How a Washington Post Writer's Attack on Bernie Sanders' Civil Rights Record Completely Backfired

[mhatrw]

http://www.alternet.org/media/how-washington-post-writers-attack-bernies-civil-rights-record-completely-backfired

How a Washington Post Writer's Attack on Bernie Sanders' Civil Rights Record Completely Backfired

...

Bernie Sanders and the clash of memory

This is a story where memory and historical certitude clash. Where the doubt of a campaign strategist slams up against a university archive. Where the word of a proud photographer conflicts with the pride of an ex-wife and friends. Where the civil rights activism of Bernie Sanders and Bruce Rappaport collide.

Wait, wasn't this a story of a fake photo? Now it's a story of clashing memories?

First, a little background: Capehart's original report was based on a November 2015 piece in Time about four alums of the University of Chicago who were “raising doubt” on the photo being Sanders. The Time reporter in question though has effectively retracted his piece based on the new photographs showing Sanders at the location in question:

Photographer Says Disputed 1962 Photo Really Does Show Bernie Sanders

A Sanders campaign photo may indeed show the candidate...

The contact sheets, reviewed by Time, show pictures of the 21-year-old Sanders sitting on the floor wearing a rough, brown sweater and white shirt in what appears to be the same room as the disputed photo. The clothing Sanders is wearing on the floor in the recently discovered contact sheets looks to be the same as the clothing the young man is wearing in the photo in question.

Moreover, Lyon said that based on their order on the contact sheets, the newly discovered pictures of Sanders were taken immediately after the disputed photo.

In response to this new information, the University of Chicago corrected the photo, changing the picture back to Bernie Sanders. Both Time and the archivists at the University of Chicago, in light of this evidence, corrected their stories. But not Jonathan Capehart, whose original report remains the same sans a link to the most recent post. Still the same headline saying the photo isn't Sanders, still the same unqualified assertions that those who are sharing the photo are spreading falsehood.

...

[merrily]

1. Even if he were right, so what? Lame, acting like he's Woodward and

Bernstein and Mark Felt combined, over a 50 year old photo that Bernie never said was him to begin with, a photo that absolutely nothing turns on. All that sound and fury, trying to make photogate out of absolutely nothing. Pathetic.

[MaeScott]

2. Bernie used the photo on his site ....

SOME people are very invested in attacking his strong areas. Very Rovian of them. Capehart shows his Clintonista side very well

[GoneFishin]

3. Exactly. " ... invested in attacking his strong areas. Very Rovian ..."

Since they have nothing real they make shit up based on a decades old photo.

This kind of shit has no place in the White House.

[merrily]

17. Putting a photo on your site is not the same as saying it's you. However, it is him.

And, as I said, even if it weren't, so what? There's no denying he was a student activist. The other photo, the one where he is with the dean or whoever he is, shows that.

[Ford_Prefect]

42. It matters because they are distorting a real history that is bigger than Bernie, or Clinton.

Last edited Sun Feb 14, 2016, 01:47 PM - Edit history (1)

Its like the people who want us to believe that nothing important, or genuine, or constructive happened due to the peace culture of the 60's and 70's. That the whole thing was only a matter of style. That it was the "serious" people who made the real change happen.

I was there. Many of us were there. It was ALL of us doing the big and the little things that made the changes real. We own that history and Capehart and all his ilk deserve an island somewhere that they may never leave it, no matter how high the surf gets.

[me b zola]

62. Yes! "...they are distorting a real history that is bigger than Bernie, or Clinton."

This is what stuck in my craw. For me it was as if powerful people could now erase people from their accomplishments and history all together. I have a special reverence for history and I don't take it lightly when people rewrite it.

You are right about the "big and the little things that made the changes real." A movement by its very design relies upon this idea.

[valerief]

76. ^^^THIS^^^

[retrowire]

4. Bernie says it is him in his book, outsider in the White House. nt

[merrily]

18. Cool. Please see Reply 17.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

57. That's exactly what I tweeted him: Lamest story to ruin your career over.

[Ford_Prefect]

5. Operation Swift Boat II is underway. This has David Brock written all over it. From the timing of

the TIME piece to the obstinate refusal of Capehart or his editor to acknowledge the truth when presented with the original photographer's comments. It echos the kind of framing used to support Stephen Glass when doubts were raised before the truth was known about him.

Capehart has No credibility at this point and a very transparent agenda, as it seems does the Post editor responsible.

[kristopher]

20. Actually it has Hillary Clinton written all over it.

Brock is her agent.

[Ford_Prefect]

37. I know him too well. This is exactly his style. Hillary has an entire crew devoted to nothing but.

And always the appearance of just enough distance for public deniability. This year's team captain is Brock.
It's a sad statement on how money has perverted the Democratic party that this is not a surprise and the degree of denial over such a clearly obvious slur is so transparent.

Every time they do this I get flashbacks of the W campaign, which in my experience set records.

Disagreement over policy or goals or method is one thing. This is sadly not a new low for the 3rd way crew, but one most obvious.

How does this kind of tactic NOT backfire on Democrats in the general election?

We're supposed to be the party that still has some sense of responsibility and moral leadership.

My father and mother spent their entire 64 year relationship working to make the world around them better for everyone. They were part of the kinds of things and more that Bernie is shown doing. To have the Clinton juggernaut treat their kind of activism with such callow disrespect is instructive. It makes clear that a Clinton presidency would treat any ordinary people in the same way. That it would dissemble over their needs being met, or what means were necessary, and which needs were negotiable in light of the brave new Clintonian vision for the rest of US.

Apparently some animals are indeed more equal than others...As long as you bring the money.

[kristopher]

39. There is a 100% probability that this sleazy approach *will* backfire. nt

[Live and Learn]

6. Bernie-backers. We won't let him down. nt

[Helen Borg]

7. Jonathan Capehart should be fired.

End of story.

[restorefreedom]

8. capehart will sacrifice his career on the clinton altar

hope his boyfriend/husband makes a lot of money working for clinton, cuz capeharts gonna be out of a job soon.

[Fumesucker]

9. A more worthy cause is hard to imagine

I'm sure that will be a comfort to Capehart in his old age.

[restorefreedom]

12. a life well lived, with honesty, integrity......ooops. nt

[RiverLover]

10. I hope so, he should be fired. /nt

[EndElectoral]

49. Capehart is a Clinton shill..

[restorefreedom]

73. yes, an embarassment, really. nt

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. One goal I believe was to prevent the Sanders campaign from using that photogragh in ads

It shows Bernie leading a civil rights demonstration, not just being part of one. It shows a crowd of students listening to him as he stands before them. That is not an image that the Clinton campaign wanted widely shared. TV ads for Sanders have been very positive, powerful, and effective. The "disputed" photo gives a striking visual reference point to a key early period in his biography. A picture is worth a thousand words, but as long as that photo could be tarred with "controversy" it could not be featured by the Sanders campaign in ads.

[eShirl]

16. Now he can use all the photos clearly showing it's him.

[Bluenorthwest]

34. It's also just transparently a move to distract from Hillary's past exaggerations about sniper fire

and such. She has been caught making claims about her experiences that are not true, so a rack rate Machiavelli like Capehart thinks it is super clever to cast doubt around parts of Bernie's past and does so without any evidence and without any efforts to find the facts.

[catnhatnh]

40. "Sanders-A Half Century of Leadership"

Right-can't have that out there....

[Green Texan]

13. Capehart needs to resign

Capehart didn't just make a mistake, he went out of his way to spread a lie. There's an article about it on the vetsforbernie website.

[KingCharlemagne]

14. Sanders' attorneys should immediately file a massive libel suit against Capehart and,

more importantly, the Washington Post. Hit Zuckerdouche where he lives--his pocketbook. Announce he's turning over any monetary damages awarded to BLM or SPLC.

[Empowerer]

23. Fortunately, Sanders' lawyers probably know what libel is and would never allow themselves to get

laughed out of court by bringing a libel suit on this matter

[Bluenorthwest]

30. Do Capehart's lawyers know what libel means? It's what he did to Danny Lyon

For your illumination:
1. a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.

Capehart and Lyon are ostensibly both journalists. One published false statements about the other, intended to damage the other's reputation and the reputation of the other's work. He published, repeatedly, entirely false statements without having bothered to ask Lyon about this own photos.

Lyon is an established and very respected photojournalist and artist. He has been praised along with his work by Congressman John Lewis who is subject of many of Lyon's best known images, shown in the best museums and galleries around the world, he has received grants and honors on the highest levels. Lyon created the first photojournalism study of American Prison life, an issue the rest of us are only now catching up with.

Capehart presented him as a disorganized hack who can't be trusted, an agenda driven liar. Caphehart did this for his own benefit and to benefit a candidate who employs his spouse or partner.

What he did and continues to do is libel of Danny Lyon.

[Empowerer]

31. Yes, they do-and so do I. And this isn't libel, not even close, regardless how exercised you are

Last edited Sun Feb 14, 2016, 12:08 PM - Edit history (1)

[Bluenorthwest]

33. I note that you failed to express any support for your point of view while working in a personal

insult using the 'LGBT are emotional' trope. I don't think you are able to do anything other than insult because if you could, you would. But you can't, so you type up a smear. Evasive but not clever, which could be the motto of your campaign.

[kath]

44. "Exercised" - next time you try to use a big word, you should look it up first.

"Exorcised" has ONLY to do with demons, the devil, etc.

[Empowerer]

45. Thanks for the correction.

As an intelligent person, I always appreciate help in stepping up my game.

[Bluenorthwest]

56. So then why don't you respond to that which was asked of you instead of typing up insults

using words you don't really know? It seems as if you ran to make an ugly remark to avoid addressing the content of my posts.

That's exactly what Capehart did. He rushed to the ugly without even thinking for a moment that the photographer he was smearing had a strong reputation and friends all over the country because of that reputation. He thought he was attacking some random activist who took some snapshots one day. He's stuffed full of hubris. He never bothered to do a bit of fact checking, he just typed up what he wanted to type, nasty assertions supported by nothing. Sound familiar?

This tactic will not work. It will destroy those who attempt to benefit from it.

[SusanCalvin]

64. That's my take as well. It was not minor. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

74. That poster still has not repsonded, as I said the poster won't respond because all the poster has

is insults and fly by nasty. I'm sick of these people whose posts are devoid of content, who respond to actual content with mean comments and snide insults and it's not the insults that bother me most it is the vapidity, the utter lack of content of any kind to accompany the insults. It really should not be allowed on DU to just smear people and make jabs without bothering to inject any sort of ideas or arguments. If a poster's entire game is trashing of others using insults based in bias and prejudice that poster should be shown the door.

I can't tell you how many Hillary supporters are pulling that 'you are emotional, you seem angry' crap at LBGT posters, they should all quiver with shame. But they are proud of their vapidity and bias.

[Rilgin]

90. You clearly dont.

The standard is higher for proving slander and libel against a public figure. However, the concepts are the same, writing and/or saying publically false information impugning character.

In United States law, public figure is a term applied in the context of defamation actions (libel and slander) as well as invasion of privacy. A public figure (such as a politician, celebrity, or business leader) cannot base a lawsuit on incorrect harmful statements unless there is proof that the writer or publisher acted with actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth).[1] The burden of proof in defamation actions is higher in the case of a public figure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

Capehart's first article might or might not survive the test. It was clearly an attack on Bernie's reputation which is the heart of defamation and slander. However Bernie is a public figure and it would have to be intentional or reckless disregard of the truth. I think it was clearly reckless but it is a high standard.

However, Capehart is continuing to assert the same claim after absolute 100% documented proof is given to him that his story was incorrect. There is no doubt that this is reckless.

[Empowerer]

91. Whatever

But since you feel so strongly about this, why don't you go out and try to retain a lawyer to bring a libel suit against the Washington Post on behalf of poor, maligned Bernie. If you can find a lawyer stupid enough to take a case that would get them and their client immediately bounced out of court for failure to state a claim - and get them a nice Rule 11 sanction for their trouble - go for it.

Otherwise, your pontificating about libel, something you obviously don't understand either in fact or law (notwithstanding your Wikipedia research), means nothing.

[Rilgin]

92. I dont have standing.

I am a graduate of Boalt Hall, U of California School of law and have been a practicing attorney for over 25 years. I tried to keep it simple and stupid as an explanation for you but looking at the totality of your posts, I do not think you care about facts.

Capehart's actions fall squarely within the legal definition of actionable libel and slander since he used both oral and written mediums of expression. Not everything that could be taken to court will be and it would be foolish for the Sanders campaign to waste its time suing a hack journalist.

However, his attack on Bernie is both libel and slander. Now go back to your bubble where facts and reality do not matter.

[Empowerer]

94. I'm shocked that you are a lawyer and really believe that there is a libe or slander claim here

You're flat out wrong on the law and its application to the facts. Any lawyer with even a cursory understanding of the laws of libel and slander know better.

A complaint on these grounds wouldn't survive a 12(b)(6) motion and any lawyer signing such a complaint would be looking at serious Rule 11 sanctions.

But keep on complaining and throwing around your faux law. You're probably impressing someone here who doesn't know the law, but I know you don't know what you're talking about, so you're not fooling me.

[Rilgin]

95. Like I said. You have an agenda and do not care about facts. Done with conversation. (NT)

[KingCharlemagne]

47. Off to ignore for you until after the GE - nt

[Bluenorthwest]

24. Danny Lyon should file such a suit as well, Capehart is denigrating his work, his reputation and

casting doubt about photos which are going to be more valued as Bernie's political career plays out. Capehart should be fired, as should each individual who allowed him to proceed with that story without having contacted Danny Lyon.

Capehart is fit to be a paperback writer of fictional fodder but any show or network, any paper that publishes him I will not give custom to. Chris Matthews is a hack who airs McCarthy style attacks out of his studio without so much as checking a single fact. MSNBC has no standards, the Post as no ethics.

[HooptieWagon]

35. WaPo is owned by Jeff Bezos, Amazon billionaire and Libertarian.

I don't think Zucker (Facebook) has anything to do with it.

[KingCharlemagne]

50. I often get my plutocrats confused, so I truly appreciate your non-snarky correction and

annotation.

[HooptieWagon]

51. Yep. I didn't know Bezos owned it until this story came out.

[KingCharlemagne]

52. Charlie Pierce of Esquire refers to the WaPo as an "adjunct to

the hone delivery business."

[SMC22307]

93. "a once-great newspaper now doing business as an adjunct to the home delivery industry"

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a41608/bernie-sanders-washington-post-response/

I think that's another thing that ticks me off about this whole thing... "a once-great newspaper." The one that helped take down a President. And now? Capehart?!?!

"Talk to a steelworker." A-fucking-men, Pierce.

[exboyfil]

15. Capehart with Andrea Mitchell

7:10 in he admits that the photographer states it is Bernie Sanders. In his follow up story he said the following,

Unbeknownst to me until after my post was published, Lyon told book publisher Phaidon earlier this month that Sanders is indeed the person he photographed.

This statement happened before his first story was published.

Edit: I am not sure about if this interview happened before the first hit piece. It may have been the day after.

[Iggy Knorr]

22. Brock thinks they can punk us all

By sending out this lying kwanza-hater in a bowtie.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/black-washington-post-columnist-dismisses-made-up-black-holiday-kwanzaa/

[Beowulf]

29. Based on my experience, you should never trust a man who wears a bow tie.

[99Forever]

19. Unrepentant proven liars.

The heart and soul of everything Clinton.

[Empowerer]

21. Capehart never attacked Sanders civil rights record

[Bluenorthwest]

26. He attacked Danny Lyon. Dishonestly and without any effort to check the facts.

Unethical, unprofessional and unacceptable.

[femmedem]

28. He attacked his honesty and trustworthiness

which is where Sanders polls well.

[Empowerer]

32. Actually, he didn't -

Stating that Sanders helped to kead a sit-in but that one of the photos of a planning meeting depicts a person who sources say is not Sanders is neither an attack on Sanders' character, nor is it libel.

But that said, do you think your precious Bernie is the only politician with blanket immunity from being accused of dishonesty and trustworthiness? Under your standard, our courts would be clogged with libel suits and no other business would ever get done. Obama alone could keep the courts tied up for years just on what Sanders has said about him.

Funny thing - Sanders isn't whining about this. Why are you so worked up over it?

[Bluenorthwest]

36. Sanders is a politician, Danny Lyon is not. It is his reputation that Capehart is smearing without

cause and without having done due diligence in gathering the facts for his gossiping. You keep leaving Danny Lyon out of the equation while tossing out jabs at Bernie and at his supporters. What was done to Danny Lyon was very, very wrong. Absolutely unacceptable. So unethical and unprofessional that your cohort refuses to so much as discuss him.

Here is a link to a photo Danny Lyon and John Lewis claim is of John Lewis. Are both of these guys to be trusted? Lewis praises Lyon's work and Lyon's personal courage. But then again, they have this common interest of these suspect photos.....
Take a look at the link. Do you think that is really Lewis? I sure do. Would it be right to say 'well his head is bowed and he looks like John but that's a very young man...I heard this woman say that man is really her ex-husband she has not seen in 30 years so maybe it is not really Lewis at all....the only word we have is that of Lewis and of Danny Lyon, whose word is apparently not worth shit around here...
http://www.mocp.org/detail.php?t=objects&type=browse&f=maker&s=Lyon%2C+Danny&record=81

John Lewis in Cairo. Or is it?

[femmedem]

41. Capeharts' exact quote attacking Sanders' character:

"What’s at issue is Sanders’s misleading use of a photograph to burnish already solid credentials. For a candidate who garnered 92 percent of New Hampshire Democratic voters who said the most important trait for a candidate was that he or she be “honest,” the least his campaign could do is remove that photo from its Tumblr feed and stop physically placing him where he existed only in spirit."

Not sure why you think you know my standard for libel. I did not say that Sanders should sue for libel. My point was that it was more an attack on his integrity than on his civil rights record. And yes, I want to set the record straight because I don't like to see a good candidate swift boated.

And your "precious Bernie" comment was ugly.

[Empowerer]

43. Nice try at out-of-context cherry-picking - but why didn't you quote the whole paragraph?

This isn't Twitter, so you weren't stifled by a 140-character limit. Could it be because the entire paragraph in context proves my point and undercuts yours?

"Sanders’s involvement in the civil rights movement and his commitment to equal justice are not in question. Another old picture that appears in campaign literature and video of student-activist Sanders with the university president is not in question. That most definitely is him. What’s at issue is Sanders’s misleading use of a photograph to burnish already solid credentials. For a candidate who garnered 92 percent of New Hampshire Democratic voters who said the most important trait for a candidate was that he or she be “honest,” the least his campaign could do is remove that photo from its Tumblr feed and stop physically placing him where existed only in spirit."

[femmedem]

58. That doesn't undercut my point. It helps make my point.

My point being, the Capehart article is an attack on Sanders' honesty and integrity, not his civil rights credentials.

The attack is that he accuses Sanders of misleading the American public by using the photo on his campaign website.

I'm baffled at your response. But whatever. I'm not spending the rest of my Valentine's Day arguing with you., so go ahead and have the last word if you'd like.

[LiberalAndProud]

78. "misleading"

It seems to me that the agenda here was to undercut Bernie's integrity and to imply that Bernie exaggerates his civil rights record. It's psychological warfare, and it's often very effective. I recall how devastating the 'invention of the internet' was to the Gore campaign.

You understand why this might cause some consternation among supporters, yes?

As for the topics of libel and whether some supporters are exercised ... I think you make valid points.

[Empowerer]

82. Now criticizing Bernie is "psychlogical warfare?"

Poor, victimized Bernie ...

[LiberalAndProud]

83. No, casting doubt on his integrity and honesty by way of lying is.

So much for attempting to introduce a reasonable discussion on a political board. Honestly, the bristling here on both sides is beyond reason.

[Empowerer]

84. Really?

Wow.

As I said, poor poor Bernie.

[LiberalAndProud]

85. Your rejoinder is irrefutable.

The schoolyard sandbox (nanner nanner nanner) that is DU is quite enough to make me cry in my own Wheaties.

[noiretextatique]

80. you really did just make point you claim to challenging

Sad.

[tonedevil]

66. ProTip...

using the term "your precious Bernie" makes you sound petty and small.

[Iggy Knorr]

25. This idiot knew exactly what he was doing

I followed his tweets/retweets when it was happening, he is a petulant little fuckwad.

[SusanCalvin]

65. Yeah, that vets for Bernie article

documents Capehart tweeting practically the same thing practically minute-by-minute.

I used to like the guy.

[Bluenorthwest]

27. When scammers like Capehart are caught in a scam, the question that must be asked is who were his

marks? Who was Capehart trying to influence with his lies and insinuations? He was selling a pig in a poke, but the question is who was he trying to pawn it off on?

A conman has contempt for his marks, for the people he expects and seeks to deceive.

[HooptieWagon]

38. It has to be examined in context.

Timing was in conjunction of Rep Lewis's statements, on the eve of SC primary. Clearly this was a Clinton smear job of Sanders civil rights bonafides. Although the photo caption was corrected in January, and the photographer alive and easily contacted, Capehart never did any research. He just regurgitated an article from November that was in error. No coincidence that Capeharts boyfriend is a Clinton staffer...the campaign coordinated to have the propaganda pushed out. Must have been a nice check for Capehart, since he was willing to sacrifice his reputation and integrity...or he arrogantly assumed he wouldn't be caught and called out. I hope WaPo fires his ass.

[Ford_Prefect]

46. His editor seems to have not qualms about the piece. I think that says enough right there.

[HooptieWagon]

48. Editor may have assumed Capehart did his research.

I doubt editors fact check every article published.
However, editor should have been aware of Capeharts connection to the Clinton campaign through his boyfriend, and not permitted him to publish election-related articles.

[Ford_Prefect]

53. Like I said... Note that the Editor has not questioned it since publication. I have no doubts.

My brother worked a newspaper for 17 years. The editors know what's on even if they find out after it goes to print.
In this case the topic and content would have been under the editor's nose long before deadline, for no other reason than the subject. The editor knew and the Post knew.

[HooptieWagon]

63. Oh, I'm sure the editor knew it was a piece attacking Sanders creds,....

...I'm just not convinced the editor knew it was so poorly researched and easily debunked. Considering all the egg on the papers face now, he likely didn't. I imagine there was some interesting meetings and a lot of finger-pointing after the story was proved false.

[Ford_Prefect]

86. I am reasonably certain the editor did not care and still does not. There has been no retraction nor

correction by that editor. The editor we refer to is part of the smear and willing to be so. This is not a casual mistake by a junior editor and a cub reporter on a small town weekly gazette and advertiser, this is a well documented hack attacking willfully with the unqualified support of his editor in a national paper.

I am not talking pistols at dawn or slander and libel. I am sure as many are here that Capehart is but one player in a larger plan to make sure the favored candidate becomes the only candidate. I am not naive enough to imagine the editor did not know nor was not willing to correct Capehart's lie. Capehart knew what he was publishing and I suspect the editor was more than a little supportive given Capehart's prior work. Capehart is too young to know what it was like at that time or I doubt he'd have done this quite so boldly. Neo-Democrats deserve an Island somewhere like I said above. It is quite clear he is coordinating with the DNC and Hillary's campaign.

However as a Gay man and a POC he ought to be just a bit more respectful of those who helped open the door. I fought that fight in several communities I lived in and still do here in North Carolina. Not because I am gay or black for I am neither. Not because it was the socially acceptable political theme of the decade, it still is not. It is my family tradition and it is my personal faith.

It is an insult to all who acted in good faith for others that Capehart, that particularly privileged lout, should abuse his position and the forum he speaks from to so denigrate not only Bernie sanders but anyone else in that room. I am sick and tired of the privileged few rewriting history to suit their agendas, or their personal profit.

My people were there, your people were there too, and a well paid FOOL has no right to erase them from that history!

[Fumesucker]

54. Of course editors don't fact check, that's what fact checkers are for

[Armstead]

68. The Post is on a vendetta against Sanders. Editor's judgement may have been affected.

[HooptieWagon]

70. That is true. However, they have to at least maintain the illusion of balance....

...to maintain credibility. The posted story was so easily debunked, it even calls into question the papers competence.

[BillZBubb]

59. What exactly does it say?

Because an editor allowed it, it is OK? Seriously?

[K Gardner]

55. Capehart has blocked me on Twitter. #RetractCapehart

He is blocking en masse, evidently, as his twitter feed is being over run. Let's help.
Also @WashingtonPost and @Hardball_Chris @CapehartJ

[Matariki]

72. I asked what he's getting in return

#RetractCapehart

[UnBlinkingEye]

60. Tip of the iceburg

Capehart's folly is one of the initial pieces of flotsam coming from the sinking ship 'Hillarious'.

[SusanCalvin]

61. Here's my favorite paragraph:

To wit: Capehart goes out of his way to cast aspersions on the Sanders campaign for using the photo in its promotional materials, including a video celebrating the 50th anniversary of the march on Washington in 2013, but then goes on to explain, “the photo was still captioned as Bernie Sanders in the University of Chicago’s photo archive” as of November 2015. Generally, people go off the official labeling of professional archivists. What was Sanders’ camp supposed to do, go through every photo of him at the University of Chicago and double check the work of professional archivists?

[Matariki]

67. PRO-CLINTON COLUMNIST IN BED WITH CLINTON STAFFER — LITERALLY

(sorry for the all-caps. copied from article)

http://www.menstrait.com/article/pro-clinton-columnist-in-bed-with-clinton-staffer-literally/

Over the past 24 hours, a flurry of scandal has unfolded involving MSNBC contributor, Washington Post opinion columnist and prolific Clinton supporter Jonathan Capehart.

Writing an opinion piece for the Washington Post, Capehart sought to sling mud at Bernie Sanders — Swiftboat-style — in questioning Bernie Sanders’ past achievements in fighting for civil rights on behalf of African-American communities in the 1960s. (This, itself, isn’t even an original idea, as Capehart was simply jumping on the Establishment’s anti-Sander claims, which continue time after time to be disproved or found to be outright lies. (Here, here, here and here — in case you’d like some background reading.)

But that is not the central thesis of this story. Instead, let’s look a little more closely at Jonathan Capehart himself, and the flurry of lies and misdirections for which he is quickly becoming known.

Capehart, who currently offers his opinions to readers of the Washington Post and viewers on MSNBC, has spent the past five years in a long-term relationship with Nicholas Schmit IV, a long-term Clinton aide. Schmit has served in various capacities for the Clinton family and the US State Department under Clinton since 2004. You can see his full resume on LinkedIn, but we’ve summarized the key timeline of his career here.

more...

[femmedem]

69. Wish I could rec this one response onto the greatest page. n/t

[Matariki]

71. Ask and you receive!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511230861

[femmedem]

79. You're doing an awesome job over there!

A few people are wearing blinders, but most see the conflict of interest clearly.

[valerief]

75. Capehart (whose boyfriend works for Clinton) swiftboats Bernie. America now knows

Capehart is a lying shill and will never believe another word he says.

[senz]

81. Clinton supporters are giving themselves a bad name.

If they had more integrity than their candidate, they'd denounce this stuff.

[artislife]

87. They can't. Another republican way they have adopted is admitting their errors.

Just like Bush and co.

[kiva]

88. Why is this important?

The money quote:

The official answer, given Capehart’s finger-wagging tone is that The Truth is important and he’s simply trying to correct the record. In actuality, it’s an attempt to undermine the two things Sanders needs more than anything right now: people to trust him and African-American voters to like him.

[senz]

89. Nailed it, kiva. That is precisely the goal.

People get caught up in personalities, etc. and take their eyes off the ball.

It's dead serious and there's much at stake.