Here we are less than a week from NH and the attacks on Hillary have begun based on completely fictitious and baseless allegations. This is probably the worst moment of the national media.
I have a running bet with my girlfriend, I say the media are foisting Obama on the democrats now but they have already chosen the next president and that is John McCain. So let's see the record of the media:
- Media says Bill Clinton called Obama's campaign a "fairy tale": the only fairy tale here is the media's fairytale.... a pack of stupendous lies which people have sucked up hook-line and sinker. When I saw the video of Bill Clinton uttering the words fairy tale....well based on my comprehension of the English language it seems he is calling Obama's self-aggrandized opposition of the Iraq war a fairy-tale. Indeed it is. What did he do when he once went to Senate? Did he vote against a single war funding bill? Only after he decided to run for president did he make a token effort to end the war, just like voting present. What did he do when the Kyl-Lieberman vote came up? Our part-time senator was campaigning in New Hampshire even though ample notice was available to him regarding the upcoming vote. For those who are judgmentally impaired and like to suck up all the media news uncritically, here is the video of Bill Clinton and fairy-tale:
- So the above became veiled racism. But then there was this comment by Hillary dissing Dr. King himself. How more racist can she be? Well seems like the media did what it does best, sensationalize the news by carefully cropping a few words from an interview. Here's what the media said: (NYT 01/11)
"Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964," Mrs. Clinton said in trying to make the case that her experience should mean more to voters than the uplifting words of Mr. Obama. "It took a president to get it done."
Here's what she actually said:(TPM)
"Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964," Mrs. Clinton said in trying to make the case that her experience should mean more to voters than the uplifting words of Mr. Obama. "It took a president to get it done."
Again for those too impaired to make a fair judgment here's the video:
Well Barack Obama is no JFK or MLK however much he might try to spread this false comparison. But when TPM is coming to the rescue of Hillary you know you have a problem.
- Couple of days ago Ben Smith posted this egregious story of the infamous "shuck and jive" comment by Andrew Cuomo, a non-Clinton surrogate and not even affiliated with the campaign. Only it turns out that he was not referring to Barack Obama but maybe to Al Gore? (Albany Times Union)
Fred Dicker: You know I’ve said this on my show before, I think the American people are very lucky to have most these candidates, the major party candidates, I think they’re all quality people, they have disagreements, but they’re all quite talented, and I think the people of Iowa and now New Hampshire really have allowed the rest of America to see much of this because I think to their great credit it requires politicians to kind of get down, not kind of, get down in the grassroots, I think I heard John McCain say he had something like 110 community meeting before the primaries - fabulous - you know, I wish we could see that here in New York.
Andrew Cuomo: You know I’ve spent a lot of time in other races, especially in Iowa and in New Hampshire, back with Gore and back with Clinton. Those races require you to do something no other race does, you know, and I like it, and I agree with you, it’s a good thing. It’s not a TV-crazed race, you know, you can’t just buy your way through that race [FD: Airport press conference and the media markets.....], it doesn’t work that way, it’s frankly a more demanding process. You have to get on a bus, you have to go into a diner, you have to shake hands, you have to sit down with ten people in a living room. You can’t shuck and jive at a press conference, you can’t just put off reporters, because you have real people looking at you saying answer the question, you know, and all those moves you can make with the press don’t work when you’re in someone’s living room. And I think it’s good for the candidates, I think it makes the candidates communicate in a way that works with real people because you know in a living room right away whether or not you’re communicating, and I think the questions are good and I think the scrutiny is good, so you can, you can say they’re small states and they get a lot of attention — they are very good for the process, I believe that.
Again to put it in context this was on a radio show and I have heard worse things on Air America including a full blown parody of Indians by Al Franken.
- Today the Guardian got into the act quoting an anonymous Hillary campaign adviser (how can you attribute a quote to someone unnamed? my head reels!):
"If you have a social need, you're with Hillary. If you want Obama to be your imaginary hip black friend and you're young and you have no social needs, then he's cool."
Josh Marshall posts a sober assessment to put the latest brouhaha into context:
Now, as I said, I have a bit of a hard time knowing what's going on here. If this is really the word the Clinton campaign wants its surrogates putting out, they're really much stupider than I could have imagined. On the other hand, 'advisor' is a notoriously slippery phrase that can mean almost anything. Campaigns have hundreds, perhaps thousands of people who in one fashion or another 'advise' them. A lot of those people aren't under any kind of real control. And if a reporter talks to enough of them one of them is bound to say something stupid. On the other hand, you have to rely on the journalist and the news outlet not to send you down the wrong path or give you the sense that this is a Clinton insider rather than just someone spouting off.
Again if Josh Marshall is defending Hillary something is wrong here.
- Once the dust settled in New Hampshire the pundits were all out to explain how they got it so wrong. Here's a classic race-baiting piece by Andrew Kahut promoting his so called Bradley effect in NH:
Mrs. Clinton beat Mr. Obama by 12 points (47 percent to 35 percent) among those with family incomes below $50,000. By contrast, Mr. Obama beat Mrs. Clinton by five points (40 percent to 35 percent) among those earning more than $50,000.
<snip>
Poorer, less well-educated white people refuse surveys more often than affluent, better-educated whites. Polls generally adjust their samples for this tendency. But here’s the problem: these whites who do not respond to surveys tend to have more unfavorable views of blacks than respondents who do the interviews.
So let me get this straight poor people, blue-collared people whose issues are being addressed by an established Democratic candidate with impeccable credentials will only vote for her because they are racist! WOW! Mr. Kahut why can't you say that voters chose Hillary because she had something substantive to offer instead of some abstract thought full of sound and fury signifying nothing. Maybe these people are smarter than you and that's why they voted for a candidate who addresses their bread and butter issues.
Then Noam Scheiber got into the act of spinning the NH defeat of Obama:
If anyone, Obama is an ideal candidate for a positive Bradley-Effect Effect. He often talks about the respect he has for the judgment of the American people. He says they sometimes get distracted by unimportant things, but that they usually make the right decision in the end. And, of course, with refrains like "Yes We Can," he specifically appeals to their desire to feel good about themselves.
Just like Hillary may have benefited when the media told voters the race was over, I could see Obama benefiting when the media tells them they're racist.
Firstly Mr. Scheiber you work for a magazine that makes things up and then posts retractions all the time. Finally I think what you are arguing is this: if someone does not vote for Obama then he is racist and thus by collective guilt everyone should vote for Obama and make him the nominee...policies be damned. How is that not race-baiting?
- Finally this, Dan Abrams on the media pile-on and canonizing of Barack Obama:
When Pat Buchanan is defending Hillary then the media has a very serious problem.
Which brings me to the next thread:
Today Ben Smith of Politico trumpets his article:
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.
Ben Smith did you ever do a story on this:
Donnie McClurkin saying during Obama's gospel concert that god delivered him from homosexuality (yes he said that...meaning homosexuality is a sin)
Here is Obama's response about McClukin:
"I disagree" and "we have to reach out to teach..." (usual blah blah)
So where's that story.
Let me give you another story:
Let me point out what Obama's national campaign co-chair Jesse Jackson Jr. said on an NBC show said:(TPM)
...there were tears that melted the Granite State. And those are tears that Mrs. Clinton cried on that day, clearly moved voters. She somehow connected with those voters.
But those tears also have to be analyzed. They have to be looked at very, very carefully in light of Katrina, in light of other things that Mrs. Clinton did not cry for, particularly as we head to South Carolina where 45% of African-Americans who participate in the Democratic contest, and they see real hope in Barack Obama.
And
We saw something very clever in the last week of this campaign coming out of Iowa, going into New Hampshire, we saw a sensitivity factor. Something that Mrs. Clinton has not been able to do with voters that she tried in New Hampshire.
Not in response to voters -- not in response to Katrina, not in response to other issues that have devastated the American people, the war in Iraq, we saw tears in response to her appearance. So her appearance brought her to tears, but not hurricane Katrina.
You know what that is other than being sexist? Some good old-fashioned race-baiting before they head to South Carolina. But wait did Ben Smith not score some brownie points by saying Hillary uttered the words nachos and guacamole...scandalous!! Such racist comments!!
Or how about doing a story about how Obama turned a blind eye to the poor black tenants of Tony Rezko in his district while he was accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contribution from him? (Sun-Times)
Obama, who has worked as a lawyer and a legislator to improve living conditions for the poor, took campaign donations from Rezko even as Rezko's low-income housing empire was collapsing, leaving many African-American families in buildings riddled with problems -- including squalid living conditions, vacant apartments, lack of heat, squatters and drug dealers.
The building in Englewood was one of 30 Rezmar rehabbed in a series of troubled deals largely financed by taxpayers. Every project ran into financial difficulty. More than half went into foreclosure, a Chicago Sun-Times investigation has found.
"Their buildings were falling apart,'' said a former city official. "They just didn't pay attention to the condition of these buildings.''
Eleven of Rezko's buildings were in Obama's state Senate district.
What about a story of how his campaign played the racial-stereotypes of Indians and circulated an anonymous memo? (News Post India)
Obama's team circulated what was purported to be an analysis of 'Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)'s Personal Financial And Political Ties To India'.
The title had an apparent reference to a joke that Clinton once made during a fund-raiser in a Sikh supporter's home that she can run for a Senate seat from Punjab and win easily.
The document circulated to news organisations - with the not-for-attribution proviso - referred to the Clintons' investment in India and Hillary Clinton's fund-raising efforts among Indian Americans.
The Clintons have reaped significant financial rewards from their relationship with the Indian community, both in their personal finances and Hillary's campaign fundraising, it alleged.
Hillary Clinton, who is the co-chair of the Senate India Caucus, has drawn criticism from anti-offshoring groups for her vocal support of Indian business and unwillingness to protect American jobs, it said.
How about that Ben Smith? How about that Carl Hulse of NYT? Let's see some stories done on these. Call them for what they are bigotry, race-baiting, and racial stereotyping...the trifecta. I wait (and only expect silence).
What galls me is shielded behind these lies and fabrications and reports of false outrage a candidate with nothing substantive to offer is getting forced upon us. I would like to see some balance in reporting. I would like to see all candidates get the same treatment and if the media cannot do so, then they should at least be fair and not fabricate their stories and report them as facts.
UPDATE:
Even on this blog people cannot help but use sensational and inflammatory headings to get noticed. Examples in the last few hours:
ON BEING THE GOOD NEGRO
Bill Clinton and his Hideous Racist Bile
My Hip Black Friend
Blitzer: You are a Racist if you don't Vote Obama
Maybe sensationalizing is human nature. Maybe we all revel in race-baiting. How can we blame the media when we propagate their dirty work?