The Video Clip is Bait

Two diaries on the rec list and the trolls already using the new Clinton talking points down below.

The video clip of Kantor talking to Carville and Stephanopolous is most likely intended to get Obama supporters to embrace a fake smear.  It's an old trick people and it works.  

The story isn't going to be that a Clinton aide back in 92 insulted Indiana.  The story is going to be that Obama supporters pushed a fake video trying to smear Hillary.

This is classic Rovian fare.  We all use the phrase and talk about the evils of Rove but we always forget what that actually means.

Sometimes it means someone hands you exactly what you're hungry for.  They know it's a fake but you don't until after you've run around town waving it in the air.  Then you're screwed.  Ask Dan Rather.

Deal with this now people.  Delete those diaries.  Look for the truth.  Represent Barack Obama.  

(Update)

Since this is on the rec list and a lot of people are seeing it, I think I should make clear that this isn't an accusation of the Clinton Campaign themselves planting a fake.  There is no evidence of that and it seems really unlikely no matter how low you think they might go.  We should take them at their word that they didn't. ;)

The fact is, it doesn't matter what the source of it was right now.  What matters is how people handle it.  Whether it's Mark Penn's hand on the fishing pole or Karl Rove or some kid in his basement or the line is just tangled around a branch, biting into this story is most likely a huge mistake.  That's the point I'm making.  

I didn't say 'Hillary made this video!"  I said, "Look for the truth."  That's easy to stand by.

•  Tips

  for not getting pulled in and dragged down.

  by Sun dog on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:01:32 AM PDT

  •  Amen!

    by environmentalist on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:05:21 AM PDT

    •  I'm reccing this...

      having come to the exactly the same conclusion myself.  This is a Rove moment AND this is not what this election is about.

      Cease and desist.  The best revenge is winning.

      by mayan on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:12:03 AM PDT

      •  And imagine that it comes right on the heels

        of the robo call scandal.  Hmmm....

        Thanks, Sun dog.  You're right on time.  

        by RadioGirl on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:14:46 AM PDT

        •  Just Like Dan Rather's Phony Typewriter ...

          Rove stink.

          by Kdoug on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:24:09 AM PDT

          •  Yeah, the video subtitles are crap

            I think Kantor says "the polls are shit" which I generally agree with.

            And who knows what he says on the second line. I really doubt he said anything about white n--, that wouldn't make sense in the context.

            It's just a dumb video by some random Youtube idiot. I wouldn't put any stock in it.

            by existenz on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:28:35 AM PDT

            •  is it cover for WVWV?

              do not put too much stock in this

              superdelegates dripping and

              NC AG investigation of WVWV is real

              92 aide on possibly doctored clip is shit

              by jhpdb on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:32:46 AM PDT

              •  I suspect that myself.

                That one is REAL and it is getting too much attention.

                by David Kroning on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:53:04 AM PDT

                •  We need to focus on facts

                  I didn't rec the Kantor video Diary because it didn't pass the smell test. We need to be careful to look for verifiable sources of information.

                  Otherwise we get diverted from the important issues.

                  by FishOutofWater on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:06:48 AM PDT

                  •  I agree...but,

                    I also agree the Kantor story has value in being a temporary distraction...to get rid of the Jeremiah Wright detritus.

                    by David Kroning on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:09:50 AM PDT

                    •  The voter disenfranchisement story is real

                      However, the Commercial media has not pushed that story at all. It has been reported but mostly on newspaper blogs.

                      by FishOutofWater on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:41:43 AM PDT

                      •  Trying to be positive

                        Do you think that the story hasn't been picked up, because there are still so many unknowns, and MSM is waiting for confirmation before jumping in?

                        I just hope it gets the time it deserves this weekend.  Would love for it to "break" right before the town hall meeting. :)

                        by leawood on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:44:21 AM PDT

                        •  Sorry this will sound harsher then it is, but

                          have you been awake during the past 3 months? The traditional media doesn't give a crap about verification and context anymore and seem to think stories of a political nature are tantamount to Op-ed pieces, they can use them or not depending n how they feel that day.

                          For all the effing soul searching media does you'd think they would be damn near transcendent by now.

                          by edgeways on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:31:47 PM PDT

                          •  Dang!!!

                            Look how much Carville, Stephanopoulos & Kantor have AGED since then!

                            ... guess we all have ...  wow.

                            by Kdoug on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:37:07 PM PDT

                          •  Thanks for the warning

                            Unfortunately, I've been not only awake, but, like you have grown in my own cynicism with regards to the media.

                            I'm just hoping for a miracle.

                            I do recall making a similar post about Bosniagate - it was a story that took a few days before it gathered steam. I recall saying "I'm sure the media will sweep this under the rug".  Sometimes we can hope to be wrong.

                            by leawood on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:53:19 PM PDT

                    •  We have to be careful, though,

                      that this "distraction" doesn't push NC voter supression into the corner.

                      We need to keep fighting to keep that on the front page.  Once a confirmed connection is revealed, she's finished.

                      by leawood on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:42:02 AM PDT

                    •  except- as Smith demonstrates-when it can be made

                      to sound as something done by someone connected to the campaign.

                      Smith at Politico:

                      ALSO: The second version of the video was posted, as far as I know, by an Obama supporter not affiliated with the campaign. An Obama campaign aide declined to comment on whether the campaign had any role.

                      "As far as I know".  When has that been used as b.s. before.   Smith said he talked to the original YouTuber- I'd like a little more proof this person is an overzealous Obama supporter.

                      But in any case- when an Obama staffer "declines to comment" that can be spun vs. "The Obama campaign said it had nothing to do with this."

                      Remember folks- they're trying to debunk the idea that Obama or his campaign are better than anyone else, that the "new politics" is bull, and that Obama is a hyprocrite.   Now you've got 'poor Mickey' invoking his parents' wrath from the grave.  

                      by brueso on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:46:40 AM PDT

                      •  I have seen evidence

                        of that through her campaign, especially after Super Tuesday. They seemed to get a bit frustrated in the beginning, when they would bait the Obama camp with something so silly, they knew that someone on the campaign would bite, and be caught in the web of tit-for-tat....taking the 'high road' gloss out in one fell swoop. He never hit her hard in PA; not like he could have...and the press was always spreading the 'negative campaign' moniker equally to both parties.

                        by karaplanet on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:26:13 PM PDT

                    •  So you think its OK to use Rove like tactics

                      as long as it helps your man?

                      I also agree the Kantor story has value in being a temporary distraction...to get rid of the Jeremiah Wright detritus.

                      by ichibon on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:32:27 PM PDT

            •  after seeing the original

              it's pretty clear he says:

              they are shitting...in the white house, and then says sorry, and then it appears he says: how'd you like to be in the white house right now...

              i want bad press for hillary for sure, but not this way....  i also came to the conclusion that it might be an inside job on the part of the clinton campaign to be able to point a finger and say 'look what obama people do' and garner some sympathy late in the game....

              it makes perfect sense to do this...by saying, look what obama supporters are willing to stoop to, to make it look like we disparaged Indiana.... we should all work to condemn the video as strongly as possible.

              by chiefsjen on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:05:21 AM PDT

              •  Really

                because i own the original VHS

                and it is pretty clear that he says

                "worthless white niggers"

                i could NOT possibly give a shit what he meant when he said it

                what i do find fascinating -- is the bizarre denial

                by josephk on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:10:44 AM PDT

                •  Why would he say that????!!!

                  He just found out they were ahead.  Why would he then turn around and disparage the people of Indiana?  What the f*** does that even mean?

                  by 23Progressive on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:25:41 AM PDT

                  •  i have no idea

                    what he means

                    that isn't what i commented on

                    by josephk on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:36:49 AM PDT

                  •  This is a great point

                    Why call people shit if they're coming out for your guy? He knew the camera was on him, that's why he apologized for swearing. He's a snake but not an idiot.  

                    IN was significant because it was Qualye's home state. In the fuller clip that is going around before Cantor comes in you can see the other two saying: "arkansas good, CT fine, Illinois a blowout, Texas is tied ..."

                    They were just going down the list and talking about the exit polls on election day.

                    by mbair on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:37:43 AM PDT

                    •  Well, if you have no respect for them, you might

                      call them that, but I have a question posted in response to josephk's post above that I'd love an answer to....

                      by ksh01 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 02:43:12 PM PDT

                      •  What do you mean no respect?

                        The snake comment? It's politics, grow-up. There's no disrespect here. It's a dirty, rotten, nasty business and if you were running a presidential campaign you'd want a snake like Kantor working for you too.

                        by mbair on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:17:29 AM PDT

                        •  ahem....I'm voting against that this year

                          or at least, I'm fooled enough to think we can relegate this kind of crap to the historical dustbin.  By the way, here's the link

                          by ksh01 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:49:01 AM PDT

                          •  Please

                            It's just the way these things go. Look at the karendc diary on the rec list. She had an inside perspective and these kinds of pros are the ones you need to win. Obama needs them too. See, the candidate can take the high road if he's got competent staff doing the dirty work for him or 527's, really.

                            See here's the problem with your argument. If the basis of your support is that Obama will not do this then what happens in the general against McCain? Do you think Obama is going to run a purely positive campaign against McCain once he starts in with the attacks? If that really is the basis for your support then I hope you reconsider that rationale once things get dirty and I know they will. It's inevitable. Please don't bail on our nominee once things get tough.  

                            I also read something recently where David Axelrod was quoted, sorry no link. He was quoted saying something like "there's going to be no assholes on the Obama campaign." He was trying to sell someone on taking a job with them. He wouldn't have needed to say that if it wasn't expected that assholes work on these campaigns. Even the winning ones.

                            Besides, they're already on your campaign's staff. And they're not just low level staffers. If they were then why would EE need to deny these rumors to reporters, in NH?

                            by mbair on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:50:13 AM PDT

                          •  Here's another good example

                            of what kind of people work for Obama.

                            Atlantic Umpire: Is Edwards A Campaign Finance Hypocrite?

                            The gist of the story was that Edwards or an Edwards money man stole the money from the lady to run ads in Iowa. Those are Obama staff members directly quoted in the piece and Obama even put this criticism into his stump speech in the closing days in Iowa.

                            And what happened when Obama got to NV, CA, OH and PA? He reached out to the same kind of 527s and SEIU state orgs to broadcast hit pieces on Clinton and positive pieces on Obama.

                            Please don't withdraw your support for Obama because he's not pure as the driven snow. I don't think any of this is a reason to vote against him, but based on your comments here it looks like you do think it's a reason to stay home. I hope you reconsider.

                            by mbair on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:00:25 AM PDT

                      •  I can't find the comment

                        you refer to. Link?

                        by mbair on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:18:06 AM PDT

                  •  He's talking about how dumb Hoosiers are...

                    That's what he's implying.

                    It makes complete sense when you don't think the state will even be in play, but it turns out they "fell" for your line.

                    by TheOpinionGuy on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:38:29 AM PDT

                    •  In that case...

                      ...why didn't he rub his hands together and cackle with glee?

                      by steambadger on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:49:12 PM PDT

                  •  Right.

                    Option A is that Kantor found out that Clinton was up in IN, and then disparaged the voters.  Option B is that Kantor found out that Clinton was up in IN, and remarked about how scared the White House must have been.

                    You tell me which one is the more likely option.  Sometimes, the most plausible answer...just might actually be the answer.

                    by obietom on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:53:14 AM PDT

                    •  Occam's Razor n/t

                      by Yorick on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:57:00 PM PDT

                •  I agree with the diarist

                  I understand you have a different take, but I watched the fuller clip and it seems like he's saying, "those people must be shitting, sorry, ... how would you like to be ... "

                  IN was significant because it was Qualyle's home state. The inference is that Bush couldn't put Clinton away on his own turf. Besides why would a campaign operative call the people that lived in the state shit if they were coming out to vote for his guy? He knows the camera is there and has the presence of mind to say sorry for swearing. Right? Kantor is a snake, no question about it, but he's also a pro and he knows the camera is there.

                  by mbair on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:33:30 AM PDT

                  •  Exactly

                    It makes far more sense than the notion that he suddenly got inspired to insult the people of an entire state.  Why would you do that when you just found out you were winning that state?  Why would you do that anyway?  It's too far fetched and I think Occam's Razor applies.  

                    These are campaign strategists talking about the campaign.  They probably talked a lot about their counterparts in Bush's office.  "Those people are shitting."  It's a bit of celebration.  

                    by Sun dog on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:10:05 PM PDT

                    •  You're right

                      Thank you so much for this diary, I like the way your mind works. We need more wisdom on our side so don't let the naysayers get you down. It's a good contribution.

                      And another thing. They're looking at exit polls. They know the media and the Bush-Quayle team are reading the exact same data at the exact same time. They're kicking B-Q's ass. These are competitive people and they're not really playing against voters, campaigns are playing against each other.

                      by mbair on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:23:02 PM PDT

                  •  Yep, that's what he's saying

                    I really think this is a purposeful distraction setup to get us onto a fake smear and off of the WVWV story.

                    by dawnt on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:34:32 PM PDT

                    •  Man - it's so devious.

                      Old joke
                      Shrink to patient: Why are you so paranoid?
                      Patient to shrink: I wouldn't have to be if everyone weren't out to get me, doc.

                      by mbair on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:45:31 PM PDT

                •  I took the audio

                  from the original move clip on Youtube (not the one that started the controversy) and enhanced it using Audacity. As I stated in my other post in the other thread, I isolated the phrase by using noise removal, followed by amplify and finally the FFT filter.  I posted the clip at Zshare.net so you can hear it. It is only the one phrase in question not the entire sentence.

                  This is probably crap to distract from the voter fraud, but it is not some sort of false flag operation or like the documents that were used to discredit Dan Rather.  I think it is more like setting a fire to hide a bank robbery. There is a fire, but the robbery is more important.

                  by pgm 01 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:09:26 PM PDT

                  •  not bad,

                    I looked at it too, and FWIW, I believe Carville whispers back "but I'm too funny for that". No big deal, except for the swift and firm denial coming from Mickey...

                    by pb on Fri May 02, 2008 at 07:34:56 PM PDT

                •  okay, can you explain to me what happened?

                  I left kind of early this morning and the original diary with the video was on the rec list.  I come back and it's deleted. Now there's this diary saying the video is a "fake smear" and astral66's diary  featuring an excerpt from a Washington Post 1993 review of "The War Room" mentioning Kantor's comment ("a Mickey Kantor comment about the people of Indiana") and your comment that you own the original and it indeed has the "white niggers" remark.

                  So, WTF happened between this morning and now?  Could you or someone fill me in?

                  by ksh01 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 02:41:46 PM PDT

                  •  CSI: Daily Kos

                    Well I missed the WaPo diary but I did see two other diaries Fri morning. This was the deal Friday morning into the early afternoon, after that I bailed and went back to real life. But I can tell you what I saw during the morning.

                    Check this article from First Read. It gives a pretty good breakdown and since it contains multiple updates and lots of good links you can see how things developed during the day: A CONTROVERSY THAT WASN'T. All those updates were in that story by about 2:00pm and it looks like it hasn't changed since that time yesterday.

                    The first link at FR over there goes to a diary that made the rec list entitled: "UPDATED (2x): Team Clinton 1992: Hoosiers are "worthless white ni**ers"", it had about 1500 comments in it and then was deleted. That diary contained a video clip from The War Room documentary produced by someone named Pennebaker that had been edited. JedReport authenticated the tape in the deleted diary but I'm not sure if JedReport posted the clip at YouTube. I never saw the first video because when I went to YouTube I got a message saying that I had to be invited as a friend of the YouTuber to view the video. I wasn't, but the first video had subtitles including the n word, Kantor calling Hoosiers shit and an amplified soundtrack to make it easier to hear.  

                    Then a second diary appeared on the rec list here at this site, you can see it here: Kantor to HuffPo: 'I had never used that ["n"] word' [updatex5]. It's still around.

                    Once the first clip with the subtitles started making the rounds HuffPo, First Read (link above) and Ben Smith at Politico started blogging about it especially once Drudge put it up. Smith covered it in many posts so that link is just to the Ben Smith page, scroll down to see at least three entries for this story. He had the quote from the War Room producer early in the day and it's a good one stop shopping for the whole ugly story.

                    That second kos diary and many of these blog posts outside Kos started carrying Kantor's denial. The term "slanderous" was thrown around and thems fighting words. I think the first rec'd diary got deleted shortly after Kantor started denying and saying "lawyers" and "libel", I'm not sure.

                    In that second kos diary with the 5 updates you can see the subtitled video clip posted in the first diary, but it's no longer available. Additionally the second kos diary contains the clip posted straight from the DVD. The inciting incident is about 4:40 in the fuller clip which is the only one I saw. I also saw the movie at the time and I never got offended. I guess that was just my bias going into this thing yesterday. I also re-rented the DVD in the last two years and never had a problem with these scenes.

                    But why are you asking me this? You participated in the first diary even giving the diarist and JedReport some ideas for future videos. You were around DK all day yesterday according to your comments history. So why ask me to tell you what happened? Curious.

                    But since you participated in the first diary can you tell me if dehydratedcracker was the author? Who posted the subtitled clip at YouTube? Was it JedReport? I'm terrible with names but I'd like to know who not to read at this blog anymore.

                    Atrios debunked it too. I guess he's a Clinton operative as well?  

                    by mbair on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:18:50 AM PDT

                    •  Don't be an ASS if you can help it, mbair

                      And try learning how to read before you imply anything, fool.

                      Here's my commenting history yesterday at the time in question:

                      31. okay, can you explain to me what happened? [none / 1] Replies: 1

                      posted by ksh01 on 05/02/2008 14:41:46 PDT
                      attached to The Video Clip is Bait

                      32. I feel compelled to remind folks [4.00 / 2] Replies: 0

                      posted by ksh01 on 05/02/2008 09:21:48 PDT
                      attached to The real reason this race will continue: either candidate beats McCain

                      33. machine or carafes full of coffee? [none / 0] Replies: 0

                      posted by ksh01 on 05/02/2008 07:37:03 PDT
                      attached to Clinton supporter calls Obama "Osama" on CNN

                      34. thanks for my chuckle of the day...n/t [none / 1] Replies: 0

                      posted by ksh01 on 05/02/2008 07:34:32 PDT
                      attached to Clinton supporter calls Obama "Osama" on CNN

                      35. I think people miss the point on the coffee [none / 0] Replies: 2

                      posted by ksh01 on 05/02/2008 06:56:19 PDT
                      attached to Clinton supporter calls Obama "Osama" on CNN

                      36. I'm anxious myself [none / 1] Replies: 0

                      posted by ksh01 on 05/02/2008 06:49:30 PDT
                      attached to What causes depression?

                      37. Can you or Jed Reports combine this with [4.00 / 65] Replies: 5

                      posted by ksh01 on 05/02/2008 06:46:48 PDT
                      attached to UPDATED (2x): Team Clinton 1992: Hoosiers are "worthless white ni**ers"

                      You can see that I commented in the diary in question around 6:46 am and then in a few others until 9:21 a.m. when I left and didn't return until approx. 20 minutes to 3:00. I put the relevant times in bold to make it easy for you.

                      I posted in the original when everyone thought it was real.  I'm not complicit in any fakery, nor am I pretending. And as for going elsewhere, mbair, good riddance if you're going to act like an idiot.  

                      by ksh01 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:02:07 AM PDT

                      •  Totally unresponsive

                        You were on this blog all day, yesterday, more than I was. I didn't even see the WaPo diary you referred to. You have comments posted throughout the day. You left around 2, came back around 5 and posted a bunch of stuff around 10 last night. That's a lot more than me.

                        You read and participated in the original diary. Why am I being an ass after I take the time to give you a fair comment full of links about what happened and how things unfolded during the day?

                        Going elsewhere? What is this supposed to mean, exactly? I never said I was going elsewhere, but as a participant in the first diary that started giving suggestions for future videos I asked you to tell me who posted the first diary that was then deleted and the first video that has now been expunged from YouTube. Why is that being an ass? Whoever posted that first video clip at YouTube is suspect and whoever posted that first diary at this site is also suspect.  

                        I took the time to post what I knew with links about the story for your benefit after you asked, but you didn't do the same - so whose being an ass, here?

                        by mbair on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:28:53 AM PDT

                        •  Clearly you still have reading problems

                          I posted in the first diary around 6:50 a.m. and a few others until approx. 9:20 a.m. and then didn't return to the blog until 2:40 p.m..  And you're being an ass for this:

                          But why are you asking me this? You participated in the first diary even giving the diarist and JedReport some ideas for future videos. You were around DK all day yesterday according to your comments history. So why ask me to tell you what happened? Curious.

                          As if posting in a diary when everyone (maybe even the diarist, I don't freaking know since I'm NOT the diarist) thought it was real makes me complicit and your FALSE statement and implication that since I was "around DK all day yesterday" (when I clearly wasn't), I have some ulterior motive for asking what happened.

                          See?  That was easy....I merely asked a question about what happened and, thanks, you answered it.  But you made some nasty implications along the way so do me a favor and keep it to yourself next time.

                          by ksh01 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:41:24 AM PDT

                          •  Not quite

                            I don't understand why you post here that I'm being an ass repeatedly and good riddance to me leaving this blog.

                            As to nasty implications, I just asked you a question. It that so hard to understand? Furthermore, it looks like I'm the only one that took the time to answer your damn question in the first place. So I don't think your take that it was a nasty implication is fair to begin with. I just asked what the hell was going on. Same as you. You imply I'm being nasty and completely blow off my questions. If you read the whole comment back it's a fair assessment of what went on yesterday. Right?

                            I asked you three times now. Who wrote the deleted diary? Who posted the debunked clip? I think it's only fair you tell me what you know about the story since I responded to your questions. See? That was easy. Wait a minute ... I still haven't gotten a straight answer out of you on the questions that I asked about the first diary and the first clip.

                            And you're welcome.

                            by mbair on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:10:10 AM PDT

                            •  Mbair

                              Do you know the identity of the author of this diary?  Do you know the identity of other authors of diaries that you posted in which, after you posted, were deleted?  Do you regularly assume responsibility for the content of a diary because you posted in it?

                              Do you regularly ask people for information about an event if you already have the answers?

                              If you're so curious as to whether Dehydratedcracker posted it, why not look and see in his/her comments and see if there's a tip jar for the diary?  I'm not doing it because I don't care.  If you care, you should do it.

                              Yes you gave me an answer, but you insulted me on the way with inaccurate info and the implication that I was somehow complicit in the diary, when clearly, I don't fucking know anything about it other than I

                              1. read it

                              2. posted in it

                              3. saw it deleted when I returned home

                              4. and was curious as to what happened as this diary, at the time, wasn't that clear on the details.

                              do yourself a favor and next time, leave out the insults.

                              by ksh01 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:30:20 AM PDT

                              •  I did

                                there was no tip jar on his page. Actually I read the thing, couldn't watch the YouTube video and since you were in the thread giving someone suggestions to do something I thought you might be of some help. I really am bad with names and I never got to anyone's YouTube page to see the name of the poster over there. I thought you would just tell me what you knew in the interests of dialog. I won't make that mistake again. Especially since this is your third response devoid of information. I don't know is an answer by the way.

                                I think you should take your own advice as far as insulting people. I never intended to insult you. Okay? What is your problem anyway? I write that whole post and you come back at me, repeatedly calling me an ass, telling me I have reading problems and good riddance to me leaving this blog. I really was just "Curious" as I posted. Maybe the answer was that you thought it was all a BS story, that you bought it too or that you had the DVD or whatever, everyone had a strong opinion. I didn't know. That why I asked. I put that link in there because it seemed to be the closest thing to a tip jar that I could find from dcracker. I put the second one in that reply because it included the comment not only from you but from JedReport too authenticating the clip.  

                                Use your head, here. Why would I take the time to write that whole comment if I only intended to insult you? And don't start advising other people to leave out the insults when you're violently and unambiguously insulting random posters like myself in the first place. You took offense but reading the whole comment you have no basis for such offense. Again, why would I take the time to write that whole thing which I think was fair and even admitted to ignorance and bias on my own part if my goal was merely to insult you? Why? I could insult you very easily without all that extra effort.

                                But yes. I looked to see if a tip jar was posted at dcracker's comments page. I didn't see one. The closest I came was what I linked to in that first comment. I really am bad with names and couldn't recall. It's hard to navigate the comments in a deleted diary you can pretty much only go up and down from parents and replies.

                                It was important to me that I knew who posted the diary because it really doesn't matter if you get sucker into some kind of hoax. The best people do. What sucks is when the diarist just deletes the thing and doesn't explain why or doesn't write a follow-up addressing concerns of other bloggers that might have read the thing and been taken in. Also, the YouTube clip was very shady because it was a friends only clip. Since you were in that first diary and making suggestions about videos I thought you probably saw it or knew who posted it there.

                                Take your own advice as far as insults which were implied at best in my comment and real fucking clearly stated repeatedly in your own replies and use your head here.  

                                by mbair on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:16:41 AM PDT

                  •  Also Media Matters

                    posted this clip.

                    Link to story

                    So who wrote the deleted diary and posted the deleted YouTube clip?

                    by mbair on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:57:53 AM PDT

                •  You are aware that this movie was an Oscar

                  nominated documentary that was widely seen at the time of its release.  Now I don't know what "original vhs" you have, but you are wrong.  That is not what was said.  Perhaps you have the "original doctored vhs"?  hmmm?

                  by PamelaD on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:22:58 PM PDT

              •  Great point

                You're thinking about part 2 of this story. How far this will penetrate the MSM is not clear to me now, but getting this story into the broadcast media is playing right into "their" hands. Because the MSM hate the blogs too, so you kill two birds with one stone. Media might not have any compunction with equating the comments in these diaries with the candidate and the campaign. I hope it stays a blog story.

                by mbair on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:20:12 AM PDT

              •  That's not what I heard-

                I heard what he is accused of saying and I was stunned. Unless the movie is faked, and the longer clip posted here is faked too- Kantor says a pretty disgusting thing.

                Kantor also is saying now he was talking about "polling" not people (of Indiana), and doesn't mention people shitting in the White House. I hope an unbiased expert can give a definitive answer - but I think it's just as possible that what I hear is what he said, and that all the denials are intended to make this go away. That's a pretty simple and reasonable scenario.

                by Zulia on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:13:58 PM PDT

                •  It isn't, really

                  First: entertain the possibility that you might be hearing that because that's what you were prepped to here.  Just keep that in mind; it's a very common phenomenon.

                  Now, with that in mind, go back and listen again.  Does it make any that Kantor would choose this moment to hurl random insults at the people of Indiana?  Does it make any sense that Stephanopolous, Carville and Kantor -- established, fairly liberal Democratic activists, no matter what else can be said about them -- would display such easy familiarity with the word in question?  Does any of it make sense, in context?  

                  As many others have said:  this one doesn't pass the smell test.  It could be a false flag operation, and it could be just a random moment of mass misperception; whatever it it, it's best to step away from it as rapidly as possible.

                  by steambadger on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:56:26 PM PDT

                  •  You're right about "being prepped"- that's

                    a definite possibility, and why I can't say exactly what he said- only what I heard- which may not be the same thing at all.  ( IF Kantor made the White n-word comment it wasn't in front of anyone but Steph-- and he shakes his head.)

                    Also good to keep in mind the larger picture of actual polices and issues to get worked up about not video clips from 1992 that are open to interpretation.

                    by Zulia on Fri May 02, 2008 at 01:29:34 PM PDT

            •  In any event when they get to that spot

              there is paper noise and they are talking about TEXAS.

              by snackdoodle on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:08:18 AM PDT

          •  This was exactly my thoughts !!!

            by SpringFever on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:46:22 AM PDT

        •  The Robo call scandal

          SHOULD be the top story on every news site.

          Why it hasn't been picked up is beyone me.

          by leawood on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:58:35 AM PDT

        •  what do you say when....

          Rev. Wright did go to the White House to counsel the Clintons.  I would say that is pretty damn intimate?  I really do not know what I am saying people?  Senator Clinton's staunchest supporter did set up the gig at the National Press Club.     Help me out!!!

          I know we have moved pass that but I overheard something to make me have some deep crazy thoughts!!

          by OH NOT AGAIN on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:13:32 AM PDT

          •  The organizer is from Howard University

            Rev. Wright went to Howard University.

            Reynolds was an editorial board member at USA Today.  She runs Reynolds News Services and teaches ministry at the Howard University School of Divinity.

            She claims she contacted for the News Club conference in 06 but he wasn't newsworthy.

            She noted on her blog in February, "My vote for Hillary in the Maryland primary was my way of saying thank you" to Clinton and her husband for the successes of Bill Clinton's presidency." Then went on to trash Obama on the Audcity of Hope.

            But now for today's update: Ms. Reynolds has now deleted all posts from her blog (Reynolds World News) back to January 21, 2008 -- this would include the very detailed and lengthy post about Rev. Wright that has been quoted and linked to all over the place.

            Yeah she was in on the hatchet job just like Maggie Williams has her hand in the cookie jar on the robo-calls.

            by blackandaztec on Fri May 02, 2008 at 05:09:34 PM PDT

      •  Tipp'd and Recc'd

        This is a good heads up. It's a reason why I still come to this site.

        by The Lighthouse Keeper on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:09:47 AM PDT

      •  This is not what we want this election

        to be about.

        Maybe we can break the cycle.  Rove didn't invent these tactics, but he mastered them and used them.

        We just need to watch out for them being put to use.

        Great diary, and thanks, Sun dog.  Your update was great as well.

        by WSComn on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:34:32 PM PDT

      •  mayan

        Looks like politics as usual.Obama`s team is now using the infamous Rovean tactics. I think the justice department should look into this --that would put an end to the Obama run.I`ve never seen such unethical behavior--and from a candidate who decries hope and change.This could be criminal.You can`t alter a video and run it as the truth.Disgusting.That bit of news following by a day,the diary written by a respected kos diarist, alluding to collusion between Obama and Wright,to set up the scenario whereby Barack could distance himself from Wright without alienating any demographic group.I must admit--Axelrod is far more creative than rove. I expect Obama and Axelrod will be able to pull this off,much like Bush and rove.I`m just not sure who Cheny`s counterpart would be. Any ideas?
          IN ALL SERIOUSNESS--THIS IS MEANT AS SNARK.I`m just very angry that no matter what is said or done--you all trace everything negative or unethical back to Hillary--facts are not important.I don`t believe Barack or Hillary are involved with this rediculous assertion.Despite the lack of facts or understanding of the situation--Hillary is blamed.I just wanted to know how my statement, that lacked facts and was a rediculous assertion against Obama,made you feel as you read it.That is what we Hillary supporters have to deal with all the time here on Kos.Why the need for us all to dig back 10 yers to find something negative to gleefully bring up to attack the other personnaly.we`re better than this.My rant for the day--and night.
         

        by DocbytheBay on Fri May 02, 2008 at 01:35:06 PM PDT

      •  it's stupid, regardless

        of whether it's real or fake. It's another sidetracking issue that, if it were something that made Obama look bad, would be getting hammered here.

        Ignore it, altogether. It's not what this campaign is about. It's not what Obama is about.

        It's our responsibility to make the media look at issues. Even if that means passing up an story that could gain our pol favors.

        by digno dave on Fri May 02, 2008 at 01:46:31 PM PDT

  •  I reccomended all the other diaries

    and this one, so that that the original Kantor one gets out of the rec list.

    by Fairy Tale on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:06:37 AM PDT

    •  And anyone who rec'd the Kantor one

      should un-rec it to move it off faster.

      by lineatus on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:27:42 AM PDT

      •  already did

        when I saw the first one about the clip being old news.

        by writerswrite on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:04:21 AM PDT

    •  Ya because

      using any dishonest tactic to silence speech you dislike is totally acceptable!!

      Not suprising coming from a certain groups worldview.

      by cdreid on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:52:19 AM PDT

      •  What are you talking about?