Booman discusses the latest NYT article on the race debate that now seems to consume the Clinton/Obama battle. He says its failure to mention the Bill Shaheen, Bob Kerrey, Andrew Cuomo or "anonymous Clinton advisers" who have made a variety of statements ranging from racially insensitive to outright racist all accrues to the benefit of the Clintons. True. The lack of context is unfair and galling.
He goes on:
Here is how it works. The Clintons push some racially sensitive buttons and elicit an emotional response. Then they go apologize explain themselves on the Al Sharpton radio show. The New York Times only covers the most innocuous of their comments. The result is that they remind voters that Barack Obama is not the post-racial uniter, but a typical black candidate, supported by serial whiners Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Nothing could undermine Obama's campaign more among the white vote, and the Clintons know it. And there is nothing, nothing, that Obama can do about it. If he complains, he only makes it worse. If he doesn't complain, these subtle allegations that he is a lazy, drug-dealing Muslim do damage all on their own.
I don't think that's the whole story, though. For one thing, Jesse L. Jackson is more than just an "Obama supporter" as he was described in the article -- he's the national co-chair of Obama's campaign. You really can't get much more "official" than that. This story is one that the Obama campaign has been pushing for days through a variety of surrogates, and it's clear they want to publicly take on this fight now.
Perhaps they feel it's inevitable, and best to air it now when it's most likely to accrue favorably to Obama with South Carolina on the horizon. And perhaps it's a way to throw a few elbows into the Clinton campaign and say that there's going to be a price exacted for the Bob Kerreys of the world. But to say, as Mark Ambinder does, that "Obama has not accused the Clintons of racism and an Obama campaign aide said that campaign does not believe that the Clintons themselves were attempting to sow racial discord" does, I think, misrepresent what's going on.
Jesse Jackson Jr. said that Hillary Clinton cried in response to questions over her appearance, and not about the victims of Hurricane Katrina (something that implied would be important to the voters of South Carolina). It's clear that both sides are actively engaged in this battle now.
For better or worse, it's not's not a one-sided confrontation.
Talk Left, Kevin Hayden, Joe Klein, Oliver Willis and Paul Rosenberg have varying takes on the subject.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
our jane arrives
Instead of tears and jeers, I sure as hell like to hear something substantive about New Orleans, Baghdad, Tehran and…well, just about anything. Of substance.
Amen, Sister
That’s why I just spotlighted Christy’s post (previous thread).
My first Spotlight evah. Pretty easy, although Dan Froomkin isn’t listed with the WaPo contacts…
FunnyDiva
Great post, Jane!
if only
*sigh*
The race issue is being exploited by the MSM and it looks like we are buying into their BS. We should set an example and raise the discourse above that.
We can talk about race, that is a good thing, but it is wrong to let any of our candidates get tarnished by such accusations as be racist of race baiting. Lets talk about their records and what they propose to do to help all Americans. Wishing and Hoping
Hi Jane.
I’ll handle it.
Vote for Edwards. Somehow he stays classy even when he stomps around in a fit.
Hey there dear Elliot and dear FunnyD
Hi Jane.
Now to read the post.
…and he has nice hair.
dum-tee-dum-dum…
(just waiting around for the polite amount of time to pass before going completely OfT)
dum-tee-dum….
Second!
Hi, Jane! This a great analysis of a very subtle issue.
Jane:
Typo: 3rd line of 4th para: Bob Kerrey…
I have noticed that usage here regularly. Does it signify something different than “OT”, as in “Off Topic”?
Right on Jane! And yes I used that term because it sums it all up.
Laura,
What do you recommend for the won’t-you-please-drop-out-of-the-race blues? — cause I got ‘em.
I really hope that was sarcasm, because otherwise you would out yourself as being a complete idiot.
Clinton and Edwards have underestimated Obama as a win at any cost politician. They sould have talked to Alice Palmer
The Obama campaign is trying to put the nomination away and are using the Hillary and her campaign are racist to do it.
I think Obama and David Axelrod are worried about Tony Rezko’s date with Fitz on Feb 25 in Federal court. The last thing that they want is for the national media to start looking at Obama and Rezko and Obama and Illinois lobbyists.
Pushing the “The Clintons are racist” before the SC primary is risky for Obama but it is really bad for the Democratic Party.
Surely you mean, “in spite of the fact that he has nice hair.”
Race and gender the only nonsensical ways to slam candidates.
I think the public is starved for coverage of issues.
Hello? MSM??? Tap tap tap. Stop checking your makeup in the monitor reflection & tell me something -um- important.
Oh yeah. Judy Woodruff wore orange yestidie. Now that was noteworthy.
Beyond that, take a clue, fauxpundits, & file the junk where it belongs.
Hi Laura,
Got your Facebook message, I will respond shortly. Just doing a drive by here.
Thanks you, Biodun. (As always…)
Does it signify something different than “OT”, as in “Off Topic”?
Nah - means the same thing here. Just a little personal thing…
Kathleen Hall Jamieson said we could learn a lot if we watched the debates, but did not watch the before and after “analysis” of the pundits. I agree with her, its amazing how CNN, FOX and MSNBC, etc tarnish the discourse regarding elections. Arianna wants us to boycott pollsters, thats all fine and good, but it doesn’t go far enough, we ought to boycott the pundits as well……
You check around the dark corners for PeteyPierce before bringing that up agin???
JayT. Stick around. We may need ya purty soon. Still got that taser?
dang. insert “aren’t” in line 2, you can guess where, sigh.
ignore the pundidn’ts
For me, doing something for someone else is a tremendous antidote to hopelessness/ennui. Here’s someone who would appreciate a comment, I know for sure.
Sahar at InsideIraq
Election-sausage making is nauseating. Living somewhere else in the world–and especially living in a war-zone and watching this nonsense must be horrible.
When too tired to do a good deed? Might try lighting a candle. Singing a song. (And there’s always cooking up something with lots of basil!
Love to you,
L.
I have supported JE from day one, in spite of his fine hair. He is a Progressive in the finest sense of the word, a family man, and a tireless fighter for the less fortunate. He has sacrificed more for us then any other candidate……. seriously folks.
-uh- JayT? No one’s gonna say nothin’ till ya light up that big bozo of an OfT.
Might as well git er done….
You have no idea what a treat that always was.
*heaving even bigger sigh*
Thank you for the good advice. I’ll use it.
Sighing is good, too. Deep Breathing!!
can we pretty pretty pretty please have a thread that is devoted to the actual policy proposals of the candidates, rather than all this claptrap? What is Edwards proposing to do about healthcare? What is Obama proposing to do about trade? What is Clinton proposing to do about our military?
I will freely admit that I’ve been spending too much time crunching numbers and watching polls lately, but we need to get out of this slump.
Edwards does happen to have objectively nice hair. He also happens to be the Democratic candidate I consider the most likely to move this country in a progressive direction as President. The nice hair is lagniappe.
Yeah … he’s only had one mess up that I know of. His unflattering remark about Hillary’s “crying” thing. Has anyone been seeing this(meaning the Obama and Hillary spat) play over the nightly news? Or just in certain papers?
brian, you have my apologies - I guess my snarkiness meter is a little off today.
smooch!
This race- and gender-baiting is a zero-sum game. And Obama and Hillary cannot resolve it by being on the same ticket: an identity-politics one that will be too stacked for Americans at this point in 2008 to be electable.
while we’re waitin’ for JayT, brianb99c, you’re forgiven for whatever, as long as you’ll forgive the rest of us blatherheads (speaking only for meself - assuming self-flag-ligation is o.k. with mr.mod?)
must be somethin’ in the air today…
oh, the mister washed the car. Jan 12. amazing!
Amen. Let’s talk about war-bating, instead!
There have been, and continue to be, numerous threads about policy. The fact of the matter is that, for better or worse, “all this claptrap” has a large influence on electoral outcome. Therefore, though definitely painful and boring for most normal human beings, it is important to analyze and understand.
Ah, shit. Media complicity in right-wing conspiracy?
Yeah I wonder what Toni Morrison is saying just about now.
With all due respect, you cannot tell a blog owner what to do with her blog. If you really want all that, then set up your own blog.
if we want to keep progressive issues alive in this race we had better keep sending John Edwards green love. he needs to be able to stay in the race and at least get enough delegates to keep Hillary or Obama from getting the bid on the first ballot. if Edwards gets enough delegates to do this then no delegate is bound to a particular candidate after the first round. if we want our voice heard in Denver help GET EDWARDS TO DENVER.
Obama and Hillary both voted for the Peru free trade agreement. Obama believes in negotiating with insurance companies in order to reform . . . Someone else can fill in the blanks. They are two peas in a pod politically.
I have been listening to Ring of Fire and heard David Bender talking about Edwards. Nothing but good news.They say he wont get out as its a cause as much as a campaign and they said in the end he may win. Ill find the video as soon as I can. It will be on golefttv.com
Sure makes me feel better.
I don’t agree..If it continues, the Thugs will benefit in the General
Election.
What is Edwards proposing to do about healthcare? What is Obama proposing to do about trade? What is Clinton proposing to do about our military?
Go find out. Start your own blog, and write about it. FDL doesn’t exist to spoon-feed you information that you can easily find on your own.
yippee - the best weekend in professions feetsball has just kicked off! Chex-mix in the oven…
No split-screen teevee here - so I gotta split the eyeballs to watch the game and thread at the same time.
ed note - do *not* try the split eyes thing at home - or at least not without aspirin nearby.
I second that motion and emotion. And would love to see the look on Rahm Emanuels face for starters.I link once again to Howie Kleins article and his link to DLC leaders cut Edwards out (and are proud of it).
Allow me to thank you kindly snowbird42!
Just in case it hasn’t been posted before:
Below is the Cuomo transcript in which he uses that term to describe political campaigning in general–not Obama:
http://blogs.timesunion.com/ca.....#more-6141
You know I’ve spent a lot of time in other races, especially in Iowa and in New Hampshire, back with Gore and back with Clinton. Those races require you to do something no other race does, you know, and I like it, and I agree with you, it’s a good thing. It’s not a TV-crazed race, you know, you can’t just buy your way through that race [FD: Airport press conference and the media markets…..], it doesn’t work that way, it’s frankly a more demanding process. You have to get on a bus, you have to go into a diner, you have to shake hands, you have to sit down with ten people in a living room. You can’t shuck and jive at a press conference, you can’t just put off reporters, because you have real people looking at you saying answer the question, you know, and all those moves you can make with the press don’t work when you’re in someone’s living room. And I think it’s good for the candidates, I think it makes the candidates communicate in a way that works with real people because you know in a living room right away whether or not you’re communicating, and I think the questions are good and I think the scrutiny is good, so you can, you can say they’re small states and they get a lot of attention — they are very good for the process, I believe that.
ok - OfT - just kicking around thoughts as to how Timmeh will approach the full-hour interview of Hillary tomorrow morning.
Balls-out gotcha? Or soft-balls?
I guess, if nothing else, after tomorrow we oughta know whether or not Hillary is the GE/NBC choice for the Democratic nomination…
please don’t confuse me with facts, I’m a voter.
If you want to see JRE’s healthcare proposals, go to www.votesmart.org.
for some info. He is one of the very few candidates who responded to the Political Courage test.
There, JRE says,
“
once again, all apologies to everyone; I’m apparently hitting the wrong buttons this afternoon.
keep up the good fight, pups.
If Edwards can stick it out, he may be the last man standing come convention time.
There is another way to view the Clinton camp comments that has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with politics.
I think history would show that the Clintons are NOT racist or even race sensitive. And Bill Clinton is one of the sharpest political minds around today, maybe “the” sharpest. Thus, it may well be that it was a clear tactical decision to chance sacrificing the African American vote in order to pick up other demographics. My immediate reaction to the Bill C comment asserting Hillary was a stouter warrior of freedom than Nelson Mandela, and her subsequent comment that intimated that LBJ was a more serious agent of change than MLK, was that they were throwing the AA vote under the bus. Subsequent comments of Bill C. and a number of campaign surrogates, leads me to the conclusion that with an Iowa loss behind her and a NH loss looming, a calculation was made that stealing BO’s thunder was more important than taking a chance of alienating the AA vote. Besides, they must have thought that they could easily recover from any “misinterpretations” that were raised later, given their close connection with the Black community.
I don’t think that President Clinton, who is a brilliant strategist and quick thinker, made the several comments he did without thinking. I don’t believe that he spoke without realizing what he was doing. The Clintons are political pros, one comment could be a mistake, two could be a bad day, but the consistency and breath of remarks by multiple speakers negates the mistake hypothesis. There hasn’t been one or two comments made in the heat of battle, but several spokespersons and the principals echoing the same theme. This is deliberate - but political, but not racial I think.
And this won’t be pretty:
Sorry. I have to confess I tuned out of that whole sequence of events (regarding the Hill-tears). Ever since Muskie was turned out to pasture because of a few justifiable tears…. Not even CLOSE to being on my radarscreen.
Campaigns become overheated. Pundings & trolls intrude, often with agendas of their own. Ditto staff and K-street Wingtippers, former pols with axes still to be sharpened - for what?!
Look at voting records, if there are any, including background info. Look to websites and literature of organizations you most admire, as well as websites of the candidates themselves. Do some homework. How does the League of Conservation Voters rate the candidates you’re most interested in? Why? Ditto for ACLU, or BattyBannerRag in the Winger aisle, if that’s yer preference…
Reread plenty posts here on FDL & elsewhere. Suggest topics for more. Ask your most burning questions HERE. Let FDL community help you do your research on whatever subject matter concerns you….
eh?
There’s an Adam Clayton Powell IV?
Gawd, I’m old…
The Huffington Post has more details on what the Obama camp is doing.
What I hated about Jackson’s statement is the ugly overt racial association. Using Katrina of all things to score political points? And then Dyson, a supporter not a staffer (I believe), charging that Clinton making the remark that she was ready to lead and Obama was not is somehow racial in subtext?
And now we having explosive charges of racism becoming even more inflammatory with that Guardian article quoting an “anonymous” HRC campaign associate. Even TPM ran with it, without truly questioning it (Listen, if you post that you’re not sure about it and then post it anyways with something, like, “HRC Aide States…” it’s still highly irresponsible). And then there’s the so-called MLK diss, which didn’t happen (Olbermann ran with that one).
My sincerest apologies.
And one of Hillary’s prominent African-American supporters seems to to hedge a little bit:
(Same link as my 58.)
link
This may be good tactics to try and win the nomination but painting the Clintons as racists is not going to be good for the democratic Party.
I think I speak for both my house and kiddo’s when I say, “Let’s fucking hope so!”
Obama and Hillary should be lambasting Bushco’s hijacking of our Constitution, our country, the lead up to attacking Iran…. 24/7/365, stick to issues, and stop sniping at each other.
and chex in the oven.. Now THAT is multitasking to die for. Enjoy, assuming that’s a politically correct activity. We’ll keep lobbing little no-brainer comments at ya to make sure that left eye’s not droopin’. ;->
damn, he was good as the singer for Blood, Sweat and Tears…
That’s funny!
yep. Has there ever been a more target-rich environment? Friendly fire is so not necessary.
Just for the record for folks who don’t know, that was David Clayton Thomas
IIRC it was the Guardian reporter quoting an anonymous source who heard it from a campaign staffer. Kinda like the “telephone” game.
1st thot: Tweets might oughtta borrow jr’s codpiece.
Naw. She’s a lady. But he ain’t no gentleman. I predict she’ll still be in the race by Convention, but Tweetie will be gone. HAH!
From your lips to the god(dess) ear.
yet according to this, HRC is supposed to play hard to get:
Why don’t you give us one substantive reason why you think “the last thing they want is for the national media to start looking at Obama and Rezko and Obama and Illinois lobbyists? You made the claim. Back it up.
I don’t. Actually screening Voir Doir begins January 23 in Tony Rezco’s trial. The National media has been looking at the Rezco connection to Obama for 3 years actually, and you’re parroting Right Wing Blogs and Hillary fan blogs.
There is a calculated reason why the Rezco trial has been scheduled by Pat Fitzgerald and Judge Amy St. Eves to be in the heart of crucial votes in the primary season. The Rezco trial has been the darling of Right Wing-Nut blogs and Hillary 44 blogs for months.
No one here can substantiate LHP’s comment (including LHP who has not tried:)
LHP pins her hopes on surprises to come from this trial that would CPR John Edwards in the joint effort by Pat Fitzgerald and Amy St. Eves to smear Obama. It’s going to fail hugely.
From LHP at the same link:
“No further” is LHP’s way of saying she can’t butress claims against Obama with facts, so she views the trial as a big birthday cake where she has blown out the candles and made her wish.
LHP has also mistakenly called Rezco a mentor of Obama’s and there is nothing on earth factual to back up her claim. She loosely referred to “newspaper” articles but did not and could not site any. Obama had mentors, but Rezco was not one of them. Rezco has been as much a mentor to Obama as he’s been to LHP in her career.
A little background as to why the trial is scheduled now:
St. Eves wants to help repay the Bush favor of putting a loyal Federalist Society member and good Bushie on the federal bench as her reward for pissing away $60 Million Dollars as an attorney who worked for Ken Starr in the miserably failed White Water Investigation.
Amy St. Eves is a loyal Bushie who knows damn well what she’s doing. “Judge” Amy St. Eve, who got to the bench by pissing away $60 million dollars as a loyal soldier in Ken Starr and Ray Jahn’s army in the White Water Investigation is deliberately scheduling this trial to attempt like the Federalist Party soldier she is to harm Obama.
The White Water Investigatior for those firepups to young to remember pissed away $60 million of your money in an effort of Right Wing-Nuts to get the Clintons. It yielded an 18 month contempt sentence for Susan McDougal who told Starr and St. Eve to go screw their selves, a conviction for someone no one remembers Jim Guy Tucker, and death for McDougals’ former husband. While being pressured to pee in a cup by DOJ for a urine drug screen because DOJ gets kickbacks for lab contracts by testing inmates with no drug history, McDougal suffered an MI, went into V-Fib, and the DOJ’s medical care is so horrendous incompetent a resuscitation effort by DOJ employeeds is like Britney Spears trying to quaterback the Seahaweks. So McDougal paid with his life, and St. Eves helped to kill him.
Now the orders from Bush, Fielding, Cheney, Addington, Gillespie to St. Eves are to get Obama out of the election because they’re scared to run against him. What’s going to happen is Obama is going to clean house at the corrupt, decrepit DOJ, EOUSA, OLC and a completely feckless incompetent Inspector General and OPR (Office of Professional Responsibility) staff brimming with incompetent lawyers, with career professionals leaving it in droves.
The sexism and racism are rampant. It not just an undercurrent but a river.
I think it’s interesting that Clinton has fired or asked every person involved in a racially sensitive moment to step down, while Obama allowed his extremely controversial homophobe to stay on board.
I am also a little worried about how Obama will handle it when the neo con’s make him the target. I don’t think this will begin in earnest until and unless he is the nominee. I think his previous drug use is going to end up to be a double whammy because he is a black man. It shouldn’t be, but I think it will be. I think the right has been amazingly quiet about it as well. (because they are saving it for later.)
Obama just hasn’t been tested in this way like Hillary has. They damn near destroyed the Clintons too many times to count and I have to say I am often surprised at how many smart people continue to buy the republican lies. I reiterate every chance I get, that the reason the Clintons are so hated had nothing to do with lies or “corruption” it had to do with the fact that Bill Clinton balanced the budget without hurting the poor. He moved poor folks to the middle class and he did it without cutting social programs. As therapist working in an agency I can say that I miss the Clinton days. I saw first hand the help and properity that the Clintons brought to the poor. The Clintons put an official end to the trickle down economics Reagan lie.
I know that every black person in america has been fighting white priviledge their whole life, but honest to god, I think that the racist right wing has been way too quiet up to now. It’s not that I don’t think he can’t do it, it’s that I just don’t know. I feel certain that Hillary and Bill can and will handle them. I don’t have facts about this in regard to Obama.
These people have done evil things, and I have no doubt that taking advantage of racism in america…will not be below their moral standard.
It makes me sick. I think they’ll go after Hillary HARD as well, but I think they have already said about every thing they can about her. I just can’t see much sticking after all these years.
Oops! My bad! Tweets & Timmeh are listed separately in the program guides. Huh. Fooled again!
I might add that when I responded on another thread, because some mods don’t like criticism of their candidates’ causes that my post was deleted. Not to worry, I copied all the posts, including the deleted one, to make the points when needed because a lot of quintissentially ridiculous claims were made about a fence and a groundskeeper shared by Obama and the adjacent property owner attempting to sling mud at Obama.
When someone whacks your comments, and leaves the others’ standing, that’s called censorship and it looks as if you didn’t respond. That’s hardly the case. There’s a remedy for that.
JayT HELP!
Yank the chex outta the oven before they burn.
But set em down quick & grab the taser, or even a net. ‘es back.
*peeking from behind drapes*
Jane,
This diary is an example of why I am attracted to this site. Though you and the rest of the team present emotional subjects you do so in an objective manner. I’m tired of going to other blog sites that ream the MSM on not being objective then use their own sites to promote their own views. It really turns me off. I’m come here when I want to get the facts and not a bunch of garbage. Thank you.
Well, bless your heart. That was extremely thoughtful of you. We were just discussing the need to have thorough discussions of the issues on this and other blogs. I’m sure your comments will be enlightending.
Pete, that comment was not removed from the earlier thread because of the issues you raised but how you did so.
Well, thorough for sure.
there’s an ornithologists’ term referring to ham-handed, ruinous environmental policies:
turning the “no stone unturned” phrase on its head, as it were, to become:
“no tern unstoned”
i shall endeavour to go lurk quietly.
thanks for the good company pups.
My reply to adie @ 74 was the hope that Tweety would be gone….
I just got back from donating to Edwards.
If that’s all they have, they can kiss their ass goodbye. I sure hope that’s their game plan. Bring it the hell on. A black attack will bring out voters in droves. In many of the Southern Super Tuesday states, black voter registration has in fact broken records. They’re lining up to vote for Obama.
Let’s see someone tried THC and coke as a kid, and it got him in no trouble with the law, but it interfered so violently with his life that he ended up a miserable failure graduating Columbia University where he majored in political science with a specialization in international relations, and then went on to graduate Harvard Law School where he was the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, “first black president in its 104-year history”.[28] He completed his J.D. degree magna cum laude in 1991.
As an associate attorney with Miner, Barnhill & Galland from 1993 to 1996, he represented community organizers, discrimination claims, and voting rights cases.[30] He was a lecturer of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1993 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004.
See what those damn drugs did. That’s why you never want your kid glued to the TV watching Britney and Gossip Girl to follow in the footsteps of Obama. You don’t want them to end up as miserable failures and targets for Rove and Gillespie do you?
Too funny.
Obama needs to take the Tiger Woods approach and appear to be above it all. It makes him look classy, it makes average white folk comfortable that every last thing is not going to be overanalyzed if he gets elected, and it sends a message that he won’t fall for the bait. If he doesn’t take the bait then the “misunderstandings” will probably stop for awhile. If he does take the bait and looks like he is overreacting he is toast. His whole strategy would be blown.
I think Obama was sending a message but now that he has he needs to back off.
I like it…
Thanks much, Leslie. We plan to also, as soon as some important other obligations are cleared. In the meantime, I suspect even supportive e-mails, etc. are surprisingly powerful in keeping up the spirits in the campaign.
I seriously doubt that. Our mods do a great job and don’t take anyone’s comments down unless they are being abusive to other commenters.
Make your case as you will, we welcome your time and effort. But leave the personal insults out of it.
Actually RBG, you didn’t tell the story correctly, and I have the posts, and all of it minus anything that can be construed to “insult” anyone will be posted again when the person who insulted me and said I was intentionally distorting facts rears his head.
I gave the mod every opportunity to edit out what he/she considered offensive, since I had no idea what they were talking about and they wouldn’t specify it.
I wrote:
I haven’t made any personal attacks. I did respond to personal attacks you didn’t read or acknowlege, however, and I quote:
Liberal Heart@227 wrote:
“I’ve noticed how you insert incorrect or conflicting information intentionally” [i.e calling me a liar].
The detail that was conflicting was because BHL is hung up on whether people I don’t know lived in a house or not, a totally tangential fact, while he could never supply any substantive cogent reason why he accused Obama of accepting a laundered interest free loan while comically asserting it was going to put Obama out of the race or in election jeapordy. Of course you don’t consider that a personal attack. Why you don’t is interesting.
Why don’t you be specific since you want to edit me–and tell me what you construe as “personal attacks” on someone who has personally attacked Obama and implied he received laundered interest free loans and I can edit out what it is you want edited out/find objectionable or modify it.
No idea who originated that gem.
I’m merely the messenger.
I think we gots us a triple, mebbe quadruple-decker hamsamich on our plate right about now.
*just checked, no scratches yet. buzzes off to watch from behind a basil leaf*
Wow. Just Wow!
*slaps one hand, HARD, with the other*
*shhhhhh* *okay, geehaw*
*jayt: be a dear & hand over summa those chex. Tanks*
I have no idea what was considered objectionable in your previous comments, and you’re welcome to advocate for your candidate, but when you characterize another commenter as “pinning their hopes” on a possible scandal or “accusing” Obama because he expressed concern about what the incident looks like, you really need to step back and take a deep breath. Imputing motivations to people because they express opinions you don’t like is a personal attack. And even if what was said about your candidate was a personal attack (which I’m not going to judge one way or the other), a personal attack on a candidate (who’s a public figure and not present) and a personal attack on a commenter are in no way comparable.
I very much doubt LHP wants Obama to be taken down by scandal any more than any more than those of us who talk about the bad stuff in Iraq “want” the troops to be harmed (as the wingnuts like to claim.)
Saying “I don’t think there’s anything there and I doubt it will amount to anything” is a fine contribution to the discourse. Saying “how dare you bring this up unless you can prove to me it’s true” isn’t.
FWIW, I told no “story”. I simply stated why the mods removed your earlier comment from the thread. They were right to do so then and will do so again as necessary.
Even stranger…there are TWO Adam Clayton Powell IV’s!
The noted politician was Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. He had a son, Adam Clayton Po