. That group consists of poor folks, gays, minorities and other oppressed and alienated people for whom the TV stations do not cater,because they are not a part of that special demographic that advertisers love, the one that KO courts. It is no coincidence that Hillary's base comes from this group. They distrust the MSM and so they are drawn to whomever they see the MSM attacking. Unlike the rest of the country, a MSM fatwa has a contrary effect on this group. Note that upper income liberals are not immune to MSM attacks, because class often trumps ideology. If people make enough money, they can convince themselves that the messages that they hear or read from the press are sound. Comfort builds complacency.

The largest section of this group that has split off for Obama are African-Americans who are making a sound economic decision---if another African-American becomes president, then their own status in the US improves dramatically, just as Catholics voted overwhelming for JFK. This requires no justification. However, it does not help the status of any of the other oppressed groups---gays, Latinos, women---and therefore, they will not choose Obama for the same reason, not even to help Blacks. A poor Latino is still poor. His primary concern is feeding his family on minimum wage, not on changing perceptions of race. This does not make him "racist". Latinos are also the victims are racist-like attacks.

The Unity Ticket is the solution to this problem. African-Americans do not want to be rejected. The poor do not want to be rejected. The Unity Ticket allows both groups to feel that the Democratic Party has embraced them under its umbrella. As Leonard Boff describes in St. Francis the poor and oppressed want, more than anything else, to be accepted and embraced.

I can almost hear the argument. But Hillary is not poor. Does not matter. She has been persecuted by the press as if she were one of society's Oakies. The poor identify with her. They look to her for hope. Obama does not have a lot in common with this nation's urban African-Americans who go to underfunded schools, are denied health care, who are incarcerated for no reason, who can not get decent jobs and who make a fraction of what Whites do. But Blacks identify with him, because he has suffered some of what they have suffered. They look to him for hope.

[RTBerry]

23. Another excellent post.

Your efforts to help keep everyone's attention on (the right) target are appreciated.

[RaleighNCDUer]

90. Problem is, she doesn't target the right.

In fact, everything she says could be cut & pasted from the RNC.

[bunnies]

24. This issue was beaten to death on DU months ago.

Carry on.

[JoFerret]

116. Here's another perspective for you

http://sugarnspice.typepad.com /

[AX10]

25. K/R

I know that most around here will dismiss this, but there is alot of important content in this post.
It is important to remember that Team Obama has used the "race card" to it's short term advantage. While it is true that the media played a HUGE roll in this "race wars" thing, the Obama camp contributed alot too and played along with the media when they beat up on the Clinton's.
One should not expect me to come to Mr. Obama's defense in the fall.

We don't always agree but, Excellence as always McCamy. :thumbsup:

[cali]

30. Shameful There are some particularly disgusting claims

in this towering pile of bullshit. Get this one:

“Jack and Jill Politics” Jan 10, 2008 This site has it all. Shuck and Jive. Penn. Shaheen. MLK. Fairy Tale. And more. It claims to be devoted to African-American bloggers but one poster used the give away term “Clintonista” indicating that the RNC has infiltrated the site. That means that Karl Rove may be playing CREEP styles dirty tricks here. Oh fun."

Got that suckers? Using the term Clintonista automatically means, according the genius OP, that you are an RNC operative. And the OP uses Jack and Jill, one of the leading AA blogs to try and prove her paranoid and disgusting defamation.

This OP is actually vile and misleading.

Shameful OP.

[DeanDem10]

42. "Clintonista"

Yeh, right. Every time that term "Clintonista," is used it's the GOP (sarcasm). Not!

As a former supporter of both Clintons and one who worked locally to elect Bill twice, I think this assumption is absurd. I was a "Clintonista." Now I am not. And the journal writer (McCamy) never asks what did Clinton DO to lose us. No, it's only the big, bad media and BAD, BAD Obama supporters. We are just so deplorable, not falling into lockstep and doing what we are told. The media are terrible, to be sure. And most of us could write a book on the media propaganda that characterizes the info-pushers in the US. But anyone who actually watched the debates, watches the speeches, etc. knows what's going on. That's why more insiders among superdelegates have broken for Obama than Hillary recently. Again, they know what's going on.

And, no I am not a Republican. I have been a loyal Democrat for forty years. I have NEVER voted for a Republican for Pres (except one crossover primary vote to try to keep Bush I from the nomination)--I will never even crossover again. I will NEVER vote Republican. Not that I should have to prove anything. But this is the kind of thing Hillary supporters do: Prove you are legitimate, prove your democratic fealty, defend yourself against phony charges of lack of patriotism.

But I am sick at heart over the "entitlement," McCartyhism, DLC-ism and (yes) racism of the some in the Clinton camp. Not everyone there is commendable. And those pushing the divisiveness (such as Mark Penn) ought to be fired. Oh, yeh, he was (sorta-of). What a pile of misinformation Clinton fed us on that subject. He still does the same stuff without the title. As long as Mark Penn is the message framer and James Carville is the attack dog, Hillary will have problems. Bill's not helping either.

So, McCamy, with all due respect (and I have commended you before), this time, especially, I really think you show your hand. Your ongoing theme is that the only reason Hillary has lost support of some voters is that the media (and supposedly now Obama) have hyped a bogus race card. It is a completely unfair and lopsided article. But you are entitled to your preference. I am entitled to mine. But Hillary is not entitled to my vote, particularly when she has done nothing to earn it.

[Moochy]

31. I play the Disinformation Card

on this thread.

[maximusveritas]

34. Great, another stupid conspiracy theory

So now everyone in the media engaged in this conspiracy where they denied seeing this memo. What a joke.

Did you people consider that perhaps the reason the memo talked about the same things as those articles is because these were major stories and the memo was simply compiling them into a single document?

Of course, the simplest explanation is always the hardest for conspiracy nuts to see.

[ej510]

35. I love how white Hillary supporters think that all

black people have one fuckin brain I am sick and tired of this shit. Not all of the blacks that support Obama do so because of Bill clinton's South Carolina comments. This is a blatantly racist attempt to paint blacks as ignorant, dumb people. If you even believe that we are people.

[McCamy Taylor]

55. Why did the Obama Camp try to promote media lies about the Clintons?

The Obama camp has never been a shoestring organization. They are planning to run the country. That requires a high level of sophistication and accountability. It is one thing for the media whores to lie and dissemble in order to create "news", but when a major presidential campaign puts out a press release or a "Race Memo" it is supposed to have its facts straight.

Hillary Clinton has been accused of being unfit to be commander in chief for claiming that she ran through sniper fire when she did not.

What does it mean when a presidential campaign says that its opponent and its opponent's spouse and manager said things that they did not in order to smear the opponent? Does that affect the "commander in chief" test in any way? Hillary was held personally responsible for Shaheen for her campaign workers who forwarded email for other surrogates. Is Obama personally responsible for setting a tone within his campaign that under no circumstances should they ever seek to push or promote or use a lie? If an RNC mole had infiltrated his campaign, was it his or Axelrod's responsibility to recognize that unacceptable things were happening and nip them in the bud?

[PaganPower]

121. conspiracy nuts

I don't happen to agree with your assumption, simple that it is. Any reasonable person would understand that the mainstream media did indeed conspire to withhold information from the public.

[PurityOfEssence]

37. How DARE you not want Obama; don't you know he's GOD?

Didn't you watch that last debate? Didn't you see him answer the question with his customary casual grin about how he looks forward to his "collaboration" with god? It's a joke, and he underlined it by referring to working with the supreme whatever as an equal; this is because, as all sentient beings know, he actually IS the big guy himself.

How dare you not support him, you racist. Just because he mobilized the faithful gospel thumpers in South Carolina to remind them he's one of them isn't an act of racism or even simple, naked opportunism. Don't you know that racism is only something white people have? Don't you know that anything's fair for the downtrodden, and when these moves are made they're not only justifiable, they didn't happen. Wright had every right to say what he did, and nobody'll ever bring it up in a general election.

Boy, it's lunkheads like you that are going to keep us from the fabulous frenzied flame-out that we deserve. It's important: lefties LOVE to lose; it's part of our wound-licking identity as the disenfranchised and forlorn delicate flowers, and you want to cheat us of our due. Don't you get the very CONCEPT of "Hope"? It's a pathetic beseeching for others to take care of you and make things right; it's a codeword for prayer: submission to higher authority and the surrendering of oneself to that which is better than you.

How DARE you. We owe it to this guy, and we owe it to all of his supporters to sell all our worldly possessions, ignore all pitfalls and fall in step with the great crusade behind the Pied Piper.

How can you live with yourself, you imperious so-and-so?

[MaryRN]

39. LOL..good one...n/t

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MethuenProgressive]

95. Fantastic post! Best of the thread!!

:thumbsup:

[MaryRN]

38. K&R - thanks for your dedication to getting truth out there...great job!

[MaryRN]

40. Oh, btw, here's a link to Rev. Wright's house..you know, the guy who scorns "white people's greed?"

http://cancelthebee.blogspot.com/2008/03/more-on-jeremiah-wrights-luxury.html

[McCamy Taylor]

44. Please do not attack Rev. Wright. He is a good man, and it is not his fault that Obama did not take

his advice and distance himself from the Church when he knew that he was running for president---for Wright's sake as much as Obama's. I admire Rev. Wright much more than I do either Clinton or Obama. Wright believes in what he does and his left wing credentials are excellent. Obama should have known that by continuing the association after he began his presidential run, he would drag him minister into the media spotlight in a way that would not necessarily be productive for him or his ministry.

There is some confusion about the effect of the Wright-Obama association on the Obama campaign. It has not hurt Obama in the Democratic primary. If anything, it has helped to ease concerns that Obama is too middle of the road or too opportunistic and not idealistic. He has gained left wing credibility from his association with the church. For that, he should be grateful. People who may have been concerned that he was not dedicated enough to progressive causes will look at his religion and think to themselves But he stayed with his pastor, even though it might have been politically expedient to change. That shows a commitment to populist ideology.

In the general election he can use his long term association with the Church to prove that he is not a Muslim. Look, he can say, I remained a member of a Christian Church, even though it was one that I knew would be a political liability, because I felt a strong call to the Christian message the pastor taught. That should go a long way towards debunking arguments that he only pretends to be a Christian when the GOP starts throwing them at him. Had he changed churches, it would have been easy for them to ask "How long have you been a member of your present church? Only a year?" and make innuendos based upon his response.

So, Wright is not a deal breaker for Obama. It is better for him to talk about this "controversy" than something like Rezko, since the majority of Dems believe in freedom of religion, but nothing sours the deal for Dems like a money scandal.

[MaryRN]

47. What it speaks to is the hypocrisy of both of them.

Middle America will see, exactly as the Repubs plan on showing, is that the Wright controversy strikes a chord in the average person's psyche that nothing Obama can say is going to erase.

And, there is no "confusion" about the effect. Simply go to Utube if you're curious as to whether people are paying attention to it. You really believe that non-political junkies are going to have the interest OR the ability to discern the facts from the fiction of the Wright controversy? Well, hat's off to you in that case. You have far more faith than I do. More power to ye.


I KNOW where the Repubs will go with this. And, it's not going to be pretty.

[Sam Ervin jret]

48. if you're arguing that the Media stinks I agree. If you're saying the RW wants this to tear us all

apart as it goes along,

well,

I think you are proof positive of that.

[MaryRN]

53. Evidently you've missed Bob Herbert's NYT article today.

[McCamy Taylor]

100. Adults have constructive discussions about their problems. They do not bury them.

What needs to happen right now is Jesse Jackson Sr needs to get Jr. to round up Obama and Sr. will get Clinton and the two of them minus their spouses (Michelle and Bill only make things worse when they get involved because they both put their love of their spouses before their common sense) together for some talks about the issues of race and gender and poverty.

If the two of them do this, it will be extremely well received by both the Democratic voters and the Party elders. The two of them should put out a joint memo decrying the news media's role in spreading disinformation about the other candidate. They should work on common principles that will go into the Party platform at Denver about equality and rights for everyone.

If they do this, Karl Rove will shit bricks.

[cali]

49. shorter taylor for anyone who had the good sense not to plow through the pile of shit:

Obama has scurriously played the "race card" against hill and bill who are entirely innocent of any such machinations themselves. He's been aided and abetted by virtually every media outlet who have actually been working in cahoots with the dastardly Snidely Axelrod. In short, they've done everything but tie poor hill to the railroad tracks to enable that devil Obama to run her over with his choo-choo train. In addition, Karl Rove is manipulating black blogs. The evidence of this is that someone used the word Clinonista on a popular black blog.

How people can get snowed by such hooey is a fascinating subject.

[McCamy Taylor]

57. Shoter version: Obama camp peddled lies about Hillary to the press,

Forget what the lies were about. At the same time that they were caught peddling the lies, their best allies in the MSM were very busy promoting these same lies.

The part about someone or some people within the camp seeking to push the lies is fact. The rest I present so that people will be able to form an educated opinion on why, shortly before Dr. King's birthday and the South Carolina primary, certain MSM players became to promote the same lies about the Clinton camp simultaneously.

I suggest keeping a high level of suspicion that both Obama and Clinton's camps were punked by the RNC on this one.

[guyanakoolaid]

60. You just rebutted the logic of your entire argument

"I suggest keeping a high level of suspicion that both Obama and Clinton's camps were punked by the RNC on this one."

Nice appendix to a novella of bullshit

[Number23]

68. What the...??

I suggest keeping a high level of suspicion that both Obama and Clinton's camps were punked by the RNC on this one.

So now it's the RNC and not the Obama camp that has started all of this mess?? And after you spent all of that time and typing saying it was IRREFUTABLY Obama???

[McCamy Taylor]

101. I posted at the beginning to keep in mind that the RNC could be behind it,

Those who read the whole thing would have read this part in the intro.

For a presidential campaign to release inaccurate inflammatory statements about an opponent which a shoestring media watchdog organization can refute points to either extreme sloppiness or deliberate malice---or an RNC mole playing at 1972 divide and conquer politics. We all need to keep the last possibility in mind this election. For the sake of brevity, I will refer to the "Race Memo" as coming from the Obama camp in the rest of this article, but always keep in mind that the force pushing the narrative it contains could just as easily be the RNC.

I can not help it if some people choose to make comments without reading the OP or reading all the OP. Those who read my journals know that I believe that the Democratic Primary is under attack as it was in 1972 by CREEP and they know the proof that I have offered. In 1972, Democrats like Humphrey, Muskie and McGovern were tarred as dirty tricksters when it was Nixon behind all of it. I believe that we are doing Clinton and Obama a disservice if we do not at least consider the possibility that every "dirty trick" this year is Karl Rove scripted, since there is so much evidence that he is attempting to recreate the 1972 campaign in which he participated.

Frankly, I fail to see why some posters are so angry over this possibility. It is prudent to be on the lookout for dirty tricks coming from the RNC. IMO, any one at DU who is rabidly up in arms over the suggestion that the RNC may be attempting to interfere with our primary by, for instance calling it a tin foil hate conspiracy makes me question their motives since true Democrats know that interference in the Democratic primary has been standard GOP operation strategy for years. It is all a matter of degrees. Only Freeper moles should be threatened by the suggestion to the point of becoming angry over it, logically speaking. Of course, sometimes people do things for illogical reasons.

[Number23]

103. It Really makes no sense now...

IMO, any one at DU who is rabidly up in arms over the suggestion that the RNC may be attempting to interfere with our primary by, for instance calling it a tin foil hate conspiracy makes me question their motives since true Democrats know that interference in the Democratic primary has been standard GOP operation strategy for years.

Then why are you working double, even triple time to impugn Obama in all of this? Your allusion to Republican involvement comes quite a bit after you've already made the case that it was Obama's camp that played the race card and unfairly slandered the Clintons as racists in the process. I really have no idea what point you are trying to make. It seems as if you are trying to make five points all at the same time, or as some would call it -- CYA.

I agree that it is CONCEIVABLE that Republicans may have a hand in this, but Republicans have always been comfortable tethering themselves to racist innuendo. The Democrats are SUPPOSED to be different. I read enough of your post to realize that you have directly accused Obama, not the RNC, of playing the race card and vilifying the Clintons. And it still doesn't make sense why.

[guyanakoolaid]

114. EXACTLY

The point of the entire OP was to implicate Obama as a "race-baiter", when in reality he has does everything he could to distance both race and gender from this campaign. The proof of your claims is a single staff note which you admit may not be valid, which you even admit could be a RNC plant, yet this rebuttal is but a tiny fraction of the heap of shit you attempt to throw on Obama.

[cali]

73. LOL! and the mask slips.

your opinion is not fact, dear. you didn't establish it as fact with your impressive pile of nonsense in the OP and you didn't do it here.

You have no idea how little sense you make: "Forget what the lies were about"??!! Damn, that's a riot.

No, you have not demonstrated that some people in the camp were attempting to push lies. You've cobbled together an awkward conspiracy theory and shoved countless square pegs into round holes. And that's the same pedestrian mistake most CTers engage in.

As for the nonsense that the RNC was involved in this, more CT crap without a shred of evidence, and no someone using the appelation "Clintonistas" isn't even related to evidence.

And your insistence that you don't favor Clinton over Obama? Hillarious. Loved the line about how you're so agnostic on the two of them that you feel like you belong to a strange religion that no one else understands. Sure, Sara Heartburn.

[ruggerson]

70. Maybe because it's true and you're too blinded by partisanship to see it?

[cali]

74. unlikely

I'm just not a fan of far fetched CTs and unadulterated bullshit.

[RaleighNCDUer]

94. Me, I LOVE a good conspiracy theory -

and this is NOTHING like a good conspiracy theory. I think unadulterated bullshit works just fine.

[rodeodance]

111. "How people can get snowed by such hooey THAT THE CLINTON'S ARE RACIST is a fascinating subject"

[ElsewheresDaughter]

50. The TRUTH about how OBAMA used THE RACE CARD from day 1

[ArkySue]

51. Thank You!

K & R!

kick:

[Seabiscuit]

59. Excellent analysis

McCamy this must have taken you a long time to put together and more time to read through. Thanks for the excellent analysis. :hi:

I forgot to add - Kick & Rec.

[annie1]

61. amazing.

[susankh4]

64. Once again, thanks!

Bookmarking so I can read with a fine tooth comb later!

[Number23]

65. Makes no sense

Are you seriously suggesting that the same media that goes out of its way to portray blacks in as negative, false and sinister manner as possible, is somehow working together off of marching orders from the Obama camp to portray the Clintons as racist? And that the Clintons have done nothing to warrant such scrutiny? How in the world do cries of "racism" in THIS country help Obama??? Many borderline white racists will look for claims of racism from the Obama team as the first reason to NOT vote for him and cast their votes for Hillary under the banner of "Obama's playing the race card," which I'm sure is merely a coincidence that this is exactly what you've just done in your post.

I've read your posts, well as much as I can read before I see spots before my eyes, but this is the first one that I've been really disappointed by. And I agree with earlier posts that state that you've played your hand. I am forced to quote that wise old sage Judge Judy who often says, "if it doesn't make sense, it isn't true" and this doesn't make a LICK of sense.

[ProSense]

69. "Hillary Clinton has apologized for Bill Clinton's 'Jesse Jackson' comment"

Yet Bill continues his race baiting around the 'Jesse Jackson" comment.

[RaleighNCDUer]

97. And why would Hillary apologize if it was all a lie from Obama?

That REALLY has me confused.

[emilyg]

71. Thank you - fine OP.

[ruggerson]

72. Terrific post - must reading for every Obama supporter

recommended

[cali]

75. I think you're just too blinded by partisanship

to recognize this is simply the long version of The Emperors New Clothes. Sad.

[ruggerson]

81. Yes, me and Sean Wilentz

I think I'm in pretty good company.

[cali]

82. Sean Wilentz is also blinded by partisanship being as he's an

old family friend of hill and bill's, but as someone actually familiar with some of Wilentz' work, I don't think he'd be terribly impressed by this absurd mess of a CT post, even if he does erroneously believe that Obama "played the race card". And really, dear, having to lean on Wilentz simply shows weakness.

[ruggerson]

84. I'm pointing out that

a significantly reputable historian agrees with the premise of this OP. Would you care to refute the allegations, point by point?

[PaganPower]

119. Naahhhh!

This is excellent research and presentation. Even if you disagree with the subject you have to appreciate the work.

[MethuenProgressive]

78. No Obama follower will ever read this post. They'll just attack what they think it says.

Tradition.

[guyanakoolaid]

115. The subthread starting at #49 quite clearly attacks what it actually says

[jbm]

76. now THIS is a post!

Thank you for the research. I'm impressed!

[MethuenProgressive]

77. Fantastic post debunking the constant NONSENSE spammed on DU everyday.

Fantastic post, thank you very much.

[JoFerret]

79. It surely is

Way too much to digest at any one reading.
But should be read by everyone.

[MethuenProgressive]

80. Obama takes responsibilty for race baiting memo, apologizes:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7944.html

Obama took responsibility for the memo for the first time during Tuesday's debate in Las Vegas.

Asked by moderator Tim Russert whether, in hindsight, he regretted “pushing this story,” Obama said, “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.”

[ProSense]

83. Still trying to push the spin, huh? From your link:

Obama aides began raising questions last week about a series of comments from Clinton, her husband and supporters.

“A cross-section of voters are alarmed at the tenor of some of these statements,” Obama spokeswoman Candice Tolliver told Politico last week. Tolliver, who oversees outreach to minority media, was not the author of the memo.

“There’s a groundswell of reaction to these comments — and not just these latest comments but really a pattern or a series of comments that we’ve heard for several months,” Tolliver said. “Folks are beginning to wonder: Is this really an isolated situation, or is there something bigger behind all of this?”

The comments, which ranged from the New York senator appearing to diminish the role of Martin Luther King Jr. in the civil rights movement — an aide later said she misspoke — to Bill Clinton dismissing Sen. Barack Obama’s image in the media as a “fairy tale” — generated outrage on black radio, black blogs and cable television.

After a weekend of bitter back-and-forth between Obama and Clinton aides and supporters, the candidates themselves called for a truce Monday in the racially tinged debate.

Hillary is claiming Obama has ties to terrorists and questioning his patriotism. She's despicable.

[rodeodance]

85. Hamas endores Obama per Fox news--Obama's new favorite outlet.

[ProSense]

86. Hillary is losing. OMG! n/t

[rodeodance]

96. you know i complemented you before on your use of Rove's tactic of changing

the topic. congrats. once again.

[guyanakoolaid]

104. A Hamas endorsement is not a quarter as damaging as the Rush Limbaugh/neocon endorsement Hillary got

Tough calling people out for right-wing tactics, rodeodance, when you carelessly try to link Obama and Hamas by word association.

It's a conservative tactic, one that needs to be revisited upon them tenfold, but not against each other.

[JoFerret]

122. There you go

.

[sueragingroz]

105. very very well done! (K & R)

To think that the media isn't doing it's job....


what a shocker!

:wow:

[dailykoff]

108. Another dispatch from toyland.

5,000 bitter words about a memo you never get around to quoting.

:rofl:

[cali]

109. it's the contradictions, blatant misrepresentions and

unconnected, unsupported theories that make this OP so breathtakingly bad. But then as most people know, I'm not a fan of Taylor's, er, writing.

[ProSense]

112. The disconnect is bizarre, and 47 people rec'd this, as far as I know. n/t

[PaganPower]

118. Thank you!

This is without a doubt the most comprehensive diary I have read on this subject. Regardless of which candidate we prefer we need to judge them based upon facts. Thanks to you for providing a ton of them. All of these false charges of racism are disgusting within the Democratic party.