Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Get Out Here, M. J. Rosenberg!
You wrote:
Clinton supporters are right. The attacks her camp launched on Obama (particularly the stuff with the racial overtones like mailings to the Jewish community about Farrakhan) are nothing compared to what the GOP will do in the fall.
Particularly the stuff with the racial overtones like mailings to the Jewish community about Farrakhan?
Isn't that where the hyperlink goes? Isn't that where you show us the mailings and evidence that the mailings were launched by the Clinton camp?
You'll excuse me if I ask for some evidence from the man who says he supports Barack Obama but never supported Jesse Jackson, because Jackson wasn't the best candidate. When? Who knows? Why not? Ditto. Who did you support then? How were they better than Jackson? How is Obama better than Jackson? No clue.
I don't know whether the Clinton "camp" -- whatever that means -- sent out racist mailers or not. I do know there is something consistently sloppy and less than elegant about your arguments.
Maybe it was the shock of your candidate's defeat in Ohio and Texas that caused you to lash out. Maybe you think everyone knows that those mailers came from Clinton's campaign. I don't know that. If I saw a shred of evidence that she had done something like that, I would drop her in a New York minute.
So, if you can prove it, please do. You can end her political career right here.
Comments (9)
Just sounded that way I guess.
Will you believe your lying eyes:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23322826-2,00.html
Which race is that you think? Does anybody here really believe there are black and white races? How much black does one have to be to be black?
Maybe you can help us out here as to why one must support Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama? Does that mean you must support Bush if you support Hillary Clinton because both are pigmentally challenged?
Please clarify.
BTW there are races. They are just not David Duke's and Chris Matthew's races. The aryan race is imaginary.
Best, Terry
March 6, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
As I heard BillyG say:
Unfortuateky I get the impression that BG is not here to hear anything other than the echoes in his own head.
March 7, 2008 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
This post seems to be really bad form on your part, Billy Glad. MJ did in fact answer your question in his post, here: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/05/clinton_wins_ugly_mc_cain_wins/#comment-2634729
Just in case that link doesn't work, Rosenberg posted the content of an email he'd received from the Clinton campaign, which said this:
As the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported, Hillary urged him to go further, pointing to her own experience in New York, when she rejected the support of a political party whose leaders had made anti-Semitic comments:
"Clinton said that although she believed Obama was sincere, "we've got to be even stronger." Obama then responded , "I'm happy to concede the point. And I would reject and denounce." Clinton said, "Excellent," spurring the biggest applause of the evening.
Where do I begin? First of all, Obama had already said that he denounced Farakkan, so Clinton's comment that he hadn't gone far enough was odd. But the spin that's been put on it in this email is odder still, since it conveniently leaves out that Obama had already said that he denounced Farrakan and found him to be reprehensible. Yet the email makes it seem like Hillary needed to chastize him on that point. Further, the applause was not for Hillary's "excellent" comment, imho, but for Obama's skillful avoidance of Hillary's attempt to set him up - the "reject and denounce" comment.
Media Matters (http://mediamatters.org/items/200802270006) seems to echo my take on some of this:
Summary: During the February 26 Democratic primary debate, Tim Russert repeatedly questioned Sen. Barack Obama about his endorsement by Louis Farrakhan without noting that the campaign was quoted criticizing Farrakhan in the very article Russert cited to note the minister's support, that Obama himself said in a speech the day before the debate that he is a "consistent denunciator of Louis Farrakhan," or that Obama denounced Farrakhan's comments in his response to Russert's initial question on the subject.
The Media Matters article goes on to point out that "...Tim Russert repeatedly questioned Sen. Barack Obama concerning his endorsement by controversial minister Louis Farrakhan without noting that the campaign was quoted criticizing Farrakhan in the very article Russert cited..."
You may have not noticed that M.J replied to you in the earlier thread, so it may be you're not really being as disingenuous as it first appears here, but Clinton sure was being so in her email. This is why so many people are fed up with Hillary, myself included.
March 7, 2008 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL
I don't know tech stuff.
March 7, 2008 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK...the formatting on my post above is all goofed up. There should be three paragraphs that are part of the first blockquote. The paragraphs that begin with "As the Jewish Telegraphic Agency..." and "'Clinton said that although..." were part of the email that M.J. quoted. I thought I had included them by putting my " at the end of the third paragraph, but such was not to be. Also, the "Summary" should be part of the Media Matters blockquote. :sigh:
I'm not fluent in HTML and long for the return of the Rich Text Editor...
And, btw, I think you should issue a retraction of your comments about M.J. in light of his posting of the email from the Clinton campaign. It also should be noted that he invited anyone who doubted his posting of the email to call the Clinton campaign to confirm it. I don't always agree with M.J., but he sure didn't deserve what you wrote. And how does this affect your opinion of Clinton?
March 7, 2008 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I saw his explanation and responded to it on his thread. His explanation and evidence came after he was called out on it. A hyperlink in his original post would have focused the debate on whether or not the email contained racial overtones. I don't think it did. As I said, his comments are sloppy at best. Here's my response to M. J.
I believe the campaign sent that out. It's an accurate recap of what happened at the debate. If you had linked to it in the first place, we could have discussed whether or not it's fair comment on Obama. I happen to think it is. It is in no way comparable to the sleazy emails that are flying around the web. Sloppy.
Don't apologize for your HTML skills. I don't know tech stuff, either.
March 7, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, I'd like to add a personal note about TPM in general. Josh Marshall has never agreed with a thing I've said, but he has read every email I've sent him and responded to the ones that needed a response. He has fiercely defended himself, his blog and his young and idealistic staff against every criticism I've leveled at them. He's a tough guy, and you don't want to provoke him if you have a thin skin. He has called me wise-assed, ignorant, and profoundly pompous, and not once suggested he wasn't interested in what I had to say. You guys have an incredible sand box to play in here.
March 7, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Funny, but at the time I wrote my reply to you here I saw no response of yours to the clarifying info M.J. had added in his thread. His post was made at 3PM yesterday, yours here at 8:22 AM this morning. ??? (There may be some glitch with a clock someplace, as clearly this was written last night, but the point remains anyway.)
At any rate, I agree with M.J. (and Media Matters) that the email represented a dishonest recounting of what happened at the debate. Clinton attempted to spin the issue right there in the debate. Do you really think a demand that Obama reject Farrakan was necessary after he had already said he denounced him and found him reprehensible? No, it wasn't. It was a blatant attempt to manipulate the audience, one that you apparently fell for, Billy. I think it's highly likely that Clinton anticipated before the debate the question to Obama about Farakkan, and practiced her scripted false outrage, and that she planned the email message ahead of time, as part of a smear campaign designed to persuade Jewish voters, just as some of the more blatant emails that have circulated about Obama have done.
I am not Jewish, but I know any supposed link to Farrakan would be taken very badly by many in the Jewish community. The email is subtle, but it clearly makes it seem that Obama doesn't understand or care about the legitmate objections of members of the Jewish community to Farrakan, and needed to be chastized by Clinton for that. Clinton is portrayed as someone who, as opposed to Obama, stood up for the Jewish community. But, again, if you go back and look at what was actually said by Obama (did you read the Media Matters article?), prior to Clinton's interjection, there was absolutely no need for her to take him to task. It was all BS on her part.
Finally, while I appreciate that you give me a pass on my lack of HTML skills, I wonder why you don't offer M.J. Rosenberg the same consideration. I surely wouldn't know how to provide a link to an email I had received - would you? I don't think M.J. should be slammed for not knowing how either. (The crucial issue is that the email said what M.J. said it did.)
March 7, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just look at the time of my post here and my posts over there. His providing the memo is, in fact, directly related to my posts and emails I sent to TPM and to the posts of others who immediately called him on his bs. Get over it. All the evidence MJ could produce was a newsletter recounting events everyone saw live at the debate. She spanked him for waffling on Farrakhan, and he conceded. His words, not mine. It is not racist to point out that a politician, any politician, didn't reject the support of someone like Louis Farrakhan. I think her career can continue for a while. You can continue to read MJ if you want to. Next we'll get his explanation for dumping on Jesse Jackson.
March 7, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment