Distortions in the KO "Special Comment" Tonight: Say It Ain't So, KO!

[McCamy Taylor]

Go on. Hate me. Call me names. I just finished a four part journal about the "The Press v. Hillary Clinton" and today I finished collecting 60 pages of notes for "The Press v. Barack Obama". In the latter, a disturbing trend has become clear. For fourteen solid months, right wing sites like Drudge, Insight and others have spewed lies about Obama being Muslim and assorted other charges and every time they do it they say that Hillary made them do it. . Worse, some drunkard right wing liar like Bob Novak always announces before hand that Hillary is going to unleash dirt on Obama. As if the Clinton campaign would tell Novak and then spread dirt in Moonie rags and Drudge and make sure to put their name on it. And when it happens, the MSM prints and televises a solid weeks worth of stories (or sometimes two or three or four) asking "Is Obama really a Muslim?" As to the second question, that isn't a question at all. The MSM just nods its head and says "Of course, Hillary did it. We hate her. We know a bitch like her must have done it."

Imagine finding story cycles like this over and over again over the course of two days as you are researching the media smears against a major Democratic presidential candidate. And then imagine that you turn on the television and hear Keith Olbermann, the man who has been a media watchdog, correcting people like O'Reilly and Beck and Savage when they play fast and loose with the truth---imagine that you hear him repeating the same media distortions that a mainstream internet site like Media Matters has already debunked.

It might get you a little bit frazzled, too. It might make you wonder if KO needs to make up his mind which it will be---sports or politics.

When he hosted Lawrence O'Donnell a few days after the infamous Huffington Post article "John Edwards is a loser" I thought has he lost his mind? No, it turns out that KO does not keep up with left wing political news. Too bad. His Special Comment tonight revealed that.

Here were his three "charges" against the Clintons (and yes, I heard that great big string of qualifiers he attached to them. They don't count. A rose is a rose is a rose and a charge is a charge when you are making an impassioned, vitriol filled rant):

1. Hillary equivocated in her 60 Minutes answer to the question "Is Obama a Muslim?" This particular rumor was started by Drudge. Drudge took her comments after the second time she was asked the question (as in Defend your comment ) and made it a stand alone answer knowing that out of context it had a different implication. This allowed the press to enter yet another of their festivals of discussing Obama's possible Muslim associations and Hillary's definite (in their eyes) bitchiness.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200803030004

There is a link so you can watch Hillary on 60 Minutes

On March 3, the Drudge Report linked to online news portal Breitbart.tv video footage from the March 2 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes under the headline "Hillary: Obama Not Muslim 'As Far As I Know' ... ," falsely suggesting that Sen. Hillary Clinton characterized the issue of Sen. Barack Obama's religion as unresolved. In fact, she did the opposite. Correspondent Steve Kroft first asked Clinton, "You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?" to which Clinton replied, "Of course not. I mean, that's -- you know, there is no basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that." Kroft then asked, "And you said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim," to which Clinton replied, "Right. Right." Only after Kroft went on to ask, "You don't believe that he's a Muslim or implying, right?," did Clinton respond, "No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know" .

Following Clinton's response to Kroft's third query on the subject, Kroft said, "It's just scurrilous --" to which Clinton responded, "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."On March 3, the Drudge Report linked to online news portal Breitbart.tv video footage from the March 2 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes under the headline "Hillary: Obama Not Muslim 'As Far As I Know' ... ," falsely suggesting that Sen. Hillary Clinton characterized the issue of Sen. Barack Obama's religion as unresolved. In fact, she did the opposite. Correspondent Steve Kroft first asked Clinton, "You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?" to which Clinton replied, "Of course not. I mean, that's -- you know, there is no basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that." Kroft then asked, "And you said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim," to which Clinton replied, "Right. Right." Only after Kroft went on to ask, "You don't believe that he's a Muslim or implying, right?," did Clinton respond, "No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know" .

Following Clinton's response to Kroft's third query on the subject, Kroft said, "It's just scurrilous --" to which Clinton responded, "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."

Now, I realize that some people at DU are currently of the opinion that "as far as I know" is the new slang for "yes", but I find it hard to believe that KO is one of them. If he can honestly say that he watched the video and watched Hillary's body language, the defensive way that she says the words, the slight squaring of the jaw, eyes opening slightly and staring straight forwards, as if to say "It's my opinion and it's all I have but it should be good enough"--if he can say that she was trying to give a nudge, nudge, wink, wink "yes" then I suggest that he never play poker with Chris Matthews. Because he is no judge of people and he will lose his shirt.

2. The 3 am ad was racist. Give me a break.That ad exploited fear. It exploited the fact that Hillary looks like good old reliable mom or grandma and Obama looks young. It was ageism, maybe , but not racism. She could have done the same ad with an opponent who was a young Asian woman or a young White man. She could not have done the same ad against Colin Powell. KO ought to be ashamed of himself. Some one told him that ad was racist. He did not think that one up himself.

3. Bill Clinton and Jesse Jackson and South Carolina. The problem with that one is that Bill Clinton was yanked off the Hillary Clinton campaign trail right after South Carolina. So, she did do something about it. She put the Big Dog back in the porch.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/27/hillary-clinton-campaign-_n_88670.html

If KO paid more attention to politics he might have noticed that. He also might have noticed what Jackson himself advised doing about the matter.

http://www.essence.com/essence/lifestyle/voices/0,16109,1706948,00.html

Essence.com: Did you hear President Clinton’s comment yesterday in Columbia, South Carolina, after someone asked about it taking two Clintons to beat Obama, and he answered, “Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in ’84 and ‘88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here.” Many people are taking that as President Clinton’s attempt to tie Obama to you or to inject race back into the discussion.

J.J: We are tied together. Barack is the result of all the struggles, from Selma to South Carolina. They are factors in his ascendancy, which is accurate. Again, I think it’s some more gotcha politics. I did win in ’84 and ’88, and because we ran in ’84, the Democrats regained the Senate in ’86. I just think that we’ve got to be very sensitive to what I call gotcha politics and not take the attention away from student loans? The reason I keep going back to that is, kids are going to college now graduating with these $60,000 debts. You know?

Jesse Jackson is the grownup here. How I wish that he could be our president. And maybe get a prime time TV show from MSNBC. He would not talk about the latest "gotcha" du jour, stupid photos of candidates in turbans that right wing sites just swear were given to them by candidates whom they routinely refer to as lesbian bitch-witches. He is the one who knows that if we do not stand together we will die together (Caesar Chavez). All this tit for tat is tearing the Democrats apart the way it did in 1972---which is why the right wing smear machine keeps following the Pat Buchanan 1972 CREEPy play book. And dirty trick number one is (people who pay attention to politics rather than sports know this one without looking)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/stories/buchananmemo.htm

The preparation of attacks on one Democrat by another

Luckily, while KO was rewriting history tonight, Hillary was making history, by issuing her first apology.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080313/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_s_apologies

WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton did something Wednesday night that she almost never does. She apologized. And once she started, she didn't seem able to stop.

snip

Her biggest apology came in response to a question about comments by her husband, Bill Clinton, after the South Carolina primary, which Obama won handily. Bill Clinton said Jesse Jackson also won South Carolina when he ran for president in 1984 and 1988, a comment many viewed as belittling Obama's success.

"I want to put that in context. You know I am sorry if anyone was offended. It was certainly not meant in any way to be offensive," Hillary Clinton said. "We can be proud of both Jesse Jackson and Senator Obama."

"Anyone who has followed my husband's public life or my public life know very well where we have stood and what we have stood for and who we have stood with," she said, acknowledging that whoever wins the nomination will have to heal the wounds of a bruising, historic contest.

"Once one of us has the nomination there will be a great effort to unify the Democratic party and we will do so, because, remember I have a lot of supporters who have voted for me in very large numbers and I would expect them to support Senator Obama if he were the nominee," she said.

snips

Of Ferraro's comment, Hillary Clinton told her audience: "I certainly do repudiate it and I regret deeply that it was said. Obviously she doesn't speak for the campaign, she doesn't speak for any of my positions, and she has resigned from being a member of my very large finance committee."

I think maybe there is a reason that Obama and Hillary are running for president and some of their supporters (like KO) are not. Obama and Hillary are the grown ups.

[karmicglee]

1. If he really said the 3 AM ad was racist, he needs to see a shrink

Nobody said the ad was racist until some cook, a social linguist from Harvard, wrote an op-Ed in the NY Times arguing that the 3 AM ad reminded him of the Ku Klux Klan.

Olbermann did more harm than good to his career today.

[ossman]

4. You morons should actually listen to it. He didnt say that. He reported others did, and even called

FRINGE!

[The Wielding Truth]

5. It's fear mongering . If you are a minority you recognize this

type of campaigning as comparing Hill a white woman to her opponent a racially mixed man. I can see how the thought crossed the minds of those in shadows because of their treatment by those who think less of others who look different from the majority.

It's a stretch if you don't live it.

[karmicglee]

8. Wow. Cant get more subliminal than that

You have to be on mushrooms in order to understand how the ad was racist.

And note that nobody, even here in DU, Obama or Clinton supporters, ever said that the ad was racist until the cook wrote his little op-ed in the NYT. Now all of a sudden a few here have seen the light and found out this ad was Ku Klux Klan-ish.

[Berry Cool]

60. No, just reprehensible and fear-mongering.

Can't understand that, can you?

[papau]

6. I agree - I refuse to watch KO anymore - AirAmerica has turned into HillaryHate - Hillary voters

will not show up in November as the votes Obama will need to win.

This election is over already.

[jgraz]

10. Did you ever ask yourself why

Keith Olbermann, Stephanie Miller, Rachel Maddow, Mike Malloy, Mike Pappantonio, Sam Seder, Randi Rhodes, Thom Hartmann, Laura Flanders, Cenk Uygar and Ed Schultz ALL suddenly "hate" Hillary. Are you really that much of a tinfoil hatter that you think they're somehow coordinating with the Obama campaign?

Or could it possibly be that your candidate has crossed the line where most (or all) decent progressives are horrified by her behavior?

Which do you think is more likely?

[McCamy Taylor]

13. I make up my own mind on candidates. I do not choose them by their supporters

especially not their "celebrity journalist" reporters, since the people you name are not all that intelligent. Sometimes they are trying so hard to be "hip" that they forget common sense. Or the seriousness of our political situation.

[jgraz]

17. That's nice, but you ignored my question.

Why do you think all of the hosts, commentators and pundits I mentioned are calling for Hillary to stop her shameful tactics and admit defeat? Do they just ALL hate her?

[McCamy Taylor]

28. Obama is "hip" and Hillary is a "Bitch" and Media Celebrities ride with the herd.

Does that answer your question? I saw this in 1968. The people who said if they couldn't have Gene, they wouldn't vote. The fucktards gave us Nixon, the Killing Fields and all the other shit that they should have been able to predict from Joe McCarthy and the rest of Nixon's sordid career.

Hipness has no place in politics.

[jgraz]

29. Really. You think some of the most brilliant progressives in media are "riding with the herd"

ALL of them? Every damn one of the people I mentioned? For you to make that accusation, I have to wonder if you even know who these people are.

[McCamy Taylor]

30. Who did you name who is brilliant? Noam Chomskly is brilliant.

Paul Krugman is brilliant. Leonardo Boff is brilliant. William Burroughs was brilliant. So was Walace Stevens. So was William Blake. As for journalists, no one writing nowadays can hold a candle to Hunter S. Thompson. People try to imitate him with "hipness" but they have no insight. He had the clarity of a Charles Dickens---that was his real strength, but journalist think they can be the new him if they throw in some colloquialisms. Maybe Robert Crumb comes close, but he draws.

If I find a brilliant journalist, I will let you know.

[jgraz]

32. Once again, you show your ignorance. Including how to spell CHOMSKY

Rachel Maddow is a Rhodes Scholar, the first openly gay person to receive that honor. Thom Hartmann is the author of over 20 books, and his writings have prompted invitations to speak with the Dalai Lama and Pope John Paul II, among others.

Before you start pissing on the intellect of others, you should maybe learn a bit about them, learn the difference between a journalist and a talk show host, and learn how to fucking spell.

[McCamy Taylor]

41. We all have different criteria. Some choose by the authors' degrees, whom he knows,

number of publications, who else is reading the book and whether or not he spell checks before he goes to take a bath (I know how to spell, too. You will have to show me how to fucking spell.)

I choose what to read by the content. There are plenty of Rhodes Scholars who can not write their way of a paper bag. And George W. Bush has met the Pope and the Dali Lama, but his idea of fine literature is My Pet Goat. Zane Gray wrote over 90 books, so that must make him an uber-genius.

When I was back in college, ages ago, I was the only one who dared to say that Robert Frost did not measure up to Wallace Stevens, Ezra Pound and T.S. Eliot, whom we studied together in a block. You would have thought I had committed blasphemy. But I am just an ornery southern girl who likes what she likes and gets bored with things that are mediocre. So no one will convince me that anyone is a "great writer" by telling me their qualifications. I need to see great work. I have read work by all the people you mention. I have not seen greatness, just competence. I may change my mind if I read the right piece.

I forgot Bill Moyers earlier and I apologize. He is a brilliant journalist.

[Berry Cool]

61. Well, la-dee-dah. You obviously are the only true judge of who is an intellectual

and who is not, and of what good writing is and what is not. How brave you are to stand up to all the poor hoi polloi who actually have the nerve to think that "mediocre" stuff has value.

We are lucky you are here to save us all from the merely "competent."

Sheesh.

You know, we all have opinions here. Some are more educated than others. And I'd be willing to wager that there are other people here just as educated and opinionated and ornery as you who disagree with you completely about the value of various writers.

I'm not sure you could handle the shock.

[McCamy Taylor]

66. I said that every person should judge for himself. Jgraz said let someone else judge for you.

By checking for college degrees, who else likes the person, how many books they have manged to get published etc. Jgraz went even farther and said how could I not support Obama when all those people with all those degrees and contacts support him. The illogic--- and face it, the inhumanity--- of that should give some people here pause.

"God appears and God is light to those poor souls who live in Night,

But does a human form display to those who live in realms of day" Blake

If you live in fear in a world of dualisms, where things are shaded in Black and White, Good and Evil, then yeah, you give up your own right to self validate and you measure the worth of things and writers and politicians and yourself by someone else's yardstick. But if you live in a world of living color, nondualistic, comfortable with the concept of shades of gray and your own mortality and the fact that we are all flawed creatures but all worthy of love anyway, then we are able to assert comfortably "I like that!" with confidence, without looking over our shoulder to see if the crowd is nodding its head in approval.

"I 'yam what I 'yam" Popeye.

One of KO's most endearing qualities is that he lives by this rule.

BTW, the word "intellectual" was brought up by you. We were discussing brilliance and genius, totally different concepts. An intellectual is someone who thinks that he or she can make up for a lack of true artistic gift by studying a lot. Like Buckley. That is why I worry when people tell me "so and so is Rhodes scholar!" Big whoop-de-doo. I have known people who never completed grade school who are smarter, more "brilliant" than people with PhDs. Visit Paradise Gardens in Georgia if you want to see what a natural genius can do.

[Two Americas]

33. I think that is possible

I have heard and read everyone you mentioned, as well as all of the bizarre commentary here, and since I am not partial to either of the two remaining candidates and don't think there is anything of any great substance to distinguish the two politically, I don't have a horse in the race.

What strikes me is how worked up the people you mentioned are. It is all out of proportion to the supposed issues they are ranting about.

I think it is very possible that some sort of mob psychology has set in, and that people are feeding off of each other and it builds and builds. Each person magnifies the "outrage" and spreads it. I have heard a couple of those people talking themselves into a frenzy about this, with long rambling monologues.

People are definitely going off the deep end. They are definitely very emotional about this. That leads me to give less credence to what they are saying, not more. And there is so little substance to any of this.

I think that what could be feeding this and giving it so much energy is that frustrations and anger have been building for years in the liberal community and needed an outlet, and also there are some unresolved conflicts within liberalism that are surfacing.

I also think that right wing dirty tricks campaigns behind the scenes are feeding all of this and that we are being played and divided.

[jgraz]

34. You don't think it's possible that it's the CANDIDATE who is off the deep end

And that all these people are just reacting to her obvious lack of propriety and ethics? Doesn't that make much more sense than some strange mob mentality that's infecting every pundit and talk show host in the country?

[Two Americas]

35. you'd better believe it!

Absolutely. All of my thinking would run that way like water runs downhill. Back at the beginning of the primaries she was my last choice, Kucinich and Edwards being my first and second. What were there, nine candidates? I can't remember. She wasn't just ninth, she was a distant ninth. I don't think you can find anyone who has been more critical of or opposed to Senator Clinton and the people around her, going back over fifteen years now. You have no idea how much provocation it would take to have me defending Senator Clinton. It is the oddest and most unlikely twist of fate that I could have imagined.

As for "some strange mob mentality that's infecting every pundit and talk show host in the country" I would never have believed that possible. But I am seeing exactly that same mob mentality infecting DU, so I am forced to think that it is very much possible. Seeing is believing, although I am still stunned and incredulous about what I read here everyday now. In 40 years of working with the party, I have never seen anything even remotely approaching this.

I haven't changed, Senator Clinton hasn't changed, the Clinton supporters haven't changed. But something sure as Hell has changed, and it is one of the ugliest things I have ever seen in politics.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

36. Clinton Racist/Surrogate Geraldine Ferraro Owned by Fox News

She's Fox News Analyst

Fox Bio Here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34759,00.html

[Two Americas]

38. oh...

I don't care, my friend. I don't have a horse in this race. But I can recognize character assassination, witch hunts, guilt by association, and smear campaigns when I see them.

[jgraz]

39. Guilt by Association???

Hillary HIRED her knowing Ferraro's history of racist remarks and refused to fire her after she began her Stormfront routine on Obama in February. That's not guilt by association, that's just plain guilt.

[Two Americas]

46. stormfront?

A history of racist remarks? Yiu have a frightening concept of "guilt" and a complete lack or proportion or perspective.

You are illustrating my point for me.

As I pointed out on another thread, were I to say "Clarence Thomas would never be a Supreme Court justice were he white" I don't think anyone here would argue with that. I think we can all agree that Thomas was cynically used for a political agenda that was in no way in opposition to racism, and stating that is not a racist comment.

Yes, we have a Black man achieving national prominence, and the significant aspect of that is that he is someone with whom millions of whites are comfortable. I find it extremly ironic, and highly suspect, that some of the same people who are now claiming that racism is the main reason that anyone would be opposed to this man have in the past viciously and savagely attacked leaders like Reverend Jackson or Reverend Sharpton while vehemently denying that racism could be a factor there.

This campaign is not a referendum on racism, it is however a spectacular example of the phenomenon of tokenism for many whites. Could it not be that many whites are rallying around Obama because he is their perfect "I am not a racist" candidate? Playing "gotcha" with Ferraro and others is nothing new, it is a common way to distract people from institutional and systematic racism - "see? Over there! There is the racist! I am not a racist! That person over there is the racist! I support Obama, even though he is Black! That person doesn't! That means they are a racist and I am not!"

Where was all of this support, all of this animated and frantic anti-racism in the past when members here tried to discuss racism? I wish we could get this many people this outraged about racism in any other context, but that has always been difficult or impossible to do.

[jgraz]

49. Ferraro has been saying EXACTLY THE SAME SHIT since 1988

Did you not know that?

And what she's saying is practically a word-for-word recitation of white supremacists arguments about affirmative action and bogus reverse discrimination.

She's a racist. A hard-core fucking racist. And she's too stupid to even realize it.

[McCamy Taylor]

51. The women's movement and the civil rights movement had a stormy relationship.

Especially in the late 60s. Lots of bad blood between the two movements. Lots of women felt very bitter. Maybe someone has written about it online.

[mojowork_n]

54. Thoughtful DU essay on that very topic

here, but (be forewarned) it's from an Obama supporter:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5041176

I excerpted 3 paragraphs and added my own take in one of the many replies to Effie Black's excellent OP, (near the top of the "Greatest Threads" list), "Geraldine Ferraro is very afraid..."

[McCamy Taylor]

56. Thanks for the recommendation! Very thoughtful post!

This is just what Angela Davis was writing about in "Women, Race and Class". White women say to themselves "Why should we have to go second when we have struggled just as long?" And Black men say the exact same thing. And the White man is laughing as the White women and the Black men compete with each other when they should be ganging up to take over from the White man. And the Black woman is being pulled in two different directions.

This is no different than when you get Irish and Italian workers divided by a factory neither side willing to collectively bargain together so the boss can pit them one against the other to get a lower wage.

Or Whites compete with Asians who then become a low paid scab work force.

Another excellent reason for a unity ticket.

[Two Americas]

52. it is the exact opposite

As I pointed out in my example of Clarence Thomas above, the promotion of an individual often comes at the expense of the group. That is tokenism.

Affirmative action promotes the group, which then benefits many individuals. That is justice.

Opponents of the first are taking a diametrically opposing view to the opponents of the second.

Equating the two, and trying to confuse and enflame people, betrays a profund misunderstanding as to the true nature of racism, and actually promotes racism while claiming to do the opposite. That is why it can be so appealing to whites.

on edit, for the sake of clarity -

I am not criticizing Obama, nor African Americans who are voting for him. I am talking about whites using him as a token by using his candidacy as a litmus test for racism, claiming the high moral ground on the subject which they have not earned, for confusing and distracting people about racism, and for using the Obama candidacy to reinforce reactionary efforts that lead people to ignore and deny institutional racism.

[McCamy Taylor]

53. There is a nice reason why people like Obama for his multiculturalism that has

nothing to do with racism or tokenism or affirmative action.

People are sick to death of living in a country where we are all divided by 1. religion, 2. class, 3. race, 4. borders, 5, age and every other god damned thing you can be divided by until we have all been sliced and diced like hashed browns.

Obama is everyman. White, Black, not too old or young, part New World, part Old World, Christian but has family that is Muslim so maybe he wont go blowing up other people.

So, in that sense, it is important that he is all the things he is. If he could be a woman and part Native American it would help, too, but we can not have everything.

[Two Americas]

55. some are

The more privileged are "tired of the divide" - tired of hearing about it. As though the divides are just annoying little spats.

Real human beings are oppressed, persecuted, and suffering. The "divides" are not something we can just get tired of and wish away.

[Berry Cool]

63. So you think Obama's popularity is all about white people trying to prove

"I am less racist than thou"?

What a reductionist argument.

You don't just suppose it might be because some people LIKE HIM AS A CANDIDATE?

Naah. Too easy. Gotta be some deep, dark, ulterior motive even THEY are not aware of. Yeah, right.

[Two Americas]

65. absolutely not

No, I don't think that at all. I am not criticizing Obama nor his candidacy. I am criticizing his supporters.

I think that the way that too many Obama supporters are defending him and attacking others is "I am less racist than thou."

[McCamy Taylor]

67. No, but I think that they trust him more because they think he will be more tolerant.

Because they figure that he has had more life experiences of different cultures and therefore he will not favor one over the other the way that Bush has.

[Berry Cool]

62. And guess what. Some people think the "mob mentality" of Clinton supporters

is one of the ugliest things we have seen in politics. Go figure.

Ah, but no. Too easy to blame all the questioning of her on a mass media "infection" from which many are "suffering" and from which they need to be "cured."

[McCamy Taylor]

69. Both candidates have SOME supporters who are using them to further their own private agendas

Women's rights and civil rights. That does not mean that all of the supporters of either candidates are like that or that either candidate is like that. The same way that both candidate have some supporters who are using them to further their agendas for environmental issues, gay rights etc.

Some of Bush's supporters were using him to further their own private agenda to invade the Middle East and take over its oil. That does not mean that all of the people who votes for Bush were NeoCons or even that Bush knew that the reason that they were invading Iraq was for the oil. I think they told him it was for the democracy. Cheney does not tell him much.

[McCamy Taylor]

50. Here is my journal about the Left Wing Media's attacks on Hillary

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/160

Almost no one read it, but it is interesting, esp. towards the end, where the people at Huffington Post start citing all these rumors that Media Matters debunked months ago as proof that Hillary is the whore of Babylon. Really outlandish stuff. It would be funny if it were not so pathetic. I should do a journal comparing the ultra lefty rants against poor old Humphrey to the ones they are writing now against Hillary. You would not believe how they used to treat Humphrey. Worse than Hillary. Cause he wasn't even a woman.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

75. "we are being played and divided" yep-I can hear Karl Rove chortling away....

You know that he's not just sitting back and playing nice.

[McCamy Taylor]

84. It's why he left DC. Up to 12 pages in "The Press v. Obama"

[femrap]

12. The 'Divide and Conquer' used by

the Fascists has worked very well, hasn't it? I'm starting to see a McCain presidency as well...I pray Huck isn't the VP...if so, McCain better get Cheney's doctor to take care of him.

I need to get a passport and start making plans...

Hey...can we nominate Gore at the convention?

[McCamy Taylor]

15. Gore/Edwards would be nice. But the will of the people says it needs to be

some combo of Obama and Clinton---so the two of them better get their butts in gear and do it for the sake of the party. If they allow Karl Rove to turn this into 1972 with Hillary as Humphrey and Obama as McGovern which is Rove's intention, I am going to consider both of them pariah.

[femrap]

23. Shit...that is what this is looking

like, isn't it? That was my first election. In '68, who was it....Humphrey and Muskie?? And the repugs wanted Humphrey so they did dirty tricks on Muskie, right? My memory???

I wouldn't be surprised if repugnants weren't funding BO.

To me the only common sense compromise is HRC/BO...which could lead to 16 years of Dem Prez. BO scares people with his inexperience more than anything...but 8 yrs. as VP would cover that. HRC mentioned that, but he scoffed. He's got arrogance and lots of ambition.

If some kind of compromise isn't reached, this will destroy the Dem party....

[Still-ill]

14. Its funny

how, every Democrat loved KO win he was making his comments about the Bush administration and Republicans, but now, all of a sudden he is a liar. Come on people, and you guys are saying KO needs to grow up. Hillary supporters have been whining about these "lies" all night. Does any rational person actually think KO decided to lie on some one he has supported and defended in the past?

[McCamy Taylor]

19. Yes. I do. He has slipped into his "go, team , go" mentality. It is a game to him.

He saw McCain speak and he saw Obama speak and he decided like the naive man he is that one on one Obama would beat McCain so he thinks he is helping the Democrats by helping Obama.

But journalists have no place helping either candidate. Once you compromise that far, where does it stop?

If he was doing this for Hillary and disrespecting Obama I would be just as mad. There is a terrible, artificial split in the Democrats of the type that Angela Davis talked about in Women, Race and Claa Olbermann had a chance to use his forum to try to be the anti-Rove. To call bullshit on the MSM which ignores the issues and plays "gotcha" with each new scandal.

Notice how every time there is a truce, someone prints some story or reprints some story or makes up something to start the war again. On one occasion CNN resurrected a 6 month old story to break a truce. The MSM wants to Dems to fight. Maybe because it is the best show in town, Maybe because the corporate masters know that a brokered Dem convention means a weak Dem nominee---and a GOP FCC means more media favors.

KO could have used his special comment to call on Hillary to act like a grown up and offer the olive branch first to heal the rift. Instead, he had to name call and denounce and make it all personal. I am just glad she was already doing the right thing. If she had seen him, it might have made her mad, and that would have made things worse rather than better.

[Still-ill]

24. He didn't

name call and denounce, he told her to take back her campaign. If you honestly think the antics that the Hillary campaign has used over the past month were not taking right out of the Republican play book you must be naive. Its obvious. Then she get on TV and tells Obama to run a clean Campaign, what a joke. KO, said what every person not caught up in the love for the Clinton's have been saying for a month. She is doing anything to win, and she wont stop until it become impossible for Democrats to take back the White House.

Your focusing on the news coverage, but that has nothing to do with KO comments. GF, didn't make those statements on a National News program, she mad them in a local paper. The fact of the matter is, Clinton attack Obama for not denouncing Farrakhan , then doesn't do the same win some one who actually works for her make a blatant racist comment.

[McCamy Taylor]

27. The MSM, RW and then Russert attacked Obama on Farrakhan.

He was hanging himself on the debate. I just researched this today.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801180006

Fox News' Sean Hannity suggested that Sen. Barack Obama had "associated" himself with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who had received an award from a magazine founded by Obama's church. But Hannity, who described Farrakhan as "an anti-Semite racist," did not note that Obama issued a statement "condemning" Farrakhan's "anti-Semitic statements" and saying of the award: "It is not a decision with which I agree."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801220012
O’Reilly on Farrakhan

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/04/AR2008020402422.html

Hail to the Chief of Staff
By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, February 5, 2008; Page A19
Look, I know what Barack Obama was doing when he refused to confront his minister about the latter's embrace of Louis Farrakhan. He was ducking an issue with no upside for him. He will not get my Profiles in Courage award for this, but the rest of his record overwhelms this one chintzy act.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200802260008
Hannity on Farrakhan again.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200802270006

Tim Russert brings up the issue of Louis Farrakhan on the Debate, badgers Obama about it, will not accept his answer. As MM notes,

“Further, in three separate posts while liveblogging the debate for the MSNBC.com blog First Read, NBC News political director Chuck Todd criticized Obama's statements, at one point asking, "Why didn't Obama simply say he rejected Farrakhan's support? That's an answer he's going to wish he had over." But at no time did Todd note that Obama denounced Farrakhan's comments before and during the debate.”

Clinton, who has a lot of experience with this kind of media badgering (and set up---as Todd makes clear they were trying to get Obama on record as not rejecting Farrakhan) actually saved Obama's butt. She made it easy for him by telling an anecdote about how she made a difficult decision to reject, and so he did it too. And then Russert (reluctantly) had to drop the subject. Look at that the MM video and discussion of Todd's blog. They were setting Obama up, and he did not see it.

[LulaMay]

42. The Air America cruise was a Hillary hate fest. Supporters were not welcomed, tho we paid a lot

to go on their who knew so biased cruise.

In the 1st meeting Mark Green, station mgr., told everyone for Obama to raise hands, then Hillary. He purosely turned it into Hillary supporters not welcome here from the gate. He intended it.

It was ridiculous.

I felt like they took my money and then slammed the door in my face, disinvited from their 'party'.

My husband was pissed. A lot of people were.

I knew at least 4 women who just didn't go to anything they were so repelled.

Me included after I'd had ny share of being beaten up on a vacation.

THANKS Air America!!!!

[krkaufman]

93. That's curious, given Green is a staunch Hillary supporter ...

... from all evidence I've seen.

[Berry Cool]

59. I don't think that's possible because of what any linguist says.

The kids in the ad are white. That alone gives me pause.

[AX10]

2. K & R!

[tabatha]

3. I may be wrong

But I thought the Muslim email originated in the Clinton campaign and two staffers were fired. (Too late, the damage was done.)

Also, send your objections to KO - and I am sure he will apologize if he got it wrong.

[McCamy Taylor]

9. I found one volunteer staff member who forwarded one Muslim email in my research.

That was months ago and she was promptly fired.Given the way the dirty tricks have been going for all we know she was a mole. Or maybe she was legit. But all the others are right wing associated. This stuff is aired daily on Fox and on talk radio. Not counting the times that MSM advertises it by claiming that they don't believe it--they are just talking about the latest Hillary the Bitch smear. That means millions of right wing Americans everyday are hearing that Obama is a Muslim and have been hearing it for a year. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that some of them are spreading the word via anonymous email and internet sites, is it?

I have not seen a candidate get so slimed since 1972 and McGovern. In all the same kinds of ways too. Liberal. UnAmerican. Doping. Only the Muslim part is new. Most of it serves the right wing. Indeed, what no one ever asks is why Hillary would plant Muslim and Black smears in the middle of a Democratic primary, when these are not effective smears in a Democratic primary---they are the kinds of things you do to soften up a candidate for the general election. The stuff I am uncovering is meant to knock Hillary out of the primary and make Obama easier to take out in the general.

[Armstead]

7. I agree about the 3 a.m. ad -- That was terrorism fear-mongering...as for the others....

Bill Clinton did say it, and it was obviously intended to put Obama in his place as a "minority" candidate.

Hillary's answer on 60 Minutes was, er, needlessly uncomfortable. The answer would be "No I know for a fact he is not a Muslim, and the question is ridiculous."

The problem with the Clintons is that it's a pattern with them. They say and do things that just leave this little opening on the side to slip through if they get caught.

[HughMoran]

11. Excellent post

I actually tried to recommend it twice! :D

[VotesForWomen]

16. it's sad that keith has stooped so low, but he is in the entertainment business, so what do we expec

expect?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

37. whats low is Clinton Surrogates who work for Fox News

and who spent all week on Limbaugh etc.

oh, thats right, Bill Clinton went on the limbaugh show day of Tx and OH primaries.

[Political Heretic]

18. Most of what you say is distortion:

1. Hillary equivocated in her 60 Minutes answer to the question "Is Obama a Muslim?" This particular rumor was started by Drudge.

This isn't a "distortion" because it isn't a fact. It is a matter of opinion. That's what most people won't admit. I am of the opinion that the "as far as I know" was not nuanced by the rest of the context. Having watched the interview, having read the transcript completely - I agree with the plurality of opinion about the response. It was a ridiculous equivocation for political purposes at a place where a purely out and out "no" was called for. That's my opinion. It's Keith's opinion as well. It's not a "distortion."

2. The 3 am ad was racist. -- also not a distortion. It's a matter of opinion.

3. Bill Clinton and Jesse Jackson and South Carolina. - the "something about it" she did did not include an apology, or denunciation of the comments, or criticism in any way. He just served his political purpose and was allowed to stand down. No "distortion" there.

"Luckily, while KO was rewriting history tonight, Hillary was making history, by issuing her first apology."

BZZT. Waiting more than fifteen days in Ferraros case, or MONTHS in Bill's case to issue a non-apology apology (An I'm sorry if YOU were offended apology)isn't an apology: It's a political tactic. Allow it to go on while its politically beneficial, issue a non-apology apology weeks or month later after your goals have been accomplished.

[McCamy Taylor]

25. Thanks for reminding me! The article was 5 days ago. The first I heard was Monday.

Can anyone here claim that they heard about this story two weeks ago? I think KO said something about a radio interview, but unless there was a transcript, something like that might not get noticed by people the way an online newspaper article would.

http://www.dailybreeze.com/lifeandculture/ci_8489268

[ProSense]

68. You are a spin artist. Ferraro made the comments on air at the end of February. KO mentioned it too

You are intentionally distorting the facts to support your pro-Hillary spin!

[McCamy Taylor]

70. Yes, but did anyone know about it then? Did you? It broke with the newspaper article

that was published last Thursday or Friday. I am waiting to see someone cite an article that shows that people knew about this before that. Something dated before the Dailybreeze story.

[ProSense]

71. The people listening did. You approve of her sending a racist message as long as she isn't exposed?

There is no excuse for her comment or Hillary's handling of the controversy!

[emilyg]

20. Thank you.

[greyghost]

21. I'll second that.

[zabet]

22. K and R

:applause:

[AZBlue]

26. 1. I watched the whole thing on 60 Minutes and I know what I saw. I don't read Drudge.

2. You offered us just one person's opinion, without any proof, evidence or back-up.
3. He spewed racist crap not once, but twice. And it caused an uproar. He had the reins pulled on him because of negative press. She never came out against his comments until tonight - two months later. And that's just because the press has grown increasingly negative as she grew increasingly racist.

[bleever]

31. To say that KO was "rewriting history" is to

elevate doubts and dispositions to definitives.

KO was imploring Hillary, based on his respect for her, and her husband, to do what was (in his opinion) the thing that did credit to their own integrity.

McCamy, you've made many many good points in many posts, but I will disagree right here and now with any suggestion that KO is acting or speaking in any way to undermine Sen. Clinton.

I continue to believe that KO is speaking towards the best instincts of the American political process.

[McCamy Taylor]

47. He may think he is---and I want to think he thinks he is---but it is a matter of degrees.

He has crossed a line somewhere. It is hard to put my finger on it. I truly believe that he truly believes that America will be saved if Obama is the nominee and doomed (to McCain) if Hillary is the nominee, and he is acting out of desperation rather than any desire to ride the wave of hipness that most journalists and media types are riding with the Obama phenomenon (a wave that is all too familiar for anyone who remembers Gene McCarthy and the 60s). For that, I respect him.

However, he is not father and he does not know best. It is paternalistic for him to attempt to make up America's mind for it. The democratic process must carry through to its natural conclusion in the Democratic primary at least, or else the voters will not embrace the ticket. If any part of the Democratic base perceives that KO is attempting to bully it or influence it that part of the base will regret strongly and oppositely---and it will hate KO for his partisanship, the way that a feuding couple hates the outsider that attempts to take one spouses side over the other. That is why the MSM conducts it propaganda operations in more subtle, devious manners.

The correct message he should have given is one of reconciliation and unity. He should have asked himself "What would Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. have said if he had the platform?" KO is smart. He could have figured it out. MLK Jr would have acknowledged everyone. He would have found common ground. He would have demonstrated that together everyone was stronger than they were separate. There is a reason they killed King. It is because his message is the one that would have united us and empowered us.

KO just does not have the experience of the temperament to play these political games. He is good at denouncing, but he does not know how to be inspirational--and that is what we need.

[Berry Cool]

58. McCamy, you proved your ignorance about Keith Olbermann and what he knows

and what he researches and what he keeps up with in every single post you made on this thread.

You obviously think your intellect is far superior to his and that he's just one of the media hoi polloi. You are wrong.

You have no clue whatsoever as to what he reads, what he keeps up with, what he thinks, and what he is trying to do. It's patently obvious that you pay so little attention to it that you have no way of knowing it. Far easier just to shove him into the trash can with all the other "MSM celebrities" you disdain and slam the lid down.

That kind of "intellectualism" is all too easy to see through.

Next time, before you write lengthy essays on what someone does or doesn't read, or watch, or think, or do, spend some time researching it first.

[smalll]

40. Keith Olbermann is just a horny sports-talk wannabe-jock meathead living on Central Park South.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4939799

[LulaMay]

43. who seems to believe that he's become an all powerful god, or that gold flows out of his moutth.

[LulaMay]

44. Very informative and well researched. Thanks.

[anamandujano]

45. Has Jesse ever apologized for his son getting the ball rolling with the race baiting?

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/01/obama_campaign_cochair_questions_hillarys_tears.php

[McCamy Taylor]

48. Tweety got the ball rolling. He claimed New Hampshire voters were racists

"Paleface speaks with forked tongue" on election night and the next day on Scarborough. He also said that Hillary's racist supporters used E-voting to hack the vote, It drove the Obama camp wild. They were out for blood!


The truth was obvious right away. New Hampshire is Irish-Catholic. Strong matriarchy. Women vote for women, esp. on reproductive issues (what Catholic Dem woman trusts a man on that when she can trust a woman).Tweety is Irish-Catholic so he knew that too. He made up the racist bs to create trouble.

Turns out that my immediate guess was right and his was full of shit, but the damage was already done. KO should make the guys at MSNBC Worst People.

[LisaM]

89. Yes, the people in New Hampshire I knew went for Hillary

Even though they are also big union people and wanted to vote for Edwards, too. But they were excited to vote for a woman.

[Usrename]

57. Have you seriously looked into the Drudge angle?

How did Drudge get her fundraising numbers before they were released to the media? Just wondering if that really happened, and if you know how it happened.

Also, her connections to the right-wing media have been discussed here a lot, although never really adequately explained. Rupert Murdoch held fundraisers for her campaign. I don't think this is anyone's imagination talking here. It really happened. She has decided to lie down with at least some dogs, so it isn't all that suprising that she has a few fleas. Nobody is forcing her to take the stands she is taking.

[McCamy Taylor]

72. Karl Rove is very proud of you. "Accusations againt one Dem attributed to another Dem":

This is dirty trick number one from Pat Buchanan's dirty trick play book that he created for CREEP and Nixon in 1972.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/stories/buchananmemo.htm

And it goes both ways. Here are two nasty rumors I found about dirty tricks that Obama is supposed to have played on Hillary that she could have raised a major stink about. However, I am pretty sure that she is keeping in mind the old Nixon play book and not going there with the accusations based upon rumor.

http://iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1264

Iowans are by and large straightforward people. Given that, it should come as no surprise that to the average Iowan, the Michigan ballot situation seems pretty cut and dried: Democratic presidential hopefuls who honor their four-state pledge and support the nomination calendar won't be on the Wolverine State's ballot. As with most things in life, and especially politics, the situation is more complicated.

Five individuals connected to five different campaigns have confirmed -- but only under condition of anonymity -- that the situation that developed in connection with the Michigan ballot is not at all as it appears on the surface. The campaign for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, arguably fearing a poor showing in Michigan, reached out to the others with a desire of leaving New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as the only candidate on the ballot. The hope was that such a move would provide one more political obstacle for the Clinton campaign to overcome in Iowa.

That does not sound very nice at all. If Clinton decided to talk about that one on the eve of the new Michigan vote, the voters there might get pissed off that Obama messed up their first primary so that he could screw up Hillary's chances in Iowa (where it might have worked, he came in first, she came in third--Watergate showed us people hate a dirty trickster worse if it works)

The second dirty trick is much worse:

http://www.mahalo.com/Hillary_Clinton_Lesbian_Affair

According to Harpers' Ken Silverstein, aides from the Obama, Edwards and Richardson campaigns may have been spreading the lesbian rumors in South Carolina in anticipation of the 2008 South Carolina Primary.

Oh, my. The original story came from a prominent political blogger in South Carolina who said that people from rival Democratic camps approached him with the lesbian affair story, swearing it was true, in hopes that he would spread it.

Now, obviously Clinton would not want to talk about this. However, it might explain why Bill took a personal interest in South Carolina.

So, maybe people should consider the possibility that Hillary has been playing grown up politics, trying not to divide the Democratic Party, while some other camps (including my own John Edwards, I am sorry to say) and Obama have been using dirty tricks. That means that politicians are politicians--not saints.

And before you say But those are internet rumors the only evidence we have that Hillary is feeding to Drudge is internet rumor too. And the sources for the above stories are not known right wing sites allied to the RNC. And no, Hillary did not plant a story about herself in a lesbian relationship to slur Obama (I know you were thinking it). Get real!

PS Why has the press ignored these two hot stories. I think they are waiting until the GE. Then, McCain will have the NeoCons at the NYT do a hit piece on Obama about how he is really a corrupt Chicago Daley style politician. They will include stuff like this and interviews with some of the staff that have been let go and some of the supposed Hillary generated smears that Media Matters debunked but that the Obama camp denounced to create a picture of Obama that will be 180 degrees different from the one they have been painting all along. With a title like "The Other Obama" or "The Hidden Obama" And McCain will be shocked! Just shocked! A unity ticket makes stories like this worthless to the press.

[Usrename]

81. The press is ignoring the two stories because they are stoopid.

The question I asked was if you had looked into the reports that Drudge had published her fundraising numbers some time before those results were made public. Do you know anything about that?

Are you really going to call me a stooge for Karl Rove because I know about Rupert Murdoch hosting fundraisers for Clinton?

What planet are you from? How did Edwards and Obama force Michigan to keep Hillary's name on the ballot against her will?

You're sounding like a lunatic. The reason that Edwards and Obama took their names off the ballot in Michigan, and tried to have their names removed in Florida, is because they knew ahead of time that Clinton would try to claim victories in those states and have those delegates seated, in violation of the rules. That's pretty obvious. And that's exactly what she is doing, too!

She was thinking that she would be invinceable, once she had the huge margins (that were garnered illegally) in the bag, very early on in the race. These two victories would have put her way ahead of any and all competition. Virtually out of reach. Instead, because they had the foresight to remove their own names in Michigan, everybody (except for some idiots on the internets) is forced to admit that there never was any contest there at all, either legal or illegal. She remained the only top-tier candidate on the ballot. She still wants to claim this Soviet style farce as a win for her. It's hilarious if wasn't so pathetic. She has trailed this race from the beginning, and she will never be able to gain the lead.

Them's the breaks. But to come up with some kind of "conspiracy theory" where Edwards and Obama were able to force her name to stay on the ballot in Michigan as some kind of scam to affect her campaign in Iowa, well, it's extremely stupid!

Here's what happened to the Obama campaign when he quit campaigning in Florida:




Compare that to South Carolina,




or, his national popularity:

[McCamy Taylor]

85. But the reps of the four Dems apparentlt told a different story. And so did the Dems peddling the

Hillary is a lesbian lie in So.Carolina. When it is he said v. he said the press can spin it however they want.

And you know, with AT&T and the NSA, the Bush administration knows all of your secrets too.

[HughMoran]

64. kick

good info for all

[robbedvoter]

73. Always fantastic! Look also at Wayne Barett's research into the same -great detail

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0811,374100,374100,2.html

[McCamy Taylor]

79. Great read! THANKS! I can include this is "The Press v. Obama"

[rodeodance]

88. Looking forward to that piece. thank you

[Political Heretic]

74. It's sad this post is still getting traction after its already been debunked.

:(

[McCamy Taylor]

78. It is sad that Karl Rove is pulling the strings of Dems the way Buchanan did in '72

:cry:

[rodeodance]

87. who has de-buked the OP?

[Hatchling]

76. K&R

This thread is an interesting read.

[DURHAM D]

77. Thanks again for your usual excellent work . eom

[Lucinda]

80. Thanks!

Bookmarking

[Raffi Ella]

82. outstanding post. - BRAVO!

:patriot:

Thank You!

[DURHAM D]

83. K & R

[rodeodance]

86. Once again, many BO fans here listened to DRUDGE! (response to Muslim quest. to HRC). SHAME

.....There is a link so you can watch Hillary on 60 Minutes

On March 3, the Drudge Report linked to online news portal Breitbart.tv video footage from the March 2 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes under the headline "Hillary: Obama Not Muslim 'As Far As I Know' ... ," falsely suggesting that Sen. Hillary Clinton characterized the issue of Sen. Barack Obama's religion as unresolved. In fact, she did the opposite. Correspondent Steve Kroft first asked Clinton, "You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?" to which Clinton replied, "Of course not. I mean, that's -- you know, there is no basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that." Kroft then asked, "And you said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim," to which Clinton replied, "Right. Right." Only after Kroft went on to ask, "You don't believe that he's a Muslim or implying, right?," did Clinton respond, "No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know" .

Following Clinton's response to Kroft's third query on the subject, Kroft said, "It's just scurrilous --" to which Clinton responded, "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."On March 3, the Drudge Report linked to online news portal Breitbart.tv video footage from the March 2 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes under the headline "Hillary: Obama Not Muslim 'As Far As I Know' ... ," falsely suggesting that Sen. Hillary Clinton characterized the issue of Sen. Barack Obama's religion as unresolved. In fact, she did the opposite. Correspondent Steve Kroft first asked Clinton, "You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?" to which Clinton replied, "Of course not. I mean, that's -- you know, there is no basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that." Kroft then asked, "And you said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim," to which Clinton replied, "Right. Right." Only after Kroft went on to ask, "You don't believe that he's a Muslim or implying, right?," did Clinton respond, "No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know" .

Following Clinton's response to Kroft's third query on the subject, Kroft said, "It's just scurrilous --" to which Clinton responded, "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."

[Seabiscuit]

90. Great work! K&R!!! I am so sick of this nauseating media gaming, and KO, a man

I admired for the better part of the past year, just made my shit list. He's now exposed himself as a yellow journalist, a sexist doing the MSM's dirty smear work, a sellout, and a bootlicker to his corporate right-wing bosses at MSNBC.

Their game plan: Tear Hillary down while building Obama up during the primary season, then utterly destroy Obama during the general election. KO has seemingly ignorantly but willfully ignorantly become part of this right-wing smear machine. Shame on you, Keith Olbermann.

[intaglio]

91. McCamy Taylor, you know I will not agree with you

but you deserve a response to you OP that is more than just name calling. You deserve it because you are so transparently distorting the truth that mere name calling would be too little to encompass your deceit.

We who looked at the Olbermann comment are not wearing the smeary, rose red spectacles issued by the Clinton campaign so of course we did not see what you saw.

Firstly, Olbermann thanked Hillary and Bill, then he refused to "rant". He asked that she start to take back control of her campaign from the people who were advising her so badly.

Secondly, the 60 Minutes stunt was a deliberate insult by Hillary. If she had NOT meant to be equivocal then she would not have used "...as far as I know," in her reply at all. Actually using those weasel words condemns her from her own mouth. I for one do not believe that a trial lawyer, politician and broadcaster of Hillary's experience would make such a slip.

Thirdly, the "3am" ad was widely perceived as racist because it was filmed in such a way as to make the 1st Child a classic "blonde white girl" and the "coloured" (sorry for using that word but there is no other that fits this situation) children were filmed in a way to make them appear Hispanic. It was dirty, K-street triangulation.

Fourthly, Bill was not yanked off the campaign trail immediately after his racist outbursts, only after his last racist outburst and neither Hillary nor Bill appologised, at the time.

Lastly, although Ferraro left the Hillary campaign she was not thrown off by Hillary. Hillary "repudiated" the remarks, not reflexively, not within a day but only after she heard that Olbermann was doing a special on it.

What I now expect from you McCamy Taylor is the usual denial and parsing. You will attempt to distract, probably with the current Clinton flavour religious bigotry, or some other K Street slander. You will probably not cast me as a misogynist or "hater" that being the job of others in your team; the automata, the zombies; you are not one of those but in a way that makes it worse because it makes you a fool, manufacturing evidence and opinion for someone who is not worth it


/edit for a cut and past error

[krkaufman]

92. You lost me at the '60 Minutes' equivocation

Hillary *did* equivocate. I know because I heard it with my own ears, saw it with my own eyes, and was taken aback. Steve Kroft only asked the followup question because he was taken aback that Hillary had equivocated on her first response, saying "I take him on the base of what he says."

[Straight Shooter]

94. My last post for the night ... have you been charting Josh Marshall's descent into Hillary bashing?

talkingpointsmemo was once my favorite site, but it's clear whom he favors and whom he maligns. He's strayed from journalistic reporting and entered the realm of snide commentary. Sad.

Great post, McCamy. You always put a great deal of reflective thought into your commentaries. :thumbsup: