Top Leaderboard, Site wide
July 30, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates








Truthdig Bazaar
Boom!

Boom!

Tom Brokaw

more items

 
A/V Booth

Olbermann: Ferraro Sounds Like David Duke

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Mar 13, 2008
Olbermann

Keith Olbermann usually reserves his scorn for the likes of George W. Bush, but, he says, “events insist” that he offer one of his “special comments” to Hillary Clinton over what he says appears to be a pattern of prejudice among her surrogates.

The “Countdown” host begins by offering a disclaimer: He owes his gratitude to the Clintons and this is not to be taken as an endorsement of Barack Obama. And then the gloves come off.

Even though Olbermann is a commentator by trade and Ferraro’s comments clearly struck a national nerve, it’s a bit surprising to see him speaking so frankly and so harshly about the Clinton campaign.

(h/t: The Largest Minority)

Watch it:

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By bert, March 15, 2008 at 1:49 pm Link to this comment

You write:  “But, they’ve been packaged into a deadly virus, so that now we have people spinning it into anything they can…witness the comment below from Chalmers…claiming that Obama is now dumping his wife.”

I cannot speak for Douglas Chalmers, so I really should’t try. (aplogies in advance, Mr. Chalmers)

But I think he meant that tongue in cheek.

Report this

By Maani, March 15, 2008 at 1:46 pm Link to this comment

Cyrena:

“The big ‘to do’ over Rev. Wright, and the comments that he made between 4 and 6 years ago, that nobody was saying anything about, (since Obama wasn’t around when he made them) until much later, when it all came together in yet another part of the package effort to destroy him.”

As usual, your sense of time is skewed, if not dishonest.  Obama himself admits that he joined Trinity “20 years ago.”  He also says that Wright “recently delivered his last sermon in preparation for retirement.”

This tells me that Obama was, in fact, at Trinity when Wright preached his sermons and/or made his comments.  Obama may claim that he was not “in the room” when Wright preached those sermons and/or made those comments.  But to suggest that he did not KNOW about them - as a 20-year member of the church, and as someone for whom wright was serving as “spiritual advisor” - stretches credibility WAY beyond its limits.

Indeed, for Obama to have put Wright on his African American Religious leadership Committee in the first place was clearly a mistake, knowing at very least how controversial Wright was, and, more likely, at least some, if not all, of the things Wright has said.

As an aside, one statement by Wright that has not been quoted is his comment on the Natalee Holloway case, the woman who was apparently raped and murdered in Aruba.  Here is Wright’s very “spiritually” senstive comment: “Black women are being raped daily in Africa. One white girl from Alabama gets drunk at a graduation trip to Aruba, goes off and gives it up while in a foreign country and that stays in the news for months.”

Wright has been making these kinds of comments CONSISTENTLY over many years - he did not just happen to stop doing so in 2002, or 2003, or 2004.  And Obama has been a member of his church for TWENTY years.

As as aside, the Rezko trial continues, with Obama now admitting that he took even MORE money from Rezko than he had claimed - after FIRST claiming, in front of millions of people at a televised debate - that his “only” association with Rezko was “5 hours” spent as a “junior attorney” on “one case.”

You need to take off the Barack-tinted spectacles and see that your candidate has shown INCREDIBLY bad judgment FAR more often than he has claimed or his supporters acknowledge, and can be just as disingenuous and politically expedient as any other candidate.

And his lies, obfuscation, dissembling and spin are causing him to self-destruct.

Peace.

Report this

By bert, March 15, 2008 at 1:45 pm Link to this comment

It wasn’t just Sean Hannity putting it out there. There were several reporters who wrote articles on the matter. But our ever growing sense of political correctness and lack of real investigative journalism by the MSM it never got much traction. And the few reporters who tried to bring it up got slammed by the MSM with charges that this was just negative campaigning by Hillary, her surrogates, or her supporters.

That is until Brian Ross of ABC News. It was just as easy as going to the church website and buying the videos and then watching and listening to Wright’s words.

Report this

By bert, March 15, 2008 at 1:29 pm Link to this comment

New Jersey Sen Jon Corzine- Rep Rush Holt- Rep Robert Menendez- Rep Frank Pallone, Jr- Rep Donald Payne

New Mexico Sen Jeff Bingaman- Rep Tom Udall

New York Rep Maurice Hinchey- Rep Amo Houghton- Rep John LaFalce- Rep Gregory Meeks- Rep Jerrold Nadler- Rep Major Owens- Rep Charles Rangel- Rep Jose Serrano- Rep Louise Slaughter- Rep Edolphus Towns- Rep Nydia Velaquez

North Carolina Rep Eva Clayton- Rep David Price- Rep Melvin Watt

North Dakota Sen Kent Conrad

Ohio Rep Sharrod Brown- Rep Stephanie Tubbs Jones- Rep Marcy Kaptur- Rep Dennis Kucinich- Rep Thomas Sawyer- Rep Ted Strickland

Oregon Sen Ron Wyden- Rep Earl Blumenauer- Rep Peter DeFazio- Rep Darlene Hooley- Rep David Wu

Pennsylvania Rep Robert Brady- Rep William Coyne- Rep Mike Doyle- Rep Chaka Fattah

Rhode Island Sen Lincoln Chaffee- Sen Jack Reed- Rep James Langevin

South Carolina Rep Gresham Barrett- Rep James Clyburn

Tennessee Rep John Duncan, Jr

Texas Rep Lloyd Doggett- Rep Charles Gonzalez- Rep Ruben Hinojosa- Rep Sheila Jackson-Lee- Rep Eddie Bernice Johnson- Rep Ron Paul- Rep Silvestre Reyes- Rep Ciro Rodriguez

Vermont Sen Jim Jeffords- Sen Patrick Leahy- Rep Bernie Sanders

Virginia Rep Jim Moran- Rep Bobby Scott

Washington Sen Patty Murray- Rep Jay Inslee- Rep Rick Larsen- Rep Jim McDermott

Washington DC Rep Brian Baird

West Virginia Sen Robert Byrd- Rep Alan Mollohan- Rep Nick Rahall

Wisconsin Sen Russ Feingold- Rep Tammy Baldwin- Rep Jerry Kleczka- Rep David Obey

Report this

By bert, March 15, 2008 at 1:28 pm Link to this comment

Organized by State
For your convenience, a list, organized by state, of the 156 members of Congress who voted, on October 11, 2002, NAY to the War in Iraq.
——————————
Alabama Rep Earl Hilliard

Arizona Rep Ed Pastor

Arkansas Rep Vic Snyder

California Sen Barbara Boxer- Rep Joe Baca- Rep Xavier Becerra- Rep Lois Capps- Rep Gary Condit- Rep Susan Davis- Rep Anna Eshoo- Rep Sam Farr- Rep Bob Filner- Rep Mike Honda- Rep Barbara Lee- Rep Zoe Lofgren- the late Rep Robert Matsui- Rep Juanita Millender-McDonald- Rep George Miller- Rep Grace Napolitano- Rep Nancy Pelosi- Rep Lucille Roybal-Allard- Rep Loretta Sanchez- Rep Hilda Solis- Rep Pete Stark- Rep Mike Thompson- Rep Maxine Waters- Rep Diane Watson- Rep Lynn Woolsey

Colorado Rep Diana DeGette- Rep Mark Udall

Connecticut Rep Rosa DeLaura- Rep John Larson- Rep James Maloney

Florida Sen Bob Graham- Rep Corinne Brown- Rep Alice Hastings- Rep Carrie Meek

Georgia Rep John Lewis- Rep Cynthia McKinney

Hawaii Sen Daniel Akaka- Sen Daniel Inouye- Rep Neil Abercrombie

Illinois Sen Dick Durbin- Rep Jerry Costello- Rep Danny Davis- Rep Lane Evans- Rep Luis Gutierrez Rep Jesse Jackson, Jr- Rep Bill Lipinski- Sen Bobby Rush- Rep Jan Schakowsky

Indiana Rep Julia Carson- Rep John Hostettler- Rep Pete Viscloskey

Iowa Rep Jim Leach

Maine Rep Tom Allen- Rep John Baldacci

Maryland Sen Barbara Mikulski- Sen Paul Sarbanes- Rep Benjamin Cardin- Rep Elijah Cummings- Rep Connie Morella

Massachusetts Sen Ted Kennedy- Rep Michael Capuano- Rep Bill Delahunt- Rep Barney Frank- Rep Jim McGovern- Rep Richard Neal- Rep John Olver- Rep John Tierney

Michigan Sen Carl Levin- Sen Debbie Stabenow- Rep David Bonior- Rep John Conyers, Jr- Rep John Dingell- Rep Dale Kildee- Rep Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick- Rep Sandy Levin- Rep Lynn Rivers- Rep Burt Stupak

Minnesota Sen Mark Dayton- the late Sen Paul Wellstone- Rep Betty McCollum- Rep Jim Oberstar- Rep Martin Olav Sabo

Mississippi Rep Bennie Thompson

Missouri Rep William Clay, Jr- Rep Karen McCarthy

Report this

By bert, March 15, 2008 at 1:26 pm Link to this comment

Organized by State
For your convenience, a list, organized by state, of the 156 members of Congress who voted, on October 11, 2002, NAY to the War in Iraq.
——————————
Alabama Rep Earl Hilliard

Arizona Rep Ed Pastor

Arkansas Rep Vic Snyder

California Sen Barbara Boxer- Rep Joe Baca- Rep Xavier Becerra- Rep Lois Capps- Rep Gary Condit- Rep Susan Davis- Rep Anna Eshoo- Rep Sam Farr- Rep Bob Filner- Rep Mike Honda- Rep Barbara Lee- Rep Zoe Lofgren- the late Rep Robert Matsui- Rep Juanita Millender-McDonald- Rep George Miller- Rep Grace Napolitano- Rep Nancy Pelosi- Rep Lucille Roybal-Allard- Rep Loretta Sanchez- Rep Hilda Solis- Rep Pete Stark- Rep Mike Thompson- Rep Maxine Waters- Rep Diane Watson- Rep Lynn Woolsey

Colorado Rep Diana DeGette- Rep Mark Udall

Connecticut Rep Rosa DeLaura- Rep John Larson- Rep James Maloney

Florida Sen Bob Graham- Rep Corinne Brown- Rep Alice Hastings- Rep Carrie Meek

Georgia Rep John Lewis- Rep Cynthia McKinney

Hawaii Sen Daniel Akaka- Sen Daniel Inouye- Rep Neil Abercrombie

Illinois Sen Dick Durbin- Rep Jerry Costello- Rep Danny Davis- Rep Lane Evans- Rep Luis Gutierrez Rep Jesse Jackson, Jr- Rep Bill Lipinski- Sen Bobby Rush- Rep Jan Schakowsky

Indiana Rep Julia Carson- Rep John Hostettler- Rep Pete Viscloskey

Iowa Rep Jim Leach

Maine Rep Tom Allen- Rep John Baldacci

Maryland Sen Barbara Mikulski- Sen Paul Sarbanes- Rep Benjamin Cardin- Rep Elijah Cummings- Rep Connie Morella

Massachusetts Sen Ted Kennedy- Rep Michael Capuano- Rep Bill Delahunt- Rep Barney Frank- Rep Jim McGovern- Rep Richard Neal- Rep John Olver- Rep John Tierney

Michigan Sen Carl Levin- Sen Debbie Stabenow- Rep David Bonior- Rep John Conyers, Jr- Rep John Dingell- Rep Dale Kildee- Rep Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick- Rep Sandy Levin- Rep Lynn Rivers- Rep Burt Stupak

Minnesota Sen Mark Dayton- the late Sen Paul Wellstone- Rep Betty McCollum- Rep Jim Oberstar- Rep Martin Olav Sabo

Mississippi Rep Bennie Thompson

Missouri Rep William Clay, Jr- Rep Karen McCarthy

New Jersey Sen Jon Corzine- Rep Rush Holt- Rep Robert Menendez- Rep Frank Pallone, Jr- Rep Donald Payne

New Mexico Sen Jeff Bingaman- Rep Tom Udall

New York Rep Maurice Hinchey- Rep Amo Houghton- Rep John LaFalce- Rep Gregory Meeks- Rep Jerrold Nadler- Rep Major Owens- Rep Charles Rangel- Rep Jose Serrano- Rep Louise Slaughter- Rep Edolphus Towns- Rep Nydia Velaquez

North Carolina Rep Eva Clayton- Rep David Price- Rep Melvin Watt

North Dakota Sen Kent Conrad

Ohio Rep Sharrod Brown (Now Ohio US Senateor)- Rep Stephanie Tubbs Jones- Rep Marcy Kaptur- Rep Dennis Kucinich- Rep Thomas Sawyer- Rep Ted Strickland (now Givernor of OH)

Oregon Sen Ron Wyden- Rep Earl Blumenauer- Rep Peter DeFazio- Rep Darlene Hooley- Rep David Wu

Pennsylvania Rep Robert Brady- Rep William Coyne- Rep Mike Doyle- Rep Chaka Fattah

Rhode Island Sen Lincoln Chaffee- Sen Jack Reed- Rep James Langevin

South Carolina Rep Gresham Barrett- Rep James Clyburn

Tennessee Rep John Duncan, Jr

Texas Rep Lloyd Doggett- Rep Charles Gonzalez- Rep Ruben Hinojosa- Rep Sheila Jackson-Lee- Rep Eddie Bernice Johnson- Rep Ron Paul- Rep Silvestre Reyes- Rep Ciro Rodriguez

Vermont Sen Jim Jeffords- Sen Patrick Leahy- Rep Bernie Sanders

Virginia Rep Jim Moran- Rep Bobby Scott

Washington Sen Patty Murray- Rep Jay Inslee- Rep Rick Larsen- Rep Jim McDermott

Washington DC Rep Brian Baird

West Virginia Sen Robert Byrd- Rep Alan Mollohan- Rep Nick Rahall

Wisconsin Sen Russ Feingold- Rep Tammy Baldwin- Rep Jerry Kleczka- Rep David Obey

Report this

By bert, March 15, 2008 at 1:24 pm Link to this comment

You write:  “Anyway, Barbara Lee was, (if I’m not mistaken, and you can double check the house record vote for accuracy) the only member of Congress who is still in Congress, who voted against the authorization to blast Iraq. There were a couple of others, (like Cynthia McKinney) but she’s been blasted out as a result of speaking up.”

You know, sometimes your stupidity is just appalling. But then again, most stupidity is.

In another post I will send a complte list of the 156 members of Congress who voted against the Iraq war. (Too many characters to go through one post on this blog.)

And just a cursory glance through the list will show you that more than just one member of Congress that voted against the war is still in the Congress - a lot more.

You know Cyrena, it is stuff like this that tends to make me not belive what you write so often.

The source for this list is U S Liberal Politics.

Report this

By cyrena, March 15, 2008 at 1:11 pm Link to this comment

bert,

I don’t think you’ll find it under ‘terrorist preacher’  since that’s a bit too blatant even for the Hillary team.

I’ll see if I can search find it for you, but basically, it’s all the media is talking about, as you’ve even talked about it yourself. The big ‘to do’ over Rev. Wright, and the comments that he made between 4 and 6 years ago, that nobody was saying anything about, (since Obama wasn’t around when he made them) until much later, when it all came together in yet another part of the package effort to destroy him.

In other words, the comments that are now screeching thru the atmosphere, made by Rev. Wright, are comments that he’s made years ago, that nobody outside of his congregation would have even noticed. (including Barack, since he wasn’t there at the time)

But, they’ve been packaged into a deadly virus, so that now we have people spinning it into anything they can…witness the comment below from Chalmers…claiming that Obama is now dumping his wife.

Of course if one bothers to read through it, we get the sick connection. But, how many people will? And, of course that’s what people like chalmers do.

For instance, I just read an article about the alleged capture of the ‘number one al-Qaeda’ operative…AGAIN. They’ve caught at least 3 #4’s and a couple of #3’s and and at least 5 #2’s in the past 6 years, but now they say they have #1, and have him locked up at Gitmo.

Now that’s what the article is about. But if you read the comment section, the last 15 comments are attacks on Obama, and one of them even makes the accusation that he and his wife and his kids were ‘laughing on 9/11’. (I swear…that’s what it says)

Now of course Barak Obamas oldest daughter would have been around 2 years old at the time of the 9/11 attacks, and the younger one was BORN in 2001, so if she was ‘laughing’ on that day, it probably wasn’t about the attacks.

THAT’S the kind of stuff that is swirling through the ignorant masses.

So, the Terrorist Preacher ad is just one of many things that have sprung from the Hillary smear camp, and I’m sure it isn’t labeled as such.

Report this

By bert, March 15, 2008 at 1:03 pm Link to this comment

Cyrena writes: “Comments Barack didn’t even KNOW about, until he started running for president.”

Does Obama honestly expect the nation to believe that for 20+ years at a dollar support level of about $20,000 per year according Obama, he didn’t notice the anti-American rhetoric? I mean, does somebody seriously believe that in over 800 potential Sunday visits, it never once came up, no one ever mentioned it to him?

THAT STRAINS CREDIBILITY !!!!!

“I would — do not repudiate the man,” Obama told Olbermann in his interview with him last night. Yet so many on this site say that Hillary should repudiate Ferraro and that Ferraro should apologize. Is this the old hood wink and bamboozle double standard?

Newsmax.com has an article written by a Mr.Jim Davis who attended one of Wright’s services WHILE OBAMA WAS THERE last July 22, 2007 with his Secret Service detail.

Mr. Davis says:

“Presidential candidate Barack Obama preaches on the campaign trail that America needs a new consensus based on faith and bipartisanship, yet he continues to attend a controversial Chicago church whose pastor routinely refers to “white arrogance” and “the United States of White America.”

In fact, Obama was in attendance at the church when these statements were made on July 22…..............Obama was not the only national African-American figure to cozy up to Wright. TV host Oprah Winfrey once described herself as a congregant, but in recent years has disassociated herself from the controversial minister.

A visit to Wright’s Trinity United is anything but Oprah-style friendly.

As I approached the entrance of the church before a recent Sunday service, a large young man in an expensive suit stepped out to block the doorway.

“What are you doing here?” he asked.

“I came to hear Dr. Wright,” I replied.

After an uncomfortable pause, the gentleman stepped aside.

On this particular July Sabbath morning, only a handful of white men — aside from a few members of Obama’s Secret Service detail — were present among a congregation of approximately 2,500 people.”

Cyrena, I would humbly suggest you do a web search and find all of Mr. Wright’s speeches that ABC News found. Most are on you tube by this time. Wright’s rants against Jews are appalling. He has the right to say and believe what he wants. Free speech and all that.

But when a Presidential candidate has a close and personal relationship and friendship with a man who has said these things, it has to give one pause. AT THE VERY LEAST.

Report this

By cyrena, March 15, 2008 at 12:52 pm Link to this comment

Well Patrick Henry,

We definitely agree on this. It’s ALL diversion. But ya know, it’s been diversion for over 7 years now, and we only know what the media wants us to know.

Now, I was just reading something that Barbara Lee has introduced into the legislature, and I can’t even remember now, exactly what it is…since all of this stuff is running together for me right about now.

But, your comment about Ron Paul reminded me of the fact that there IS stuff going on, and a handful (or maybe more) people who actually ARE working at things, even though we don’t hear about it.

Anyway, Barbara Lee was, (if I’m not mistaken, and you can double check the house record vote for accuracy) the only member of Congress who is still in Congress, who voted against the authorization to blast Iraq. There were a couple of others, (like Cynthia McKinney) but she’s been blasted out as a result of speaking up.

But, I’ve ‘heard’ that Ron Paul also voted against it originally, and I don’t know for sure, if that is the case.

At any rate, whatever Barbara Lee has put up recently is somehow connected. She’s been on that OUT of Iraq coalition since we first got there. I’ll see if I can find out what this latest is, and I’ll let you know. I know that whatever it is - is ‘non-binding’ so it may not amount to much, but it’s something.

Report this

By bert, March 15, 2008 at 12:31 pm Link to this comment

“And wasn’t it shortly after that Hillary said thank you and came out with a strong repudiation of Ferraro?”

And where exactly did you hear or read this. Source? Link? I can’t find one.

Report this

By bert, March 15, 2008 at 12:23 pm Link to this comment

“...their new “Terrorist Preacher” ad buy at MSNBC,...”

I just googled this twice and came up with nothing.

Could you please source your reference or provide a link.

Report this

By cwhipps, March 15, 2008 at 11:54 am Link to this comment

The Clinton campaign had it coming. Along with their new “Terrorist Preacher” ad buy at MSNBC, the Clinton’s need to be shown for who they are: DLC corporate shills. Now that they have failed to win the nomination, (and it’s a mathmatical certainty Obama is the nominee as long as we’re still using the same rules the contest started out with) the Clintons have only one recourse in securing the White House for BIG BUSINESS: destroy Obama.

What else explains their attempts to separate the largest and most loyal base from the Democrats in 2008?

Qui bono?

Follow the money.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, March 15, 2008 at 11:51 am Link to this comment

NEWSFLASH: OBAMA SACKS WIFE MICHELLE!!!

”...it is the inversion of the line “God Bless America” that may expose Obama to the greatest criticism. Last month, his wife,  Michelle, was criticised by rightwing blogs and indirectly by the Republican nominee, John McCain, for saying she had not been proud of being an American for most of her adult life.

“I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies.” Obama said on Friday.

Additionally, we are back to Obama’s covert “age-ism” ploys again in indirectly referring to HRC:-

In a meeting with Jewish leaders in Cleveland earlier this month, Obama compared Wright to an “old uncle” who said disagreeable things. He went on to add: “I suspect there are some of the people in this room who have heard relatives say some things that they don’t agree with, including, on occasion, directed at African Americans.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/14/barackobama.uselections2008

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, March 15, 2008 at 11:44 am Link to this comment

Obama….  said he knew Wright as a former Marine and respected biblical scholar who lectured at seminaries across the country. He explained that he joined Wright’s church, Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, nearly 20 years ago…..

“Reverend Wright preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my life,” he wrote. “... And the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor and to seek justice at every turn.”......

Obama wrote on the Huffington Post that he never heard Wright say any of the statements that are “so contrary to my own life and beliefs”, but they have raised legitimate questions about the nature of his relationship with the pastor and the church… http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/14/barackobama.uselections2008

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, March 15, 2008 at 11:36 am Link to this comment

Oh, wasn’t there “a black kettle” (or pot) in that traditional African attire picture of Obama?

Oops, I said “African”....... that could be construed as re ferring to “black ” or to…....

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, March 15, 2008 at 11:32 am Link to this comment

Iraq is inconsequential. You’ll soon all see why, uhh….....

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, March 15, 2008 at 11:31 am Link to this comment

You go away….....

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, March 15, 2008 at 11:00 am Link to this comment

These devisive politics going into the general election only keep Americans eye off the ball by having us talk about anything other than ending our envolvement in Iraq and the middle east in general.

I could give a shit what Ferraro or Wright has to say, they’re inconsequential.  Its the media driven bullshit that makes these losers words devisive.

It comes down to general election day, whose names remain on the ballot and my choice.

I hope Ron Pauls name is on that ballot.

Report this

By cyrena, March 15, 2008 at 10:51 am Link to this comment

Louise,

Thanks for the link to the interview. It was excellent.

Thanks for the response to Maani as well. I admit I thought is was a dumb question.

Because..who DOESN’T watch Olbermann?

I don’t even watch TV, but I ALWAYS track down any of Olbermann’s special comments.

Now, I didn’t know that Hillary had said ‘thank you’. (was that to Olbermann?) And, I didn’t even hear her make any strong repudiation of Ferraro. What I heard was basically sort of a ‘well, she’s not leading my finance committee any longer’.

But, maybe that was in the interpretation, and I could have been just really annoyed at that point. And, that might not be such a fair assessment on my part, because it came on the heels of an article entitled ‘Hillary apologizes to black voters’.

Based on the title alone, I was already annoyed when I read the article. Just BLACK VOTERS she was apologizing to? What the hell? The thing was an insult to ALL Americans. What’s up with the ‘apologizes to black voters’ thing?

So, see how just a title of an article can get somebody off on the wrong track? Especially if their already pretty pissed off about the whole thing anyway?

And now they’ve forced Obama to formally ‘repudiate’ some comments made by his pastor -OVER 6 YEARS AGO-!!

Comments Barack didn’t even KNOW about, until he started running for president. To hear people talk about this stuff, ya would have thought Wright made the comments last week, and that Obama helped him write the sermon!!

Then, once I actually READ the comments, and saw the video, which were a combination of comments that Wright made after 9/11, and then some other about 4 years ago, I realized that in context, and in their entirety, the comments are very similar to statements I’ve MADE MYSELF!!

Now since I’m not a particularly religious person, I wouldn’t have suggested that God had or should damn America. But there’s not much doubt in my mind that America under the Dick Bush regime is not a particularly ‘blessed’ society.

So, if God hasn’t ‘damned us’ (and I don’t believe that god has) then who else is responsible? Rev. Wright was blaming it on ‘the government’, but I might have been willing to go so far as to call out some names…Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Wolfowitz…you get my point…

Anyway, here we are, now that Hillary has apologize and all, bashing Obama into making HIM apologize for stuff his pastor said several years ago, which actually happens to be mostly true!!

Go figure.

Report this

By bert, March 15, 2008 at 10:45 am Link to this comment

Doug Chalmers: You are right. I did not comment on the sexism charge you also raised. That was mostly due to the fact htta I was incensed at all the charges of racism and racist being thrown around on the thread. I over looked that.

I have raised the sexisy and misogynist issues in this campaign many times on this blog and others, especially as regards MSNBC, which I now call Misognyost Sexist National (little boys) Mens Club, (no women allowed.)

In fact, I did so in an earlier post on this thread this morning.

Report this

By bert, March 15, 2008 at 10:35 am Link to this comment

Louise:  I am tempted to say that your post is a case of the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. But I am afraid of saying that becasue I use the word “black,” and I am sure you will find a way to spin and twist it into a racist statement and slur on Obama.

Report this

By bert, March 15, 2008 at 10:30 am Link to this comment

Frank Have you ever heard of Samantha Power?

Report this

By bert, March 15, 2008 at 10:25 am Link to this comment

leefeller:

If only that were true. It is majot with our opponents on the conservative left. Thire blogs are all full of it.

In a provocative recent essay for the New Republic’s Web site, Princeton historian Sean Wilentz coined the phrase “the delusional style in American punditry.” He applied it to Obama’s fans in the American press. His argument is that certain journalists are so enthralled by the sheer Obama-ness of Obama that they are willing to overlook everything they know about the fundamental value of experience.

I have done some more reserach about this story, this time on conservative and right leaning blogs. It was the lead or #1 story on many of them. I can get links if you wish. I have more than just these few. For now I will just post some of the headlines and where I found them.

FOX
‘Inflammatory, Appalling’
Obama denounces pastor’s sermons
Pastor once was Obama’s spiritual mentor, but now the Democratic candidate is rejecting his ‘appalling’ sermons

DOUG ROSE
Doug Ross @ Journal
Saturday, March 15, 2008
The Audacity of Opacity


VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY
“If your opponent is quick to anger, seek to irritate him.”
Obamessiah Blasphemy!

LiMBAUGH
Barack Obama and Pastor Wright:
Far More Than Guilt by Association

Tell Us Which Pastor Wright Sermons You Agree With, Senator


Just what part of this stuff shaped your views?


Where’s the Sunshine and Hope?

MARK STEYN
Uncle Jeremiah
Barack Obama and his cookie-cutter race huckster.

RAH COMMENT ON THESE HEADLINES:
The R smear machine has begun to geer up for the Nov. election.

Report this

By Louise, March 15, 2008 at 10:19 am Link to this comment

Friends tell friends when they need a shower.
If you stink and you don’t know it, could mean losing your date or your next job, or the shirt that carries the odor.

Friends tell friends when they need a shower.
Just holding their nose and excusing themselves from the room isn’t enough.

Keith Olbermann, like a true friend let Hillary know time for a shower. And wasn’t it shortly after that Hillary said thank you and came out with a strong repudiation of Ferraro?

So seems to me all you Hillary supporters, rather than bashing Olbermann should thank him as well.

Unless of course you fall into that group of so-called Hillary supporters who see this as a negative opportunity:

“In defense of the charge that we are racist, we have discovered an excellent way to introduce racism into the campaign without sounding racist.” wink

***

Maani, March 14 at 7:55 am:

“Does anyone really believe that MSNBC would permit Olbermann to deliver this speech - taking up 10 minutes of precious airtime - if the station itself did not have an agenda?  Do you think employees like Olbermann are autonomous?”

***

Yes actually, I do. Olbermann makes MSNBC a great deal of money. In fact, if they could get MORE than ten minutes out of one of his moments of anger, they would probably love too!

Shouldn’t be to hard to figure out. I mean who DOESN’T watch him? Especially when mainstreammedia gives an advance heads-up on a “comment” coming soon? And how would they know to do that if the information wasn’t coming from MSNBC?

So yes, there is an agenda, and that’s it. Olbermann makes MSNBC a great deal of money.

And thank goodness he does, or we would all be deprived of a voice that speaks up when the feeling moves him. And that’s important to remember, because Olbermann doesn’t wake up every morning and ask himself who shall I attack today? Rather he attacks an issue or person, when an issue or person makes him angry!

When you think about it that’s probably why he resonates so positive with some people. Because he is not contrived.

You might find this interesting. An interview with Olbermann, by one of the few really good interviewers still around!

Bill Moyers talks with MSNBC host Keith Olbermann.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/12142007/transcript1.html

Report this

By bert, March 15, 2008 at 10:17 am Link to this comment

leefeller - At the time I posted I had not heard the news. About 15 minutes after I posted I saw the news and learned that he had resigned.

Report this

By Liza, March 15, 2008 at 10:15 am Link to this comment

Well, as long as we are looking into what Obama’s minister has said, what about his grocer, his dry cleaner, his doctors, his fifth grade teacher, and so on?  Leave no stone unturned.

I’m not sure of everything my pastor has said and I sure as hell do not want to be judged based on that.

Report this

By bert, March 15, 2008 at 10:15 am Link to this comment

It may be about the war fot you Mike, but it is not for the average voter out there right now. Iraq has fallen to #2 or #3 (depending on poll) on issues that will affect how Americans will vote in Nov.

I have said it before and I will say ot again its the economy stupid!

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 15, 2008 at 9:45 am Link to this comment

Check out Obama’s comments and I listened to Wright on Huffington post. It may still be available.  You are several days late, it is already old news. By the way Wright was on Obama’s campaign committee, but no longer.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, March 15, 2008 at 9:40 am Link to this comment

By bert, March 15: “Resignation of Rev. Wright ....In his sermons Wright reportedly refers to America as being under the influence of the Ku Klux Klan and describes black Republicans as sell-outs…”

Interesting stuff, bert, and thanks for mentioning it. Obviously, there is a lot of water yet to pass under the bridge in respect of peoples’ feelings in non-white USA. The precious politically-correct ranting garbage of the Olbermanss has only served to avoid confronting these unpleasanrt realities.

Pity that Obama has then turned and denounced his own spiritual leader in such a fashion. It says something about not being a black man’s black man, uhh. Its all very well having a brown sking but sucking up to the white establishment merely in order to get into the power base.

Hypocritically referring to wright’s statements as ” disparage(ing) our great country” is a real disappointment and what did Obama mean by “divide(ing) us from our allies”???

Quote Reverend Jeremiah Wright: “The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America’. No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people,” he said in a 2003 sermon which was reviewed by ABC television.

“God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”

The strong language and the accusations of racism have proved embarrassing to Obama, who has based his candidacy on a message of (false) unity…. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/14/barackobama.uselections2008

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 15, 2008 at 9:34 am Link to this comment

Then why didn’t you just say Uncle Toms Cabin then?

Sexism is you baby Douge, you keep bringing it up.  Now I have only refered to Hillary as a monster, I have never called her a bitch or worse, because it is sexist.

You talk of Hillary’s being a woman,  as if this makes her something special.  The baggage the Clintons bring to the table, they bring on them selves is with relish is disgusting, but especially Bill using his position to gain favors or even demand them from women.  Add the follow up smearing campaign by both the Clinton’s attacking these women after the fact is must heinous.  Hillary shows a coldness not compassion nor integrity, the all so forgotten past has proven that. Indiscretions by Bill, covered up by smearing the women seems sexist to me, Hillary should take wo in woman, her attacking and smearing her sisters in order to support and keep power is what they did and continue in other ways today.

Report this

By bert, March 15, 2008 at 9:31 am Link to this comment

Leefeller: It is only a major story in your mind Bert.


If only that were true.

It isn’t and won’t be to millions of voters in November. Wake up before McCain wins the White House and 3 Supremes!

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, March 15, 2008 at 9:23 am Link to this comment

Back and forth, ha ha!

First the “tradition attire” picture - then the Samantha Power debacle…..

Geraldine Ferraro’s comments - then the poor Rev. Wright…....

On and on…...

Re Truthdig, they go to sleep over a joint late at night in the office, uhh. So much empty space at the bottom of their front page….

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 15, 2008 at 9:19 am Link to this comment

It is only a major story in your mind Bert.

Report this

By bert, March 15, 2008 at 9:10 am Link to this comment

WHERE IS THE ARTICLE/HEADLINE ON REV. WRIGHT’S RESIGNATION WITH ACCOMPANYING VIDEO?????????????

Below is a letter I just sent to Truth Dig regarding the blog’s ignoring of a major story and controversy about Barak Obama’s campaign.

Plus I just did some research of other major blogs and SURPRISE !!!!! SURPRISE !!!! No headlines, and few mentions of this scandal.

HiffPo’s headline is about the rise in gas and groceries. About half way down the front page is Obama’s comments about his church.

Salon’s lead article is on global warming. However it still has at the top of its secondary headlines an article that says Ferraro needs to apologize.

Slates headline is an article on Israel and about one-third of the way down on the elfy hand side in Blogs is a title, “The First Rule of Obama,” which does have a section on Wright. But no headline.

Of course, as mentioned earlier there is NOTHING here at Truth Dig. I guess there philosophy is we only dig fro truth if it is negative about Hillary and puts down women.

Over at Politico the headline is Obama’s admission (FINALLY) that Rezko’s role has been bigger than previously admitted. And in the seconadary headlines there is a sroty about Wright.

News Hounds does report that FOX covered the story.

If it isn’t apparent by now that the media is biased against Hillary’s campaign and all ga-ga about Obama’s it should be by now. Andanyone who denies this is just living in denial.

MY LETTER To TRUTH DIG
Dear Sir/Madam:

I was shocked to see that Truth Dig did not have a blaring headline story this morning on Obama’s spiritual advisor’s resignation last night.

If this had been a Hillary story I am sure there would have been a blast on the Hillary campaign. You all would have burned the midnight oil to make sure your adoring Hillary hating and hate spewing attack dogs had new fodder to write more venom on Hillary today.

Why is this? The old Bamboozling and hoodwinking? Or is it just the good old double standard and standard operating procedure for the misogynist sexist attitude that appears to be so rampant at Truth Dig?

Report this

By bert, March 15, 2008 at 8:48 am Link to this comment

Mike Mid City

You need to slow down and take a deep breath and then go back and reread what I wrote. If you still do not understand what I was saying then you need to take a remedial reading Class.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, March 15, 2008 at 8:35 am Link to this comment

“Legaists only want change within their own precious system…”

Sorry about the error - I meant “Legalist”

And, thanks for all the interesting comments…. LOL

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, March 15, 2008 at 8:30 am Link to this comment

By bert, March 14: “...I am white. I have blue eyes, etc. Identifying me that way is not racist…”

Its naive for you to assume that profiling you somehow has no racial undertones, bert. It does bot you are unaware of it. In an Anglo society, it may go unnoticed these days but once there was profiling of the Irish and the Scottish as well - and particularly Catholics.  Anglo doesn’t mean “British” and the migrations to USA, Canada, South Africa and Australia in the past were also of many people in Britain wanting to get away from the overbearing English.

But, when I described Barack Obama as “conventional”, I was essentially referring to him being a professor of (white man’s) law. There is nothing more conventional or pro-establishment than that as a mentality regardless of any personal diversions relating to the individual. It was NOT intended as “a compliment” as it is the status quo in all its aspects which is preventing real “change” or progress and always has. Legaists only want change within their own precious system - and only ever to their own advantage!

Nor was anything I said about Obama or anyone else being “black” any kind of misunderstanding. I am not against black people or any other color ar ethnicity. As I had to point out to cyrena recently, I am not an Anglo either even if I am “white”. But there is also a world of color and ethnicity outside of the USA and attitudes and feelings there are molded somewhat differently than Amercians of color (particularly African-Americans) seem to think.

These are all uncomfortable truths but that is something Americans have to address, not me. Judge me as you will but the problem remains yours. I don’t believe that you can change peoples’ behaviour without changing their minds to some degree, though, bert. The prison system is what has been designed to change peoples’ behaviour without any regard for their minds or feelings, if you want an example.

By the way, I note that “The Macquarie Dictionary” is Australian…... but I also notice that not one person commenting on my post has in any way referred to the topic of sexism which I had raised. Thus, you are all still effectively dodging the point within your own selves, uhh. Like Olbermann, you have all been loud but the essential truth is still yet to be addressed.

Report this

By bert, March 15, 2008 at 8:20 am Link to this comment

Obama’s Flip-Flop on Iraq

******Before the war (March or April 2003) spoke out against it in his safe IL Senate district at the even safer university setting. IOW, no booing crowd there. Real courage to speak out there - NOT

Now fast forward to July 2004

*******Boston Globe day after Obama’s speech to Democratic Convention

In July of 2004, the day after his speech at the Democratic convention catapulted him into the national spotlight, Barack Obama told a group of reporters in Boston that the United States had an “absolute obligation” to remain in Iraq long enough to make it a “success.”

“The failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster,” he said at a lunch sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, according to an audiotape of the session. “It would dishonor the 900-plus men and women who have already died. . . . It would be a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it would be hugely destabilizing from a national security perspective.”

                AND

***********AP Sept 18, 2004 (Christopher Wills byline)

America cannot afford to withdraw immediately, said Obama, an early opponent of invading Iraq. That would create more chaos in Iraq and make it “an extraordinary hotbed of terrorist activity,” he said at a meeting of the Illinois News Broadcasters Association. It would also damage America’s international prestige and amount to “a slap in the face” to the troops fighting there, he said.

Obama is a politician and says whatever is expedient or will help him obtain higher office.

Your comments on why Obama voted to continue to fund the war twice are disingenious at best and are really specious.

There were reports (both written and oral) during the discussion on both of those funding bills by the military and the Pentagon that stated that if the Congress voted to defund the war there was still enough money/funds already in the pipeline to fully fund both the war and the troops for 6-9 months. It is not as if such a vote would have put out troops in any more harms way than before the vote.

If the Congress had voted to defund the war, they would have next voted funds to make a SAFE withdrawal of troops.

If the Congress had done this our troops would have been in no more harm than they were and are in full occupation mode. The difference being they would be home now.

Report this

By bert, March 15, 2008 at 7:38 am Link to this comment

Thank you for the kind words. And I agree with your comments in both posts.And as regards your last sentence in post 2, by all means if someone says something offensive, by all means call them on it. But as I said, and as you understand, offensive is not always racist.

Report this

By Expat, March 15, 2008 at 4:24 am Link to this comment

^ There is something about the anonymity of posting that gets people yelling and accusing others for their comments and never thinking to ask; what do you mean; I don’t understand your comment, could you explain?  Have I been guilty of this; yes.  But I do try to maintain civility for the most part.  We are a community here: Yes, even the people we disagree with.  There is a core of posters here who “know” each other; but do we really?  We read and immediately flame the other poster.  Come on people.  I have seen “sworn” enemies” here agree on points at various times.  New poster (or just readers) must think: I’m not going there; I’d just like to post my opinion, but these guys and gals are rabid.  For myself; I’m not liberal, maybe a touch conservative, radical at times, maybe a little of everything; so, I’d like to know who’s out there looking in here.  Yes, there are posters with obvious agendas (trolls), so kill them with intelligence and logic and sometimes just ignore them.  As you know I have apologized for some of my less than civil comments in the past and I would like to think my flaming days are in fact in the past.  If we can’t do it here what hope is there out there?  Expat (aka Verne Arnold)

Report this

By cyrena, March 15, 2008 at 2:38 am Link to this comment

Gomerspile writes:

•  “But Mike, by your own logic you say OB is qualified, yet he continues to fund the war he supposedly opposes…”

I’ve generally stopped responding to this, if only because it’s been addressed a dozen or more times before, so we could reasonably put it in the ‘asked and answered’ pile.

But, maybe not, so I’m gonna try it again, though others have done a better job of this.
You say…Obama CONTINUES TO FUND A WAR HE OPPOSES.
Gomers, lets break that down for the sake of bona fide practicality, and REALITY of on-going dynamics, as opposed to actions or works for the sake of ideology with mean nothing in terms of everyday facts on the ground.

First of all, Barack Obama, NOT AS A LONE PERSON, opposed the war on Iraq long before it was launched. Again, he was not alone. I can dig out the stats for you and I will, but the bottom line is that the larger percentage of the world population was AGAINST the war on Iraq before it was launched, for all of the standard reasons. Because. in the lead-up, all people were aware that it was an illegal war of aggression, and were pretty much aware of what would result. It’s NOT like we didn’t have prior history to explain this. (Vietnam comes to mind)

Obama was one of them. He was not in the Senate at the time, but he did as loudly and vocally as anyone, denounce any consideration of the thought to do war on Iraq.

Now, at the same time, Obama had considered the war in Afghanistan to be a LEGITIMATE use of military force, and in fact the world body did also agree with that. The action against Afghanistan WAS in fact approved by the UN Security Council, as a legitimate use of force. I could add that I personally don’t believe that even Afghanistan was a legitimate war, but that’s in hindsight, and can also be debated persuasively from either stance. The fact still remains that it is in hindsight, because at the time, it was seen as an effort to pursue those who had attacked the US, and was generally seen as legitimate in terms of article 51 of the Geneva Conventions, despite the fact that it was al-Qaeda who was accused of attacking the US on 9/11, and NOT ‘Afghanistan’ as a state actor.

Be that as it may, the war on Afghanistan was launched, and 18 months later, EVEN WITHOUT A RESOLUTION OR AUTHORIZATION FROM THE UN, the attack on Iraq was launched. The US Congress approved this authorization, (WITHOUT an approval from the UN) and Barak Obama was NOT in the US Congress at the time. So, he had no voice in that vote. His voice had been in advance of that, but it was NOT a recorded vote in the parliamentary sense.

Fast Forward 4 years. Barack Obama gets to the Senate, and does gain a vote for the record. Before then, even before his election to the Senate, (and since) he as said many times, that there are NO GOOD OPTIONS IN IRAQ. And, there are only BAD OPTIONS, and WORSE OPTIONS.

There have been, since January 07, (when he did have a vote) at least 2 votes regarding funding for BOTH wars. (1 funding package 2 wars) Now these votes are taking place 4 YEARS IN, when our troops are ALREADY there, (and dying) and they need funds for Equipment, etc. There WAS a genuine attempt by Congress, to attach withdrawal terms to those funding bills. They didn’t pass, and the fucker in the White House had already promised to veto them anyway if they did.
Now, with those BAD OPTIONS, Obama DID vote in favor of providing funds for a war ALREADY TAKING PLACE, to fund the troops on the ground, Yes, it WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER if the bills could have insisted on a withdrawal of troops in order to get the funds.. That is NOT how the bill was worded, or passed, or would have passed. Meantime, the troops are fighting in both wars, and need money, since George (and Congress) sent them there.

Does that help you at all, in understanding why Obama agreed to the funding on those 2 occasions?

Report this

By bert, March 14, 2008 at 11:41 pm Link to this comment

leefeller writes: “Now on the other hand, if I was a black male and said Chalmers is an annoying white male, that would be racist. “

I disagree. See long explanation above.

Report this

By bert, March 14, 2008 at 11:38 pm Link to this comment

Wikipedia - Racism has many definitions, the most common and widely accepted being that members of one race consider themselves intrinsically superior to members of other races.

The Macquarie Dictionary defines racism as: “the belief that human races have distinctive characteristics which determine their respective cultures, involving the idea that one’s own race is superior AND HAS THE RIGHT TO RULE OR DOMINATE OTHERS.” (Caps Mine.)

When another person simply critizes someone or even calls someone a name it is not necessarily a racist comment. (Although it can be a hint that the person hatbors racist feelings, but not always.)

I cannot speak for Doug; however, saying someone is conventional is not racist, even if he identifies the person he is speaking about as black. Just like when the police say the kidnapper or bank robber was black. It is identifying someone by a physical characteristics. I am white. I have blue eyes, etc. Identifying me that way is not racist. If I then said that all black people or all people with blue eyes are inferior and I enact laws or other barries to prohibit them from eating in particular restaurants or their children have to attend all black schools, or they can’t vote that is racist behavior.

To get at what I think Dotg means you have to look at what the word UNCONVENTIONAL means - which according to Webster’s is ” that violates the rules of customs established by society, as in dress, speech, or behavior.”

Obama does not dress in hippie clothes, wear his hair long, does not wear earings, etc., so he is definately not UNconventional. He is conventional in that he wear standard a business suite, etc. He is conventional. That is a compliment. He conforms to society’s norms on dress, etc., is how I take that statement.

I don’t know what you were thinking either. But maybe Doug’s use of the adjective “black” before conventional made you think it was a slur. Personally I think it was an unintentional misunderstanding. If I said Brian Williams is an unconventional white man, I don’t think that is a racist comment either.

Insensitive statements are not racist. At worst they are ignorant. Free speech does not mean folks can’t express stupid or even racist comments.

Now if Doug had said Obama is a conventional black man and therefore he does not have a right to run for President and he FURTHER tries to take away his rights under the Constitution, that would be racist and I would be among the first to work to stop Doug.

It is the action more than the words (although sometimes words can be racist too) but it is the action that truly makes something racist.

I may never be able too change a racist’s belief system. However, through laws and public pressure I can control their BEHAVIOR.

I once asked a black friend of mine who had been active in the civil rights movement in NC in the 60’s and even went to jail a couple of times if it bothered her that some people still believed she was inferior. And she replied, “No. I never thought I would change all people’s minds. I just wanted to change their behavior.”

I don’t know if I have explained my remark or simply muddled the waters even more.

Report this

By M H Ellet, March 14, 2008 at 10:40 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I was puzzled re why Olberman was trashing Senator Clinton.  Now I know!

Report this

By Frank Cajon, March 14, 2008 at 10:37 pm Link to this comment

This thread makes a great read, and shows the wedge that ugly, low-road politics drive into our system. Ever since early in the process, Bill Clinton’s surrogate candidate has been having the dirty work done for her by Bubba himself, African-Americans who might be able to get a pass for a slight, or her campaign spokespeople. Good old fashioned Arkansas politics, and she gets to come out of it apologizing and looking like the repentent-after the card is played, after the focus is put right back where it must be for her to win: He is black, don’t vote for him. All this indignation about HillBillary’s gender being a more substantial issue (to the point of Shirley Chisholm’s election being marched out as Clinton’s champion for overcoming gender bias, rather than Obama’s for overcoming racial discrimination (in 1968, when the ink on the Civil Rights Act was still wet) confuses the hell out of me. As well as the villification of Oberman for calling it what it is.
Let’s see, has Obama had to dismiss any top members of his campaign staff for having made statements about HillBillary’s gender since the beginning of this whole ugly campaign? No? Maybe that has to do with him keeping the election based on the candidates, and their positions and records, not their color or gender. Too bad both can’t play by the same rules…and when one gets called for having a lackey smear the other in a TV editorial, we end up with a knock-down, drag-out, polarized chat room on here about it. Just a sign that if they keep it up, and I’m sure they will, the Clintons will destroy the Demo party in the process of this abortive run for the nomination.

Report this

By CJ, March 14, 2008 at 10:13 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Yeah, I saw it, then wrote him to express my disgust. (Not that email to media gets read, but people should write media even so, at least in hopes volume might be noted.)

Olbermann got lost in identity politics. Hillary was no more under an obligation than was Obama this evening when he landed up on “Countdown” shore to be interviewed by Keith regarding the Reverend Wright. Who, by the way, mostly has his facts straight re still-racist and still-imperialist America. The Reverend forgot still-sexist. Unfortunately, Obama disowned facts this evening, though not the Reverend Wright. That is, Barack got to have it both ways—claiming he’d never heard the reverend say such things, while he did know the reverend to be an ex-Marine and the one who brought a younger Obama to God. Oh, and that the reverend has a social conscience, and so forth. Which the reverend does, apparently.

Obama got kid-glove treatment from Olbermann, who shortly after left the set himself, saying he didn’t feel well and that Alison Stewart would carry on, which she did.

THAT was weird!

Jonathan Alter (of “Newsweek” and MSNBC, and ex of “The Nation.” if I recall) put in an appearance while Keith awaited Obama who was late to be interviewed. During that time, Alter talked about “guilt by association.” Uh, huh. Then Obama appeared. First words consisted of exclamation of apology for being late and hope he’d not messed up “the countdown.” Keith reassured, instead of asking, “So what’s the deal Senator?” (I admit to loving what Ian Masters is forever repeating regarding British journalists, who, according to Masters, are well known to ask, “Were you lying then or are you lying now?” Imagine one of our stenos asking that of Bush!) (Sorry, not to insult stenographers, who perform a tough job.)

Apparently, what is allowed the gander isn’t allowed the goose. Not to say Ferraro is on a par with Wright. She’s not. But she’s no racist either. The claim that she is, is absurd. While the Reverend Wright’s own blasting of Hillary Clinton sounded sexist. I doubt he’s actually sexist.

While Lou Dobbs felt “gut-sick” over Wright’s “goddamn America,” Olbermann too didn’t make note of the reverend’s sexist remarks. Nor did Obama.

At least Alter got to the “guilt-by-association” part. Not to say either Obama or Clinton is exactly model citizen. Both should be held accountable for nefarious doings, though neither ever will be. (McCain aided and abetted Charles Keating, people might want to remember.) While media indulges in ersatz “politics,” in the form of “identity politics,” which amount to no more than a concern for appearances, aka, spectacle. As though identification and then spectacle were the same as political action. Why not just go tribal in that case? Misplaced identity politics is profoundly reactionary, serving as it does other political-economic interests smart enough to know a ready-to-hand con-job.

Which suits reactionary corporate-media ownership just fine. Liberal commentary is not simply allowed but positively encouraged, so long as words (signs in general) have no effect. Kinda like here at Truthdig—my and others’ words. Not enough, though not nothing.

We know where Fox stands, as Soviets did Telegraph Agency of the Soviet Union (TASS); while MSNBC dodges and weaves, both Olbermann and Abrams constantly whining of Fox and CNN. Olbermann, who HAS indeed said some very stirring and important things regarding the war waged by Bush, this time got caught up in the general fraud that is spectacle in place of politics. Which is particularly ironic given MSNBC’s claim as “the place for politics.” Not hardly. Microsoft in collusion with the National Broadcasting Company amounts to no more than “The View,” sans the politics.

In fairness to Olbermann, let’s see if he comes back with another “special comment,” this time aimed squarely at Barack Obama. Better yet would be a comment disavowing irresponsibility toward citizenry on the part of MSNBC.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 14, 2008 at 8:52 pm Link to this comment

Bert and Chalmers

May I suggest to you, anytime a person of one race qualifies their statement by injecting denigrating comments about a person of another race,  the comment is construed as racist and possibly in most cases qualifying the person as a card carrying certified racist. .  From what I understand and have been lead to believe Chalmers is a white male, since I am a white male, I may call Chalmers a very annoying white male.  (being polite here) this is not a racist comment, because I am white.  Now on the other hand, if I was a black male and said Chalmers is an annoying white male, that would be racist.  It is quite simple. 

When I want to denigrate Chalmers, why would I use the word white or include race at all, unless for some special reason I felt the special need to inject a bigot moment of race.  Before this, I have never used anyones race to insult or denigrate them,  Using the term black, white , or green, the color of the person should never be necessary to make a comment, unless the point is to bring race into the conversation.  Thus racist is when a person usually feeling superior wishes to denigrate, insult or belittle in any way or form, someone who they believe to be inferior by race, by injecting race. 

Chalmers used his comment “conventional black man”  to make a subtle prejudiced comment, a form of discrimination or antagonism directed to someone of a different race, in this case Obama.  This is racism. 

No I do not know what racism is Bert, why don’t you please explain it to me.

Report this

By Expat, March 14, 2008 at 6:59 pm Link to this comment

^ the comments, all 71 of them?

Report this

By bert, March 14, 2008 at 5:37 pm Link to this comment

Leefeller - “Hillry has never been called the N. word ...”

Response - True enough, but Obama has never been called the c**nt and the b*tch word. Your point is meaningless at best.

Leefeller - “Also do not think he is on Obamas campaign committee?”

Response - All depends upon what you mean by member of Obama’s campaign Wright is a member of Obama’s African American Religious Leadership Committee — the sort of largely honorary, advisory body that in recent days has recently been used mostly to throw people off who say controversial things.

From a Dec. 07, 1907 Campaign Press release “U.S. Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign today unveiled its African American Religious Leadership Committee at both the national and statewide levels. Together, they represent two groups of key national and South Carolina religious leaders who are supporting Obama’s bid for the Democratic nomination.”

Leefeller - “He also says Jesus was a black man.”

Response - Yes, Jesus was most likely a man of color as he was born in the Mideast. He was probably about the color of Anwar Sadat.

Report this

By bert, March 14, 2008 at 5:12 pm Link to this comment

Has the entire world gone mad and turned upside down? What hte hell do you mean that saying someone is “conventional” is a racist slur. That’s as bad as the jerk who said the 3 a.m. ad was racist.

Do oyu folks even know what racism is? Read some history. Get educated. Get real. You trivialize real racism with remarks like that.

Report this

By bert, March 14, 2008 at 5:07 pm Link to this comment

You got that 100% correct. Even Shirley Chisholm said:  “

Of my two “handicaps” being female put more obstacles in my path than being black.”

amd

“I’ve always met more discrimination being a woman than being black.”

KO is sexist as are many MSNBC commentators.

Report this

By bert, March 14, 2008 at 4:52 pm Link to this comment

Blacks also have prejudiced and racist attitudes against whites, its a human condition.

As evidenced by Obamaa’s minister for 20 years, Mr. Jeremiah Wright.

Report this

By rottenrascal, March 14, 2008 at 3:59 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

She only accused the people of racism by suggesting that they would rather vote for a white man than a black man. That accusation doesn’t make her racist at all. Olberman and the media in general are blowing this out of proportion.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 14, 2008 at 3:46 pm Link to this comment

Obama a conventional black man is a racist statement Doug, but of course you do not know what racism is.

Report this

By jt, March 14, 2008 at 3:15 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ferraro served as a political sacrificial lamb much to the same effect that Dr. S. Powers had with her “monster” comment. With just one statement laced with hyperbole demonstrates how easily the attention span of the media (and most Americans) is akin to that of a housefly. This political fight is indeed a “knife fight” with each victim slowly bleeding out. Beneath it all, I see the power struggle between the ‘old Dems’ (read Daschle, Kennedy, Kerry, etc…) versus the Clintonites. Obviously, the Clintonites are demonstrating a more ‘scorch the earth’ approach to the Democratic Party in their eternal quest to maintain their power base in D.C. and throughout. The Clinton viewpoint is that even if the Dems lose in the general election, the Clintonites will still maintain their powerbase and Bill will continue to be the Big Dog in the party. I say its time to bring down the Clintonite right of center politics and instill a more left of center approach to this nation. HRC still has shades of Goldwater lurking deep within her political psyche. LMAO!!!

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, March 14, 2008 at 2:02 pm Link to this comment

Blacks also have prejudiced and racist attitudes against whites, its a human condition.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 14, 2008 at 11:54 am Link to this comment

Hillary is no women, she is Bill Clinton’s wife.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 14, 2008 at 11:51 am Link to this comment

When white people make stupid statements about black people they cry victim and say they are called racist. For good reason, I would say.

The following article in Slate does a nice job of recall and explain some things. 

http://www.slate.com/id/2186553/

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, March 14, 2008 at 11:38 am Link to this comment

Really, Olbermannn displayed the characteristic lashing out against what he fears most - a woman in power, uhh.

His shrill demand are simply a cover for his own irrational inability to confront or to comprehend the possibility of a change in the status quo which he has perceived to be not in his favor. That’s all it really is.

Like a lot of others, they fear change despite exhorting the illusion of change. A conventional black man is far preferable to them than any kind of woamn, black or white.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, March 14, 2008 at 11:26 am Link to this comment

Gates was also suckered into supporting the SETI project which is the biggest internet scam in history. Check the Hut Creek observatory (UCLA) etc

They use as much computer time as they can grab for free to do their space/astronomy research under the guise of searching for an ET that their own scientists don’t even believe in, uhh.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 14, 2008 at 10:41 am Link to this comment

Cyrena,

Thanks for the link, but I had already read it in “The Nation” Must say it does give credence to Olberman’s comment when he says Hillary is conducting herself like a Republican “awash in filth.  She is actually quite good at being awash in filth. 

Twisting the truth is something Hillary does with exceedingly great skill, even more so than son of Bush.  Most people are much smarter than Hillary and Bush give them credit for, so in the end it will burn them.

Report this

By cyrena, March 14, 2008 at 10:28 am Link to this comment

Well Leefeller,

You know we’ve been seeing this from Maani for months now. It’s like his full time job to desperately search for ANYTHING (like this new conspiracy theory that he’s come up with about Olbermann) that even begins to speak to the truth.

This is such a hard time for him, but the reality is simply the reality.

Anyway, just came across this at Alternet..And, it’s pretty hard to deny. Most of us have seen this stuff, for weeks and months now.

The Media Repeats Stream of Lies About Obama
By Ari Berman, The Nation

Posted on March 13, 2008, Printed on March 14, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/79627/

“He’s a Muslim. He was sworn into office on the Koran. He doesn’t say the Pledge ofAllegiance. His pastor is an anti-Semite. He’s a tool of Louis Farrakhan. He’s anti-Israel. His advisers are anti-Israel. He’s friends with terrorists. The terroristswant him to win. He’s the Antichrist.By now you’ve probably seen at least some of these e-mails and articles about Barack Obama bouncing around the Internet. They distort Obama’s religious faith,question his support for Israel, warp the identity and positions of his campaign advisers and defame his friends and allies from Chicago. The purpose of the smear is to paint him as an Arab-loving, Israel-hating, terrorist-coddling, radical black nationalist. That picture couldn’t be further from the truth, but you’d be surprised how many people have fallen for it. The American Jewish community, one of the most important pillars of the Democratic Party and US politics, has been specifically targeted [see Eric Alterman’s column in the March 24 issue, “(Some) Jews Against
Obama”]. What started as a largely overlooked fringe attack has been thrust into the mainstream—used as GOP talking points, pushed by the Clinton campaign, echoed by the likes of Meet the Press host Tim Russert. Falsehoods are repeated as fact, and
bits of evidence become “elaborate constructions of malicious fantasy,” as the Jewish Week, America’s largest Jewish newspaper, editorialized.

What floods into one’s inbox these days bears little or no relation to Obama’s record. “Some of my earliest and most ardent supporters came from the Jewish community in Chicago,” he has said. Obama ran for the Senate promising to help reconstitute the black-Jewish civil rights coalition.”

Just as an FYI…I’m old enough to remember the black-Jewish civil rights coalition ties. Like Obama, I was raised in a racially mixed area that included pretty much everybody..blacks, whites, Jews, Asians, etc. It was before AIPAC.

At any rate, there has NOT always been this horrific divide, and it’s taken me this long to figure out how and why it’s come about.

Anyway, you can read the rest at the link..

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/79627/

Report this

By Hemi*, March 14, 2008 at 10:12 am Link to this comment

Maani, there is of course a chance you are correct. We will just never know, everyone is making guesses. My opinion is that Olbermann does not always toe the company line on his program. That’s just my opinion. I think his leaving ESPN and not continuing to pad his already swollen bank account through sports dribble speaks to that. I think he is genuinely driven by the more pressing issues. The viewers he does have I think are there in large part to his being a bit of a loose canon. I don’t think he is a yes man. Just my educated guess.

Despite any outward signs via environmental diatribes etc., what candidate in this country can actually be anti-nuclear at this time? I’m certain Hillary says many things against this or that with a wink to offended parties. Not unlike all candidates. Would Hillary then be pro coal-fired power plants? There’s currently no viable alternative to the nuclear plants that are currently online. Don’t you think GE knows that? What threat is Hillary to GE?

Gates could be another story though. But even so, how many voters in this country are pro Gates, pro MS? There’s probably an equal amount pro and against. I don’t think Gates holds much sway on the voters.

No matter what Ferraro meant, she should have been savvy enough to not go there. To not leave it open to interpretation. Just because what she said was correct or justified, doesn’t make it smart politically to scratch a potential hot-spot. If the voters are smart enough to understand what she meant, we were also smart enough to see it without her telling us. Might have just as well said, “Senator Obama is a gentleman and a scholar”.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 14, 2008 at 9:20 am Link to this comment

Maani

Alluding to perceived racism of Ferraro’s remarks, I coming from a Hillary supporter, I would expect nothing less.

The simple fact Ferraro’s remarks are filled with the hate of bigots, is only perceived by those that have had to live and sit in the back of the bus. Also, the continued blitz by Ferraro’s restating and spewing her hate message is nothing but a recruitment for racists is selectively ignored by you as well.

Your comments by using perceived or real, makes light of and actually supports the blindness of racism. The hate is in the message, how far can one play a victim remains to be seen.

Report this

By Maani, March 14, 2008 at 8:55 am Link to this comment

I have now read 52 posts to this thread, and not ONE person has pointed out the following.

Does anyone really believe that MSNBC would permit Olbermann to deliver this speech - taking up 10 minutes of precious airtime - if the station itself did not have an agenda?  Do you think employees like Olbermann are autonomous?

Olbermann CLAIMS at the beginning of this rabid diatribe that he is not speaking “pro-Obama” or even “anti-Hillary.”  But we have heard that kind of (phony) claim before from so many people.

Most people here are obviously very bright, and “get” that the MSM is complicit not only in “choosing” which of the intial candidates become “front-runners,” but also in “choosing” who we ultimately vote for (to the degree that people vote based on what they get from the MSM - which is alot).  This has been noted and discussed numerous times.

Yet no one seems to be looking at this now.  Given that MSNBC would NEVER allow one of its minions to take up 10 minutes of airtime with this type of diatribe if there were not an agenda, I suggest that all of you look at who owns MSNBC, who controls it, and what THEIR agenda is.

If you do, you will find that, despite Olbermann’s protestations to the contrary, they ARE pro-Obama and anti-Hillary.  I won’t do all of everyone’s homework in this regard, but I will give you two clues.

First, GE owns NBC.  GE is also the largest owner of nuclear power plants in the U.S.  Not only is Hillary more anti-nuclear power than Obama (who stated as much during one of the debates), but Obama has received the largest amount of campaign contributions from the energy industry of any candidate in either party: not only did Exelon (a nuclear power provider in Illinois) donate almost $200,000 to his campaign, but his chief “bundler” is the CEO of Commonwealth Edison, one of the largest providers of nuclear power in the entire country.

Second, Bill Gates, who owns Microsoft (the “MS” in MSNBC) used to be very friendly with the Clintons, and was initially supporting Hillary, though not “officially.”  However, in 2007, Hillary slammed Gates publicly for something (I do not remember exactly what, but I remember it occurring).  Since that time, Gates has been very cool to the Clintons, and has refused to throw his support behind Hillary.  As well, since that time, he has been seen yucking it up with Obama a number of times in social situations.

I am not weighing in on Ferraro’s remarks here, or the real or perceived racism thereof.  I am simply suggesting that before everyone jumps to conclusions about Olbermann’s autonomy in this situation, step back and take a look at MSNBC’s agenda.

Peace.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, March 14, 2008 at 7:52 am Link to this comment

Getting votes from Latinos and Asians is not as significant as from the black minority????

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 14, 2008 at 6:41 am Link to this comment

First of all you are talking about his sermons, I actually listened to one of his sermons and I enjoyed what he had to say, it was very thought provoking.  In one part he stated that Hillry has never been called the N. word (he used the word), what he actually had to say was true, there were some white folks in the church.  Also do not think he is on Obamas campaign committee?

His sermon was emotionally moving and inspiring, if he was in my town I would occasionally go for inspiration, and I am not even a Christian.

Not sure if he is a racist? He did not say USA deserved 9/ll, he said we brought it on ourselves. He could be correct about the crack and AIDS comment it is just his opinion. He is Not most racist man ever, not even close.  He also says Jesus was a black man.

Report this

By Matt, March 14, 2008 at 5:58 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

When are all the idiot Democrats going to wake up and face the hypocrisy in their own party? Ferraro’s comments were the ugliest form of racist crap. (Listen to Olberman’s reaction. Even though most of what he says is nonsense he’s right on this one.) First what Ferraro said is untrue because there are as many people who vote against Obama because of his race as there are that vote for him because of his race. But worse, the implication that he is not actually competent and just benefiting from being black is garbage - it’s the worst kind of racism in my opinion. It’s saying that he is unethically taking advantage of his skin color i.e. the same thing that blacks used to say about whites. It’s like saying that whatever success you have is due to your skin color and has nothing to do with hard work or talent. When in fact any impartial person who didn’t know Obama’s race and just listened to him speak would say that he is by far the most thoughtful, competent Democratic candidate in a very long time and that he never refers to his own race (even in an implied way) as a reason to vote for him or that he specifically represents or appeals to blacks. Ferraro’s comments are the kind of thing that nauseates me about Democrats. Blatant hypocrisy. Democrats have the undeserved reputation as being for fairness and racial equality and accuse Republicans of racism. But that isn’t true and wasn’t true even in the 1960s when, as few people seem to know, Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act in larger proportions than Republicans. Among the reasons I admire him is that Obama seems to get the idea that the country needs to go to a “post-racial” colorblind politics which would be a huge and great achievement. Hopefully he will be able to accomplish something in spite of the muck of the Democratic party that he is forced to deal with.

Report this

By Bill Counihan, March 14, 2008 at 4:52 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Olbermann slanders Ferraro for merely pointing out the truth but what does he say about Obama’s close spiritual advisor, mentor, and priest Reverend Wright criticisms of the United States government (he has referred to it as the “U.S. of KKK A) He has said the USA deserved 9/11, he said crack and AIDS were given to blacks to kill them by the USA. This is the guy who married Barack Obama and he is clearly one of the most Racist men ever.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, March 14, 2008 at 4:01 am Link to this comment

Double standard,

Whether or not a politician is “junior” or not doesn’t matter, charisma, vision and ability to communicate with the people are a prerequisite to run for office…...and win. 

The contention that Obama has won as many states as he has because he is black and not because he fits into some cookie cutter mold for junior politicians is a false arguement.

We as Americans have to rid ourselves of entrenched, senior politicians, they are the problem of government.

Report this

By cyrena, March 14, 2008 at 3:59 am Link to this comment

Part 1 for Bert
Hi Bert,
•  “When will you critize Obama’s allowing his constituents in IL go without heat in winter because of Rezko’s taking millions of money from the government to upgrade inner city housing and then not doing it?”

I’ll criticize this when you can actually make this connection; that somehow, someway, Barack Obama is personally responsible for the fact the there were ‘constituents’ in ILLINOIS that went without heat specifically because of this.
Meantime, ILLINOIS is a decent sized state. I’ve lived there. Can you provide a clue to when and where this happened?

Nope. Probably not. You still haven’t been able to provide substantiation for your claims of Obama and/or his team allegedly crying foul or racism. In fact, it would appear that you just sort of cruise through bits and pieces of the media, and then cut ‘n paste things together in your own mind, to make them as smeary and slimly as you possibly can.

On this…
•  “When will you critize Obama for having a spiritual advisor who says that God should damn America? Nice.”

This is NEVER gonna happen bert. There will never be a time when I criticize Barack Obama, or YOU, or any other person for what SOME OTHER grown person says or does.

However, I did just see the person in question here on a video of the daily show. I didn’t PERSONALLY have any particular problem with it myself, since I was able to appreciate it in the context that it was delivered.

Now, who KNOWS whether or not Obama himself actually heard this, since it’s doubtful he was in town for Sunday services. But, I’ve posted it here for you anyway.

But, before you get to him, there’s an even better piece on your girl Geraldine. Jon Stewart has a way of keeping things real.

You’re Not Helping

Geraldine Ferrara wanted to get out of the news, so she made appearances on all the news networks.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=164043&title=you’re-not-helping

The Rev is up right after Gerry.

Report this

By cyrena, March 14, 2008 at 3:55 am Link to this comment

Part 2 for Bert

I’m not the least bit fooled by the slander smear techniques that are so 1st nature for you; Probably because I’m simply too reality based, and don’t do the hysteria, drama or the rest of it. I call things what they are, and don’t try to create bullshit where it isn’t. Not like it won’t pop up anyway..you’re a testimony to that.

So let’s call things what they are Bert. When have you ever heard Barack Obama refer to Rev Wright as his ‘spiritual advisor’ and what exactly does ‘spiritual advisor’ mean to you? What do you suppose it means to Barack Obama, who has already made that point that he’s a basically secular kind of guy?

Secular people, be they Christian, or any other sort of religion, don’t generally have ‘spiritual advisors’. Or, that’s not what they called the priests who were the pastors of my churches growing up as a Catholic. And of course as soon as I was grown, I didn’t hang out there any more anyway. So, I’ve never had a ‘spiritual advisor’. I thought that was mostly non-Christian religions anyway, and I’m less familiar with them.

HOWEVER, even if I HAD called any one of those priests my ‘spiritual advisor’ I sure as hell never had any CONTROL over what ANY of them said in a sermon, or in other public addresses, or in private, or anything else. THEY were clerics, and THEY were grown, and THEY could say any GOD DAMNED THING THEY WANTED!! They weren’t speaking for ME!

So no, I’m not going to criticize Obama for what the pastor of his 12,000 member congregation says, any more than I would criticize anyone here in my own community, for what one of the Indian Elders says. What sort of a neurosis is it that would have you suggest something so ridiculous?

Now that’s not to say that I WON’T criticize Obama about many things related to his political positions, and I have. But, you’re stuck in the under belly of smear and smutt bert. What a miserable old woman you must be.

Sorry you hate men so much. I don’t share your bitterness toward any single race/gender/class of humanity. Maybe you should go back to Ohio. LA is no place for a bitter old white woman.  Or maybe you could try some counseling/therapy. Just be careful. I was born and raised in LA, and I know a lot of so-called ‘therapists’ who are female, probably about your age, and just as miserable and screwed up in the head as you appear to be. Lord knows you don’t want help from any of THEM. You could wind up more jacked-up than you already are. I’ve seen it happen.

Yes, I did in fact read the article at the link that you posted. I also posted one of the reader comments, from a Ralph Nell I believe. His thought was the same as mine…the piece is intellectually dishonest.  Like you.

At the end of the day bert, people can see though that stuff easily enough, because we see though yours.

Now, did YOU get an opportunity to read the excellent information on the links that I posted? The one on Shirley Chisholm was relatively short, but then there was another much longer one with Barbara Lee doing a presentation on both of these incredibly strong and effective female politicians who also happened to be black.

And, they go way back.

Now these IS one thing that I DO agree with you on…the importance of the composition of the USSC. Too bad you couldn’t have done something to keep Clarence Thomas, Anthony Scalia, and John Roberts off of it. I think we should have term limits for all of them. Thurgood Marshall was my hero.

Oh…BTW, it truly DOES NOT MATTER to me, if you believe ANYTHING I post here. Seriously bert.

It might be to YOUR advantage, if you just want to upgrade your condition from a mentality that is in the gutter. But there’s no gain or loss for me.

This is all just shared info for everyone. Grown (well balanced) folks take what they can use, and disregard what they can’t, or just don’t need.

Report this

By bo4fun, March 14, 2008 at 1:59 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ferraro’s arguments are simple - black males typically serve as community organizers, than go to Harvard, and write two good books. There is no achievement there, just luck ? Ferraro’s comments were taken out of context by the media. When Bob Kerrey endorsed Hillary, he spoke only about Obama, and linked him to Muslims. His endorsement speech could not happen without input from Hillary’s camp.
  Hillary clearly can not get any votes from black voters, so it now makes sense for her to create a conflict black vs white, and through that get more of the white votes as a result. Some people don’t like it, but elections are about getting more votes, and not about been likable.
  As in Bob Kerrey’s statements, it’s Hillary’s campaign tactic, not Ferraro’s racism or stupidity.

Report this

By bert, March 14, 2008 at 1:25 am Link to this comment

The best words on whether race matters or not were spoken by Barak Obama himself, three years ago:

Source: Chicago Tribune.


“Obama acknowledges, with no small irony, that he benefits from his race.

If he were white, he once bluntly noted, he would simply be one of nine freshmen U.S. senators, almost certainly without a multimillion-dollar book deal and a shred of celebrity. Or would he have been elected at all?”

Report this

By bert, March 14, 2008 at 12:33 am Link to this comment

In response to Cyrena’s request:

I see you finally saw my link, but I will post it again in any event.

As I told you once before, Obama is very clever. He does not do his own dirty work. He is a stealth attacker prefering to let surrogates start the ball rolling, which is what the New Repubic shows.

Plus I wonder how this remark of Ferraro’s got such play in the media in the first place. The newspaper article in the Daily Breeze ran on March 7th or 8th. Plus it was at the bottom of an article on page 8 or 9. Not eaxctly front page news and not in a huge market. I live in CA in the LA media market and never heard about this until the last few days, around the 11th or 12rh. It is not like Ferraro gave a major speech or got front page coverage.  Front page coverage did not begin UNTIL and only AFTER the Obama campaign made it front page news by publizing it THEMSELVES. If they had ignored it few if any people would have seen the damn thing. Smacks of dirty politics to me.

When will you critize Obama’s allowing his constituents in IL go without heat in winter because of Rezko’s taking millions of money from the government to upgrade inner city housing and then not doing it? We still don’t know what happened to those millions. That hurts the poor and minorities more than a stupid comment by Ferraro. Yaking money to help the poor and then stealing it is REAL racism.

When will you critize Obama for having a spiritual advisor who says that God should damn America? Nice.

When you can critize these actions then I will be more likely to actually believe the other crap you spew.

New Republic link again:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff 2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304

Report this

By bert, March 14, 2008 at 12:03 am Link to this comment

MAJOR mistake (or was it????) in your post. Your post makes it look as if the three quotes in your paragraph one are MY quotes. Those quotes are Ferraro’s, not mine.

Cyrena quote - “These very honorable and accomplished women of color that I’ve noted below would be SCANDALIZED….”

The three women you cite were/are intelligent and honorable women, and what they would be scandalized by in this elction is the trivalizing of the word “racism” for political gain.

Report this

By cyrena, March 13, 2008 at 11:26 pm Link to this comment

I bring this to your attention bert, because your earlier comments, (as I have noted again, above) are so egregiously prejudicial, and reek of the most despicable ignorance.
quoting Bert:
•  “If a woman, white or black, with the same experience as Obama ran for President we would never have heard her name….”
More from bert:
•  “…she would be the laughing stock of America. Give me a break — it just wouldn’t happen for a woman…”
More hate here from bert, not to mention the ignorance:
•  “…Women have to be supremely superior to any male to get as far as Hillary Clinton has gotten. No woman with Barack Obama’s LACK of experience would even get past first base…”

These very honorable and accomplished women of color that I’ve noted below would be SCANDALIZED by these comments, and your blatantly racist denigration of Barack Obama. Ignorance is SUCH an ugly color, no matter who has it on. Please educate yourself…

•  “On January 25, 1972, Chisholm announced her candidacy for president. She stood before the cameras and in the beginning of her speech she said, ….“I stand before you today as a candidate for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency of the United States. I am not the candidate of black America, although I am black and proud. I am not the candidate of the women’s movement of this country, although I am a woman, and I am equally proud of that. I am not the candidate of any political bosses or special interests. I am the candidate of the people.”

Get that Bert? Read on:

“The 1972 Democratic National Convention in Miami was the first major convention in which any woman was considered for the presidential nomination. Although she did not win the nomination, she received 151 of the delegates’ votes. She continued to serve in the House of Representatives until 1982. She retired from politics after her last term in office…”

Here is more of Mrs. Chisholm’s resume:

•  “In 1964 Chisholm ran for a state assembly seat. She won and served in the New York General Assembly from 1964 to 1968. During her tenure in the legislature, she proposed a bill to provide state aid to day-care centers and voted to increase funding for schools on a per-pupil basis. In 1968, After finishing her term in the legislature, Chisholm campaigned to represent New York’s Twelfth Congressional District. Her campaign slogan was “Fighting Shirley Chisholm—Unbought and Unbossed.” She won the election and became the first African American woman elected to Congress. …..During her first term in Congress, Chisholm hired an all-female staff and spoke out for civil rights, women’s rights, the poor and against the Vietnam War. In 1970, she was elected to a second term…. She remarked that, “Women in this country must become revolutionaries. We must refuse to accept the old, the traditional roles and stereotypes.”

PLEASE feel free to access the rest at the link below.

http://www.essortment.com/all/shirleychisholm_ruol.htm

Shirley Chisholm was NOT made a laughing stock when she ran for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 1972. She would interpret (as I do) your statements to be the utmost of defamation and slander, not JUST about Barack Obama, but about women of color in American politics as well.

There are many other women of color who have made such contributions to the advancement of the betterment of ALL people, via their political engagement. However, I specifically addressed Mrs. Chisholm here, because she was in fact in a candidate for the nomination in 1972, and because she was NOT made a ‘laughing stock’ by any stretch of the imagination.

http://www.jfklibrary.org/NR/rdonlyres/50647B18-6444-4306-B041-71AD30B32381/27391/MicrosoftWordATributetoShirleyChisholmandBarbaraJo.pdf

I guess I’m glad she’s not here to listen to this continuing hate. Geeze…Barack could be her own grandchild. She would be proud…

Report this

By cyrena, March 13, 2008 at 9:55 pm Link to this comment

I didn’t see that Leefeller had asked for the same information before I posted my own request.

Still, once I saw that you (bert) had responded, I followed the link that you provided to the New Republic article. I’m very familiar with that publication.

Unfortunately it fails to adequately address the questions that I raised myself. I wanted to know when, where, how and in quotes, Obama or his campaign had ever leveled any accusations of racism at the Hillary tactics.

This article doesn’t do that, so I’m hoping you can still provide such evidence of your own claims.

And, this isn’t about Obama himself, (or his campaign) ever MENTIONING the issue of racism in America, or the place that it has ALWAYS played in US politics, as far back as the days when blacks were first attempting to gain the right to vote in the first place. (which actually hasn’t been that long).
For ANY candidate of color to AVOID the issue, (like all of the others have over the decades, with the occasional deviations from those who were around to help the CRM come to be) would be totally stupid.

Talk about an elephant in the room. A black person running for president is supposed to avoid ANY talk of the 300 year old issue of race?

PLEASE!

Anyway, this is the most recent reader comment from the article that you posted at the New Republic. From my other glances, it would appear that most readers felt the same way about this piece..

“Wow, this is paper thin. There’s actually a debate about the content of the mailer. An honest article about the subject, especially at this late stage in the game, would acknowledge and respond to those arguments. For you merely to claim deliberate, GOPesque deception by Obama, without providing any supporting argument, is journalism at it’s least professional. I’m still reading. But thus far my impression is that this is a long exercise in intellectual dishonesty.”

ralphnelle

Report this

By cyrena, March 13, 2008 at 9:36 pm Link to this comment

•  “Obama and the media have taken a small piece of that and grossly misinterpreted it, as they have so often have by calling foul and racism.”

Bert, can you point me to a source, ANY verifiable, quotable source where Obama himself, (or even an identifiable person within his campaign) has made any direct accusations of racism from the Hillary camp?

I ask because I’d like to call you out on this. You’re at your defaming techniques again, and so I’d like some specifics on exactly how Obama himself, NOT THE MEDIA, have cried racism. Can you actually do that? Now

This is very specific to Obama and an identifiable person(s) from his campaign, and specific to charges of RACISM.  I’m not looking for general reactions from him or his campaign, to the ‘kitchen sink’ that Hillary camp has thrown at him over the past several weeks, INCLUDING statements from Hillary herself. Because yes, his team, if you will, HAS allowed us to know that they are AWARE that they are under attack. What that has NOT included –to my knowledge- are any charges of racism, and so since you are saying that here, I’m hoping you can back that up with some specific incidences.

As for the rest of your attempted perfidy in slandering him here:

•  “A woman with such a thin resume and only two years in the Senate and having spent most of her time fund raising and lining up supporters for her run for president she would be the laughing stock of America.”

We’ll just say that your attempts are duly noted for what they are. Slander and defamation, since we the voting populace have had several years now, to examine the Obama résumé as well as his life and experience in public service, and we know that it is NOT what you suggest here in the underhanded way that you do.

What did Olberman say? Something like ‘cheap/ignornant/vile/racist’? Yeah something like that, though we could certainly add more here for so many of Hillary’s supporters. Clearly these tactics aren’t limited to Hillary or Geraldine.

Still, you’ve proven to be quite cleaver with your own slander and defamation, suggesting things like Obama has RELIED on corporate donors, instead of putting those funds in relative respect to what Clinton has received from corporate donors and Wall Street, as well as in relation to what he has received overall in terms of his small contributors. It is from the small contributors that his campaign funds have come, which is exactly why he has NOT needed to ‘rely’ on corporate funds. Those funds, (still far less than Hillary has received from the same sources) are like bonus funds for the Obama campaign. They are NOT the source of his primary funding. 

It is for THAT reason, that he is so far ahead of the Clinton camp in funds, and not needing to desperately resort to PAC 527 funding, as is the case now with Hillary, because all of her corporate ‘sponsors’ have already given the max amount they can under law. (not that she ever let a thing like that get in the way).

Meantime, I’ll wait for your substantiation that Obama’s team has leveled any specific charges of racism, or even done much of a complaint of foul play.

We all see the ‘foul play’ for what it is, so there’s really been no need for Obama to point it out. The only thing he’s really had to do is to say..beware of the hoodwinking. And of course we also know that Obama as well as his supporters have been under attack by anything and everything that Hillary could throw, maybe even INCLUDING the kitchen sink.

I watch BBC as well. I don’t know that to be the absolute best source for coverage of the US ELECTIONS, (?) but certainly they do provide excellent coverage of other news that we should be aware of, in an increasingly globalized world.

Report this

By bert, March 13, 2008 at 9:32 pm Link to this comment

And maybe you will disagree with the articles conclusion. Reasonable people can and do disagree on matters like this all the time.

It is impossible to get into someone’s mind to know what they are really thinking and get at motivation. But you asked from whence I drew my conclusions and this is one source.

Whether we agree or disagree on this, the most important thing is to elect a Denocrat President in November for a while host of reasons including Supreme Court nominations, Iraq, and the Constitution. We have to keep our eye on the prize.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 13, 2008 at 9:13 pm Link to this comment

Me apologizes Bert,  and thanks for link.

Report this

By bert, March 13, 2008 at 8:38 pm Link to this comment

In response to Leefeller’s request:

The definitive article that chronicles Obama’s playing of the race card is from the excellent The New Repbulic (see link below.)

It is a very long aericle but well sourced and worth the read. It was written before the Ferraro incident however.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304

Report this

By doogs, March 13, 2008 at 7:30 pm Link to this comment

The problem here is that, while what Ferraro said is not in the same league as something like “Barack Obama would make a bad president because he is black,” what she said is still racist.  She may have a point, but she could have made her point much better.  What she was trying to say, I assume, is that ONE of the reasons Obama has been successful is that he is black, and it makes white people feel good to be able to support a black candidate.  But she didn’t say this.  She said the ONLY reason he is where he is is because he’s black. 

Keith Olbermann is only pointing out that Hillary Clinton has made a huge blunder by not disavowing Ferraro’s comments sooner, since they are undeniably racist, especially considering her reiteration of them upon being questioned.  Like him or not, he’s right.  This was ultimately a major Clinton blunder.  Black people will NEVER AGAIN vote for Hillary Clinton now.  If she, by some miracle (remember when that was what Mike Huckabee was waiting for, and nobody took him seriously?), manages to win the nomination, she will lose in November because blacks will stay home unless Obama is the Democratic nominee.  She needs to bow out.  NOW.  A vote for Clinton now might as well be a vote for McCain in November.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 13, 2008 at 5:40 pm Link to this comment

Bert,

Please tell me when Obama has taken and misinterpreted and so often has called foul and racism?

Ferraro’s statement is racist and she has done it several times before. Her continued stressing the fact that she should receive an apology is even more ludicrous.

Racists seem to collectively react wounded, as she and you by blaming the persons being discriminated against.  Most disgusting actions by people who should know better, at least Ferraro, I do not know about you.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, March 13, 2008 at 5:23 pm Link to this comment

I like Olbermann, he speaks truth to power and we need more of that. 

Corporate media in general needs to be shattered into a thousand pieces to increase ojectivity, a major component in a truely free press.

Report this

By Pacrat, March 13, 2008 at 5:10 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Keith used to be somewhat more objective - and even courageous. What other commentator had occasional rants over national tv?  - and, generally, we agreed with him.

But he is becoming too self righteous - and we just saw a dramatic example of what can happen to self righteous people.

He has been handing around too much with Chris Matthews! He’s on a slippery slope!

Report this

By bert, March 13, 2008 at 4:55 pm Link to this comment

I see the The Old Boys Club is still alive and well.

If a woman, white or black, with the same experience as Obama ran for President we would never have heard her name. A woman with such a thin resume and only two years in the Senate and having spent most of her time fund raising and lining up supporters for her run for president she would be the laughing stock of America. Give me a break — it just wouldn’t happen for a woman.

Women have to be supremely superior to any male to get as far as Hillary Clinton has gotten. No woman with Barack Obama’s LACK of experience would even get past first base.

Concerning Ferraro, what she actually said and the context she said it is true and not defaming. Obama and the media have taken a small piece of that and grossly misinterpreted it, as they have so often have by calling foul and racism.

The Republicans are not going to flinch at being called racists the way Dems do. They simply could care less.

As for Olbermann -

Murrow was a man of honesty and integrity. Olbermann is neither. He’s more like Joe McCarthy. Olbermann has become the Bill O’Reilly of the Left. And I quit watching his rather boring stchick long before he became an Obamatron.

Suggestion I would never confuse what he says with actual journalism. That is why I watch BBC News.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, March 13, 2008 at 4:18 pm Link to this comment

I bet she’s a superdelagate too.

Report this

By jackpine savage, March 13, 2008 at 3:32 pm Link to this comment

At least someone in the mainstream media finally said it.  At least someone - funny that it took an ex-sports journalist - decided that it was worth it for the Democratic Party to have a conscience.

He was right, this nomination campaign seems an awful lot like Obama is the Democrat and Clinton is the Republican in a general election.

But what do i know, i’ve considered the Clintons Republicans since 1993.

Report this

By Hemi*, March 13, 2008 at 1:56 pm Link to this comment

Ferraro stated that back in 1984 her appointment by Mondale to VP running mate was in large part due to her being a woman. I don’t remember her coming forward at that time and stating that she wasn’t capable and was only chosen due to her gender. She says she is merely pointing out that Obama’s current popularity and apparent fast track to political success is due in large part to his being black. Apparently she would like to point out that he is incapable and is there only due to his racial background. The only trouble with this is that she has done nothing to prove him incapable and other than that why should we care what race or gender he is? And of course his popularity and success would have nothing to do with him being perceived as an outsider and not beholding to the factions the Clintons owe so much to.

There is an awful lot brewing here. Consider the possibility Ferraro is genuinely jealous of the fact that the time might be right for a woman or a minority candidate to hold such a high office. She is of course, as we strongly suspect, human after all. All considered this was not the time or place to compare the difficulties of being a black man versus being a white woman when running for office. We can only wonder whether she acted alone or was under the misguidance of the Clinton campaign. Was this a desperate last-ditch effort to derail Obama? Were there not enough allusions to his race? Was this the old “black athletes can’t play quarterback but they make fine running backs” ploy? We’ll likely never know.

Report this

By BlueEagle, March 13, 2008 at 1:08 pm Link to this comment

The Republicans have destroyed their party and now it’s the Democrats turn. The more this ridiculous bantering persists the better it is for our country. I am optimistic that our two party system will find itself in ruins shortly. Only then can we pick up the pieces and create new parties that actually stand for something. When the time comes, we must create three or more dominant parties.

Report this

By lawlessone, March 13, 2008 at 12:14 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I fear in the future histories to be written that they will say of the Democrats in 2008 what Lincoln once said about incompetent General Burnside, “Only he could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.”

Unless the candidates stop trashing each other or, more accurately, granting by silence or weak admonishment tacit permission for their subordinates to trash the other side, we will once again have a Republican in the White House for another 4 years of unmitigaged disaster, ever growing death tolls, degradation of the economy and environment, and emasculation of the Constitution. 

Why don’t the candidates care more about the country than getting the job?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 13, 2008 at 11:35 am Link to this comment

The ignorance of those who would ignore and make light of racism, provide nothing more than the same mantra that is them.  Attacking the messenger is the tactic of simple minds for they cannot and will not support an argument of logic.

Support your emptiness, Challenge Ferraro the person who spewed the words of bigotry and hate or support them as you will.

Report this

By Randy, March 13, 2008 at 11:28 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I liked his special comment on FISA from the other night, I saw it on http://www.larryflynt.com: He may go to far with the David Duke reference but she has pulled a few plays from the early days of Karl Rove and Bush.

Report this

By Sue Cook, March 13, 2008 at 11:13 am Link to this comment

exactly!

Ferraro’s remarks were matter of fact, not racist.

Comparing her comment to the likes of David Duke is just plain ignorant!

Like I said, looking for attention and ratings.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, March 13, 2008 at 11:09 am Link to this comment

Only re the PC “police”, GP…....

Report this

By Eric L Prentis, March 13, 2008 at 11:06 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Keith Olbermann is spot on concerning the nasty and racist remarks by Sen. Clinton’s surrogate, Geraldine Ferraro. Sen. Clinton’s tepid response in disavowing Ferraro’s mean-spirited and racist comments can only mean one thing, she just does not get it which further demonstrates Sen. Clinton’s poor judgment.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 13, 2008 at 10:55 am Link to this comment

Right or wrong, your support of bigotry and racism is apparent, why do you not hold Hillary to a higher standard. 

Why not argue the points, of racism that you regard so highly and you can discuss them at you next KKK meeting.

Report this

By Namtillaku, March 13, 2008 at 10:52 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Huh?  What a bizarre way to interpret his comments.  Ferraro’s comments, her subsequent comments, and the HRC campaign response to them IS RACIST.  But even if you say they aren’t, that they’re merely ‘bad’, they are extremely telling.  HRC is taking a page right out of the attacking, hateful, Republican play book, and many people, myself included, a fed up with this sh1t.  Obermann a Republican manager because is calling out the HRC campaign?  Your comments are truly laughable.

Report this

Page 2 of 3 pages  <  1 2 3 >

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.