It's Hard To Believe

That so many got it wrong.  Not only that, it is incredible how the press, that has nothing else to do but be the press didn't do their job once again.

I have always been troubled by the alleged comments that Bill Clinton made in South Carolina. They have been used by everyone everywhere to charge Bill and Hillary Clinton with racism or race baiting or that they would say anything so terrible to get elected.  It was something so terrible that it made them despise the Clintons.  When I heard the ENTIRE media parrot this, when I heard people I respect like Frank Rich, Dr. Cornell West, and legions of others use this to damn the Clintons forever, I knew something was wrong.  And I knew if I was right, Barack Obama reached a low point in politics previously inhabited by Lee Atwater, Roger Ailes and Karl Rove.  

Obama and his spin team Reverse Macacaed the Clintons.

How can so many have been so wrong?  How could so many people on this site not have a clue they were perpetuating a huge lie and character assassination?  How could so many charge Bill Clinton with "those things he said in South Carolina, without identifying what he said and without putting it in context?  When we make up our minds about a candidate, are we as bad as Karl Rove.  Obviously we are.

Craig Crawford was there when Bill Clinton said that Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in 84 and 88 and he ran a good campaign and Barack Obama ran a good campaign.  Craig Crawford doesn't kiss ass and the way he tells it, Bill Clinton was asked about the history the South Carolina primary and none of that showed up on the sound bite.  No conversation was presented just a spliced out sentence without context.  

So, now let's find out the truth, if that still matters.  Well, it matters to Media Matters as they present the shot heard round the world that nobody paid attention to.  Go here for full text and video:  http://mediamatters.org/...

On the January 29 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, co-host Joe Scarborough teased a segment with Congressional Quarterly columnist Craig Crawford by asserting that Crawford is "the only human being on the face of the Earth, other than [former President] Bill Clinton, that doesn't think Bill Clinton's Jesse Jackson remark was inappropriate." Scarborough was referring to Clinton's statement on January 26 that "[Rev.] Jesse Jackson won in South Carolina twice, in '84 and '88, and he ran a good campaign, and Senator [Barack] Obama's [D-IL] running a good campaign." During the segment, Scarborough said to Crawford: "[Y]ou and Bill Clinton obviously go to Dunkin' Donuts in the morning and sit there and eat glazed donuts and drink coffee, because you are the only guy who has defended Bill Clinton's ... Jesse Jackson remark." In fact, according to a January 28 post on The New York Times blog The Caucus, Jackson himself has said that he does not "read anything negative into Clinton's observation."

Those of us who knew about this and purposefully used it out of context are no better than the worst scum in the Republican Party.  Those in the press, like Andrea Mitchell, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, CNN's Jack "the stooge" Cafferty and even the exalted Frank Rich, owe the Clintons and this country an apology for being members of the press and perpetrating a lie.

When interviewed Crawford lays it all out there as plain as day:

CRAWFORD: No, no, no. Real politics, I mean, here's the deal, you know, with, you know, that race in South Carolina, he was asked -- they were talking about the history of voting in South Carolina, you know, that clip's just not part of the clip that's been shown. The senator, Carrie Meek's --

BRZEZINSKI: But, Craig, it wasn't a slip of the tongue.

CRAWFORD: -- [former Rep.] Carrie Meek's [D-FL] son [Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-FL)] was there; he's been talking about that. So, anyway, they'd been having a discussion about the voting history in South Carolina before he said that. But even so, I mean, that is a fact, isn't it, that --

BRZEZINSKI: Yeah, but was it a slip of the tongue?

CRAWFORD: -- Jesse Jackson won those two --

SCARBOROUGH: Why would he bring that up, though?

CRAWFORD: -- and they were caucuses, which is -- because they were -- they'd been talking about it. They'd been talking about the voting down there in South Carolina.

BRZEZINSKI: Are you saying that the sound bite is being brought out of context?

CRAWFORD: Well, there is no context in the sound bite, hardly; there's only the first few seconds before he makes those remarks.

Ironically, Michelle Obama injects race into South Carolina, without being asked.  See Margaret Talev's article "Michelle Obama stumps to sway black women to husband's campaign" for McClatchy at: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/...

"I know folks talk in barbershops and beauty salons, and I've heard some folks say, 'That Barack, he seems like a nice guy, but I'm not sure America's ready for a black president,' " Michelle Obama told a crowd Tuesday at historically black South Carolina State University.

"We've heard those voices before, voices that say, 'Maybe you should wait' — you know? — 'You can't do it,'" she said. "It's the bitter legacy of racism and discrimination and oppression in this country."

Her black pride message is a difficult one to calibrate, not only because overreaching could bring a backlash, but also because the campaign's national strategy hinges on whites seeing Obama as a post-racial candidate.

How many times has South Carolina been the anthem for the cause celebre?  Crawford tells the truth.  This is a pretty disgusting episode in how lies and injecting race has to be stepped on, even if it is promoted by the candidate you support.  Everyone is out there so upset about poor Barack being questioned about Jeremiah Wright...what about this lie about South Carolina?  I have never seen so many people bamboozled in my life.  

•  So the wool was pulled over all of our eyes

  and we allowed it to happen.  It never ever should have happened to any member of media.  That is criminal negligence.

  As far as Obama using this lie about South Carolina, by the time November rolls around, if we are stupid enough to give him the nomination, his tactics will be uncovered, his conniving will be exposed and he will lose.  We will regret believing the lies told about the Clintons.

  by cpa1 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 05:04:12 AM PDT

  •  Like 2003 all over again

    Except this time the blogs were behind the media, cheering them on...

    actually now that I think of it the right-wing blogosphere was bigger in 2002-2003, so the blogs have always been cheering on the MSM's stoning parties.

    by Wufacta on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 05:15:07 AM PDT

  •  Obama had to jump on anything

    he could to get the Black Vote away from Hillary.  I saw this the minute it happened.  The bigger debate we need to have is on the Media and how they have controlled this election. But emotions are running to high now, to even attempt to have this debate. No one is listening. Good diary cpa1.

    by Owllwoman on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 05:46:19 AM PDT

    •  thanks

      but too bad nothing gets recommended that will hurt the Obama fantasy in Obamaland.  38 comments on this diary is ridiculous when you see the puff peices that get hundreds.  They want to keep all this stuff that hurts Obama secret and they do a great job, as this diary illustrates.

      by cpa1 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:32:18 PM PDT

  •  You say it

    like you want it to happen.

    by the time November rolls around... his tactics will be uncovered, his conniving will be exposed and he will lose.

    That's sad.

    by huckleberry on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 05:52:23 AM PDT

    •  Well, I did for a while

      but I always knew that when push came to shove I could never vote for a Republican.  

      But there overall reason for this diary was, how could this have happened that so many people, almost everyone, thinks Bill Clinton is either a racist or he would stoop so low as to say that you can't vote for the black guy, even though Obama says the reverse as a challenge.  It is a disgrace to our media and a disgrace to all of us who think we are so smart and have everything covered.  This one slipped away and it is an indictment of us, the same way we indict the idiots who voted for Bush.  

      There are people here that are reading every line of Hillary Clinton's diary and every line of their tax returns but nobody here could have checked to see if the South Caroline indictment of Bill Clinton was true or parsed out of context.  It is shameful!

      by cpa1 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:46:33 AM PDT

  •  The difference between the Obamas and the

    Clintons in South Carolina is that the Obamas used the undeniable fact that they were black as a source of pride.  The Clintons used it as a mitigating factor, an excuse.

    You are a fucking elitist, cpa1.  Who are you to tell me that I am stupid for supporting Barack Obama?   You support a candidate who has embraced the Rovian Republican playbook and has used every smear tactic in the book to win.  Thus, since you defend it, you embrace it.  

    You have abandoned your principles to argue for Hillary Clinton.  

    by Delaware Dem on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 06:09:26 AM PDT

    •  Obviously you have a short fuse

      and no ability to think.

      Go play your stupid games on someone else and when you are sane enough and smart enough to discuss the issues then I'll talk to you, not now.

      by cpa1 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:06:58 AM PDT

•  The point is..

  Although I agree that as a whole, the comments were taken out of context like most politicians remarks these days.  The problem is that many people BESIDES Jesse Jackson have run good campaigns in South Carolina.  To only limit your praise by comparing Jesse Jackson to Obama, elicits a desire to not know why other politicians besides African Americans have run good campaigns in the state.

  P.S.  The African American vote was going to come around whether Clinton said that or not.  

  by texasblueproject on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 05:10:43 AM PDT

  •  unless we have all of the context,

    we don't know anything.  He might have been asked about African Americans running in South Carolina  or a chronology of the black vote.  All we know is that he didn't inject it as Michelle Obama did or as Barack Obama did when he called himslef the "black guy" in San Francisco.

    by cpa1 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:11:25 AM PDT

•  Wasn't media matters co-created by Hillary

  & that Anita-Hill smear job artist who got kicked out of the conservative movement for doing a pro-Hillary book?  If so, they may have a pro-Clinton bias.

  From what I recall Bill Clinton was asked something like "what does it say about Barack Obama that it takes two of you to beat him?" to which he replied something like "You're trying to bait me.  Jesse Jackson won South Carolina too."

  by greenboy on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 05:11:28 AM PDT

•  Have you got a link

  To Obama criticizing Bill on the remarks? Bring it, or stop spreading false information.

  by Fairy Tale on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 05:13:25 AM PDT

•  I think he was trying to marginalize Obama as the

  black candidate.  He did it in a respectful way, but it seemed pretty obvious what his goal was:

  by greenboy on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 05:15:07 AM PDT

•  Please explain to me

  how the context you're pointing to, history of the South Carolina primary, makes Clinton's answer less . . . pointed?

  Let me put it this way: of course they were talking about the history of the South Carolina primary.  They weren't talking about the history of cheese in Maine.  They were talking about the history of the South Carolina primary.

  I think that, in this case, just asserting that including the context of a comment changes the tone and meaning of the comment is a bit of a dodge.  In fact, pointing out that Clinton was talking about the history of the South Carolina primary does nothing whatsoever to alter the significance or lack of significance of the comment.

  Now, if Clinton had been making a list of people who ran good campaigns and won in SC, and the media lifted the Jackson comment out of such a list, to single it out, that would obviously be taking Clinton's comment out of context in a really bad way, but I see no indication whatever that that's what was going on here.

  by LithiumCola on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 05:15:18 AM PDT

  •  what significance?

    Clinton was saying what just about every analyst before and after was saying... the SC primary was racially polarized. The moment African-Americans felt that Obama actually had a chance (post-Iowa), and given that Edwards still still running, Hillary had no chance.

    by Wufacta on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 05:18:05 AM PDT

    •  I think you're reinforcing my point,

      not dilluting it.

      by LithiumCola on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 05:19:54 AM PDT

      •  whats wrong with saying that?

        is it wrong to point out the facts? Exit polls?

        by Wufacta on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 05:21:37 AM PDT

        •  It just seemed like they went out of their way

          to make comments that they knew would offend blacks. Their surrogates making reference to Obama's cocaian.  The reference to Jesse Jackson. It took a president, not Martin Luther King to get it down.  It was almost as if they were trying to bait the black community into calling them racist so they could turn around and win conservative white votes.

          by greenboy on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 05:38:47 AM PDT

          •  how is cocaine = black?

            1. both blacks and whites have significant useage of cocaine. Crack cocaine maybe specifically black, but cocaine is not. Also, Obama's cocaine usage has been discussed previously without any mention of race. It was the Obama campaign that racialized the cocaine issue.

            2. The JJ comment was fact known to the whole world, and the best explanation of the SC primary results, and not even JJ himself was offended by it.

            3. It did take LBJ to help pass the Civil Rights Act. He was able to do so because he was a master of legislative procedure. MLK Jr. could not have done it alone. The analogy was one of experience vs. inspiration, doer vs. talker, which was exactly the contrast between Hillary & Obama at that time, a legitimate thematic contrast. Before the race went into the mud.

            4. Or you could say the Obama campaign was trying to bait the black community because they knew blacks were 25-30% of the Democratic electorate and if he could get 80-90% of them he would have a solid base below which he would never fall.

            by Wufacta on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 05:45:25 AM PDT

            •  reply

              both blacks and whites have significant useage of cocaine. Crack cocaine maybe specifically black, but cocaine is not. Also, Obama's cocaine usage has been discussed previously without any mention of race. It was the Obama campaign that racialized the cocaine issue.

              It's estimated that 1 in 3 young black males in the innercity have a serious drug proble.  The stereotype of the black male drug dealer is pretty ingrained in our culture and to deny they were exploiting this is naive.

              The JJ comment was fact known to the whole world, and the best explanation of the SC primary results, and not even JJ himself was offended by it.

              What was the best explanation of the SC primary results. That blacks will always vote for a black with a chance of winning?  Will whites always vote for a white with the best chance of winning? Will women always vote for the woman with the best chance of winning? Is that the best explanation of NH primary results? I recall the Clinton's credited her win there with debate performance, but dismiss Obama's win as racial identity politics.  Even if that were true, they knew it would be offensive to many blacks and did it anyway.

              It did take LBJ to help pass the Civil Rights Act. He was able to do so because he was a master of legislative procedure. MLK Jr. could not have done it alone. The analogy was one of experience vs. inspiration, doer vs. talker, which was exactly the contrast between Hillary & Obama at that time, a legitimate thematic contrast.

              And you don't think dismissing a man who sacrificed his life for civil rights as just a talker not a doer, was offensive.  I think the Clintons are far too intelligent to not know EXACTLY what they are doing.  Obama was winning the black vote without paying the price of a white backlash.  One way to fight that is by creating a white backlash by baiting blacks into calling them racist, and then turn around and say "we were just making inocent commnents"

              by greenboy on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 06:01:43 AM PDT

              •  hm.

                It's estimated that 1 in 3 young black males in the innercity have a serious drug proble.  The stereotype of the black male drug dealer is pretty ingrained in our culture and to deny they were exploiting this is naive.

                So you're saying cocaine would not have been an issue if he was white? If a white candidate had admitted cocaine use it wouldn't be a potential campaign problem? No. Shaheen would have raised the same issues against a white candidate. This only becomes a racialized issue if you choose to read race into it.

                What was the best explanation of the SC primary results. That blacks will always vote for a black with a chance of winning?  Will whites always vote for a white with the best chance of winning? Will women always vote for the woman with the best chance of winning? Is that the best explanation of NH primary results? I recall the Clinton's credited her win there with debate performance, but dismiss Obama's win as racial identity politics.  Even if that were true, they knew it would be offensive to many blacks and did it anyway.

                The best explanation of the South Carolina results, as well as results across the deep south, is race. In South Carolina, Obama got something like 24% of the white vote and 83% of the black vote. In other states, that's not so. But it is true that 80-90% of African-Americans have supported Obama because he is black. When Ben Cardin was running against African-American Lt. Governor Steele here in my home state of Maryland, Obama came to the state, he went to Prince George's county, he said, don't vote based on race, vote based on the issues and who you think would best represent you as senator. And you know what? 76% of Prince George's county voted for Cardin When he was in South Carolina in January, him and his wife were singing a very different tune then.

                And you don't think dismissing a man who sacrificed his life for civil rights as just a talker not a doer, was offensive.  I think the Clintons are far too intelligent to not know EXACTLY what they are doing.  Obama was winning the black vote without paying the price of a white backlash.  One way to fight that is by creating a white backlash by baiting blacks into calling them racist, and then turn around and say "we were just making inocent commnents"

                She wasn't dismissing him. Do you think that John Lewis would have stayed with her for a second if he believed that?

                MLK Jr. was an inspirer, like Obama. He was not a legislative operator or experienced in the ways of the Senate, however, also like Obama (who has only been in Washington for 3 years). It does not dismiss him to point out that he and LBJ were like lips and teeth (and no, it does not dismiss JFK either, Mr. Kennedy, you bloviating old bastard).

                Obama was not 'winning the black vote' before New Hampshire. The polls showed South Carolina still close; besides, there was Michigan coming up too. Obama was the one who benefited from the racial polarization in the race.

                by Wufacta on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 06:24:44 AM PDT

                •  Actually Obama was winning the black vote before

                  NH.  Several polls show that the shift occured in December 2007:

                  http://online.wsj.com/...

                  Anyway I just think that if you look at all the comments in their totality:
                  *cocain
                  *fairy tale
                  *Martin Luther King (why did she contrast a white doer with a black talker of all the examples she could have provided)
                  *Jesse Jackson
                  *Obama wouldn't be winning if he weren't black (like Hillary would be winning if she weren't a woman and married to an ultra-popular president)

                  it seems pretty obvious to me and a lot of political analysts that the Clintons were trying to use Obama's race against him.  I could be wrong, but it seems like the most parsimonious explanation of the totality of all the odd comments that came from camp Clinton.  Keep in mind that they're not dumb enough to say anything overtly racist. They're a lot more subtle than that.

                  by greenboy on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 06:52:49 AM PDT

                  •  Ok

                    You may be right about the black support crystallizing earlier. Still, I think Obama benefited heavily from the racial turn the contest after New Hampshire. Liberal voters are very sensitive to racism and don't want to be considered racists.

                    Of all the statements you listed, only the Jesse Jackson and "Obama wouldnt be winning" ones comes closest to actually being offensive, but even the latter, that was Geraldine Ferraro's personal view to a local newspaper in California, and any idea that the Clinton campaign ordered her to say it is downright farcial. She clearly believed it and felt strongly about it, even though it did not help Hillary's campaign when it came out.

                    Of course the other possibility is that, the Obama campaign's internal memo which was signed off on my his own senior staff that listed all the ways they could make racism an issue, was what caused the racial turn in the race.

                    I think the race card was played heavily in the contest and it was used to attack Hillary. Further, it distracted people from the legitimate themes and policy differences in the contest which until then had kept it a relatively pleasant affair, with personal character attacks on the sidelines, and turned it into something ugly and divisive. It suggests Obama thought he could not win on the issues and themes, his only chance of winning was to turn the race into ugliness so he could personally attack Hillary's character. And he succeeded. Which is the exact opposite of the 'politics of hope'

                    by Wufacta on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:23:46 AM PDT

                    •  Most offensive was drug dealing

                      For Clinton supporters to imply that a worldly sitting senator and the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review was a drug dealer when there's no evidence to support that, really crossed the line.  Didn't Bush use cocain, but I don't recall anyone asking if he sold drugs. It was over the top, and played right into the worst stereotypes of younger black men. That's really when racism started to be discussed by the media.  Now I don't know if the Obama campaign tried to exploit the issue, but can you blame them if they did?  When one campaign tries to use his race against him, the only way to fight back is to charge that campaign with racism.

                      And it was more than just his status as an African American that was used against him but also  his middle name, questions about his religion.

                      As for Geraldine Ferraro, do you honestly think that a political pro like her would be reckless enough to make such controversial assertions unless they were part of a broad campaign strategy?

                      by greenboy on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:03:01 AM PDT

                      •  wtf

                        When did she imply he was a drug dealer? He was a past drug user, that he admitted himself, and it was Bill Shaheen that said that this might be an issue for him in the General. Thats not when racism started getting discussed in the media, it started getting discussed after New Hampshire. That's also when all the dirty character attacks on Hillary got ramped up. The Obama people must have felt desperate.

                        As for Ferraro, I dont think they were 'reckless' assertions, I think they were what she really felt.

                        by Wufacta on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:11:38 AM PDT

                        •  reply

                          Shaheen said Obama's candor on the subject would "open the door" to further questions. "It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'" Shaheen said. "There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome."

                          Source:  http://blog.washingtonpost.com/...

                          As for when charges of racism surfaced in the media, note this quote from the New York Times Dec 13, 2007:

                          His comments drew a huge outpouring of anger toward the Clinton campaign in the blogosphere, particularly by and on behalf of African-Americans, who perceived a racial insinuation that blacks deal drugs.

                          Source:  http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/...

                          by greenboy on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:44:31 AM PDT

                          •  So you are using the blogosphere to justify

                            a blogosphere argument. That is circular reasoning. Note that the Times did not say that African-Americans were angered; it said that the blogosphere, including some African-Americans on the blogosphere, were angered. Which means it was more a symptom of blogosphere culture than a reaction of the African-American community itself.

                            by Wufacta on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:28:04 PM PDT

                          •  also, read the comments

                            on your Washington Post link.

                            HUNDREDS of comments. All negative attacks on the Clintons. Of those hundreds of comments only a couple even mentions race. Only one post among all those Clinton-haters suggested the Clintons were trying to use racism. Apparently people didn't read the racial angle into it until they were told to.

                            by Wufacta on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:49:50 PM PDT

•  Um, what?

  Your link is from January. You're still on about this? The first 3 diaries weren't enough? Face it, people saw the comments with their own eyes and they didn't like it.

  by brklyngrl on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 05:16:17 AM PDT

•  Dead Enders

  last throes.

  by ParaHammer on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 05:17:28 AM PDT

•  I hate to say it but I actually agree with Dick

  Morris on this one.  He may be slimey but he's smart and knows the Clintons better than anyone:

  by greenboy on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 05:19:14 AM PDT

•  Go scratch, troll.

  Barack Obama reached a low point in politics previously inhabited by Lee Atwater, Roger Ailes and Karl Rove.  

  How can so many have been so wrong?  How could so many people on this site not have a clue they were perpetuating a huge lie and character assassination?

  When we make up our minds about a candidate, are we as bad as Karl Rove.  Obviously we are.

  Those of us who knew about this and purposefully used it out of context are no better than the worst scum in the Republican Party

  by MajorFlaw on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 05:22:40 AM PDT

•  Craig Crawford

  might as well work for the Clinton Campaign.

  by Joefdb on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 05:25:40 AM PDT

•  It's hard to believe you're so star-struck...

  with Clinton love that you can't see a cheap political shot for what it is...I am still amazed that a former president - someone who had to confront issues of race, poverty, urban despair, etc. - could lose perspective on things and basically operate as political flunky, and make disparaging comments like that, aimed at a group of people that had given him unconditional support for so long. It's a fucking shame..

  by PositiveLiberty on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 05:43:28 AM PDT

  •  Do you realize how

    completely unrational your comment is [from a 'trying to get more votes' viewpoint]?

    Do you honestly think that BC and HRC wanted to jeopardize HRC's support in the AA community?

    Don't you think that such a 'strategy' would be nonsensical and that BC and HRC would know this?

    by dfarrah on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:43:50 AM PDT

•  you've convince me....

  Barack is a bad guy and Hillary has run a brilliant campaign. Thanks. I was wandering in the dark before this most excellent diary.

  Clinton/Devil '08

  by JackieandFritz on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 05:57:36 AM PDT

  •  Clinton: Why choose the lesser evil?

    by Delaware Dem on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 06:11:22 AM PDT

•  I agree with your post but I must ask

  why use a racilly bigoted word like macaca as a verb.We have to get this word out of our language.It is an offesive bigoted word that was introduced to our nation by an ignorant rascist.Please do not permeate his ignorance by making it a verb,noun,or anything but gone.

  by kittycago on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 06:10:37 AM PDT

•  After further review:

  I actually agree with Crawford and Jackson on that one; although Bill Clinton has put his foot in his mouth many times, this was not one of those instances. But the rest of your diary is totally inflammatory because of the way you make slouise217-style attacks on the Obama campaign. You have had 73 comments troll-rated within the last year, so even if you have a valid point, people are simply not going to believe you given your past history at this site.

  by Eternal Hope on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 06:25:47 AM PDT

  •  Hope

    I've gotten many troll rated diaries by people on the DailyKos who do not deserve TU status.  Look at the comment above from Delaware Dem.  He did troll rate me but what value does his comment have?

    Quite frankly, even if my ideas were a little exotic, all of them are fairly well constructed and the are always based upon facts and interviews and candidate or surrogate statements and none of them are ad hominem attacks on other users.  How many Obama fans who spew hate almost every day have no troll ratings and many are TUs?

    One tactic of the Republicans was to always look for and find something to attack even if it had nothing to do with the subject in question.  Someone above asked me to site where the Obama campaign talked about South Carolina.  It might have been well intentioned but it is common knowledge that they did it whenever they got the chance.  I have seen Obama surrogates use it all the tims on CNN, David Wilhelm and Bradley just to name two.  Often that is an exasperating and time consuming tactic like proving there was air to carry the audible signal created about the Obama campaign, regarding the South Carolina lie.  

    Everything I write has substance.  Whether or not anyone agrees with it, is not my fault.  Whether it pisses off die hard Obama fans, that's not my problem if what I say is true or I think it's true. I got caught with the pledge of allegiance thing and Obama not putting his hand on his heart.  When it was pointed out that they were singing the Star Spangled Banner at the time and I saw the video, I apologized because I was wrong.  

    Should I be called a shithead or worse because I think Obama praised Reagan to the hilt in a conniving way to slam the Clintons, during that Reno Gazette interview?  Everyone on here spins it and says Obama did not put Reagan on a pedistal but his best friend Howard Dean agrees with me.  When I read that Obama said that 80% of our medical costs were going to 20% of our population and I said that Obama could go fuck himself and the horse he rode in on because I was pissed at his creating age warfare.  I don't like him and I don't trust him but that is no reason for anyone on a liberal site to attack me.  

    I never worried about mojo points but what I did not like was having my comments hidden.  

    This South Carolina lie has been going on for 2 1/2 months and I am shocked to see all the people who believe it without questioning it.  I can't tell you how many people say that the Clintons will say anything to get elected because of what he allegeddly said in South Carolina and they have no f----ing idea what he really said, let alone the context.  When you hear that stuff from liberals without an agenda like Frank Rich, you really start to trust nobody.

    by cpa1 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:58:01 AM PDT

    •  Well, the feeling is mutual:

      I don't trust anything Hillary Clinton says and you don't trust anything Barack Obama says. So, wouldn't it make more sense for you to actually talk about the positive things that Hillary does instead of hating on Obama all the time? When you keep accusing people of lying all the time, then you sound like slouise217 instead of someone who is worthy of being heard.

      by Eternal Hope on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:35:06 AM PDT

•  Unfortunately,

  the diarist is posting on a site with extremely hardened posters.

  The smears perpetuated by this site are unconscionable.  

  I really don't see how stating a fact, that JJ won 2 primaries, supports a charge of racism.  I don't see how stating a fact, that black people are apparently voting race, supports a charge of racism. [and please don't tell me it isn't race-based; I've live in a predominantly AA area where only a handful of AAs participated in the caucuses and other county activities in the past, but they sure showed up in huge numbers to caucus for BO].  

  Disclaimer: I don't see anything wrong with voting race; a voter's vote is his/her own for his/her own reasons.

  If the same race had taken place with only 2 white guys or only HRC and a white guy on the ballot, do you really think the turnout would have been so huge?

  And it's absolutely astounding how the remaining posters on this site apply double standards for HRC and BO.

  All the huffing and puffing about HRC's explanations for losses, the Michigan/Florida delegats stuff, etc--concluding that she has no respect for the voters [and as it turns out, isn't even a democrat!!  who knew?!] while BO does the same thing [explains the reasons for lack of support among some population segments] & wants 1/2 of the Florida/delegates if seated, etc., and he's just bringing on the hope.

  by dfarrah on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:33:36 AM PDT

•  Dumbest diary I've seen on Kos

  I followed your self-promotion link on the front page, just to be fair and give Clinton-spin a fair chance.

  But I didn't find anything factual.  Your lead is terribly poor and would be laughed out of a grade school debate - the alleged comments that Bill Clinton made in South Carolina..."

  Just because YOU CLAIM his comments are alleged does not make it so.  The video footage (and the sneer) are accurate and NOT alleged.

  Thus your false argument fails from the beginning.  Sharing what some commentator inferred about the mistake after-the-fact also doesn't an argument make.

  I'd like a hard count (audio, video, any reliable source) of the actual times Senator Obama has said anything like, "but what about Bosnia-gate?  But what about Bill's racial slurs?  but what about your 'misstatements' about Bill Ayars?" (his speech was in the 1960's, NOT on 9/11, so sad)

  You defend your spin of the Bill Clinton videos with the following:
  "No conversation was presented just a spliced out sentence without context."

  Using your simple standard, have you examined the thirty-five years of Dr. Wright, including his service as a U. S. Marine helping save the life of Lyndon Johnson, and pastor of the largest parish in this country's oldest predominantly-white Christian church?

  Or have you allowed yourself to fanatically frame this religious leader with endless soundloops of only three words?

  What's fair for Bill is fair for Dr. Wright.  Please pick one.  We can have an adult debate taking either position.  Just can't have one set of rules for Hillary and Bill, and a different set of rules for everyone else.

  So, understanding that tiny bit of fairness, and having tallied up the number of times Senator Obama has thrown any of this in either Bill or Hillary's face, now try one more bit of counting.

  Tally up the number of recorded (use same audio or video standards, please) times that Hillary and Bill have thrown Dr. Wright, Flag Pins, Tony Rezko and Bill Ayars directly into Senator Obama's face.

  In the little exercise above, please don't count things like Hillary throwing her hands in the air and mocking religion.  Skip things like "I have no reason to doubt he is a Christian."  Skip both the mocking and whining about the speeches which draw such huge crowds.  Skip the cult references.  Adding any of these indirect Clinton attacks so skews the statistics of the direct ones.

  When you are done, try looking in the mirror and reading the title of your post.

  It is actually humorous how much Hillary and her koolaid drinkers so hate facts.

  Have a great day.

  by Eman on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 06:55:03 AM PDT