That "Sambo" Story

[NYCGirl]

Oliver Willis pretty much says everything that needs to be said about the subject, IMO:

http://www.oliverwillis.com/2008/09/06/that-sambo-story/

I’m not going to link to it here, but Google, my email, and some comments show me a lot of people are talking about it. The story rings false to me, and is just the sort of thing like the phony “whitey” video tape story that Larry Johnson was peddling that would be whipped up by a Republican activist like Roger Stone. There’s more than enough verified stuff out there about Sarah Palin’s record, lack of a record, misconduct and extreme views that you don’t need to go into an unverified story of a dubious nature.

[indepat]

1. I wrote Al Gore in '00 to the effect a dem was not likely to win the general election unless willing

to use each and every dirty trick that 'pukes use so effectively against dems, to wit: Leo said nice guys finish last and since we are literally waging war in which the stakes are the survival of this Republic, finishing last is just not good enough any more than it would have been in 1945. :P

[NYCGirl]

2. But we don't have to be stupid — the "Sambo" story is stupid. NT

[indepat]

4. The goal is to use dirty tricks smartly and effectively but not be stupid in their use

:P

[1Hippiechick]

8. Does one take "the high road" when engaged w/the enemy on a battlefield? Hardly. No difference. n/t

[Jakes Progress]

10. Yes, you do.

Low road. Killing a thousand children in a school in order to create a diversion.

If you use the same tactics. If you have the same morals. if you believe the only thing that counts is winning.

Then you are the same as the one you attempt to defeat. You must be smarter and stronger and more willing to sacrifice for what you want than the other side is.

Otherwise it is like some football game where each side gathers in a huddle before the game asking God to destroy the other side. You're argument is morally and ethically untenable. It assumes that the country is spiritually bankrupt and the people don't deserve to have a better leader. Hence, it would make not difference who won.

[1Hippiechick]

13. I was referring to hand-to-hand combat, on a battlefield site which is what we are in, IMO.

Would one not defend oneself and fight back to defeat the enemy? Or, turn the other cheek in the heat of battle?

The Rethugs have MADE this hand-to-hand combat, IMO. Ugly, nasty, low road? Yes.
If I understand your post, you advocate the high road, even if it means losing the election.

If that's your stance, sorry. I don't agree.

[Jakes Progress]

17. Ooh. Hand to hand combat.

Drama much.

Don't be so silly. This isn't hand to hand combat. It's a political campaign. You can make it all scary and drama-ridden if you like. I guess that is what gets some people going. But neither Obama or mccain gets to pull a knife and go for the throat. It is not a matter of winning just because you want to win. It is a matter of standing for something. A matter of actually meaning the words you say. If Obama doesn't stand for a better way and his words are just so much blather, then why should we believe that he will be a better man in the office than the liar we have now?

Low road in battle is shooting your opponent in the back. High road is being smart enough to not expose your back to him. Low road is using innocent hostages. High road is not harming innocents. The ultimate end to your position is that our best strategy would be to put out a hit contract on mcain/palin. I guess that would achieve your ends.

Obama is smarter than mccain. There is no way he can be as low, lie as readily, or toady as much as mccain. If he did, we wouldn't want him for a leader. He is smarter and will win based on knowing how low and dirty they are and beating them with brains. Telling lies about the other side is just stupid. The media is on their side. We tell lies, and it is all over the television about the left wing lies. Us fighting dirty is stupid. It may be visceral. It may charge up the reptilian part of the brain, but it won't get us elected.

And last, like the other side, you reframe the argument. If you did understand my post, you would understand that I didn't say we should lose by being good. That is not the premise. Being dirty is not only wrong; it will lose for us. My stance is that our best strength is that we are better - morally and ethically and intellectually.

If your stance is that there is no difference between the two men so that we can only win by being worse than them, I don't agree.

[1Hippiechick]

22. It is hand-to-hand when individuals are faced w/RW extremists in our families and in the workplace.

"If your stance is that there is no difference between the two men so that we can only win by being worse than them, I don't agree."
What?!?!


"My stance is that our best strength is that we are better - morally and ethically and intellectually."

Well, hooray. We can lose with honor and our heads held high. No thanks. The end result is that Dems will NOT be in the White House--again!

[Jakes Progress]

24. You need to change your name.

You have missed the point of the whole 60's movement. You would become what you despise. You refuse to believe that our candidate is better. You are well on the road. You know better, but since winning is all that matters to you, you will alter the argument, dodge logic, and make simple what is complex just to win. You already show a propensity for using obfuscation and word games to win some silly little point.

You always avoid the end game for dirty trick escalation. By your reckoning, Obama should call mccain a racist. He should vote to escalate the war because that will get the jingoist vote. He should call palin a skank because that would get the sexist vote. He should lower taxes for the wealthy because that would get the rich vote. He should use refuse support for health care since that would get the pharma and insurance vote. Then he should demand that we drill in every National Park because that would get the big oil vote. Then....let's see. I think that does it. You would have him be a republican so he can win.

Just why is it that you want a Democrat in the White House? Is there anything you believe we should not do to win? Are there no limits? Your belief is that a good man cannot be president. I reject that premise.

[Bucky]

3. You'd have to be a LOT more culturally aware than Palin is to even know who Sambo was.

People who know about Sambo legends tend to be people who read up a lot on US history. And people who know history don't tend to vote Republican.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

5. Or they could be people who grew up in environments where terms like 'Sambo' were thrown around

You don't have to know the etiology of a word to use it.

[mamalone]

7. Well, I'm only a few years older than Palin...

and I read that book growing up. It was at my grandmother's house and we all loved it. The term, and the fact that it changed from being a simple child's name and book is quite well known among those in our generation.

[DeschutesRiver]

20. Ditton on just being a few years older than her AND reading that book. nt

[NatBurner]

9. you're over intellectualizing this

people who call other people "sambo" probably don't read much at all.

racists don't necessarily need to know the origin of a slur before they throw it around.

[Bread and Circus]

11. Bah...it could be as simple as her mother or father using that term growing up...

Hell, I know what the Sambo reference is and I'm only 36

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

15. That's not true.

Sambo is a word, not just a children's book.

Everyone over 40 is well aware of the word as a slur.

Uncle Tom is a very old literary reference also. People use it every day without knowing what book it is from, or the original context.

[Bread and Circus]

6. He didn't say anything other than "I doubt if it's true"...

That's about as astute as saying "it's probably true".

There's nothing to back it up either way.

[BlooInBloo]

12. Yah, but it always makes white folks feel good when black folks say something racist didn't happen..

We always like have black folks around to point at and say "See? Even HE agrees!"

[1Hippiechick]

14. What?!?!? n/t

[BlooInBloo]

16. Which part was unclear to you?

[Nye Bevan]

18. An interesting question....

say you were in a position to make up a lie that would almost certainly cost McCain the election. Would you do it?

Sure, lying is wrong, but what is worse- telling a lie, or occupying Iraq for 100 years, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, throwing honest American workers out of their jobs through outsourcing, and rewarding the richest Americans at the cost of the poorest?

I think I would spread the lie. I was brought up a Catholic and lying was classified as a "venial" (minor) sin, whereas President McCain would surely commit mortal sin upon mortal sin.

So I am not concerned whether or not the story is true. The relevant questions are: will it be believed, and will it help us?

[CitizenPatriot]

19. the repukes do it by having fox say

"some people say..."

spread rumor


in the south, they add, 'bless her heart" afterwards.

also, somewhere on here an alasakan said everyone there used words like that -- it's very common and they didn't doubt for a minute that she or anyone else in her position would speak like that. I find that thought alone troubling, whether or not she uttered these words on this day. It says a lot about someone's ability to relate to outsiders...and we sure don't need more of that in the wh.

[Ichingcarpenter]

21. So an independent Journalist, editor and writer of Business week and Esquire

who wrote that report would risk his reputation and career. .......... OK

[Teaser]

23. Stephen Glass

.

[Dormantboy]

25. That independent journalist provided no sources

Other than a woman with no last name supposedly named "Lucille" who works in an unnamed restaurant.