The Defeat of Truth
James E. Clyburn of South Carolina's statement about his "disappointment at comments by Bill and Hillary" is the latest effort by Blacks and White journalists to anoint Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee at the expense of the truth.
Clinton's comments comparing Obama to Martin Luther King Jr. and herself to Lyndon Johnson was a perfectly reasonable analogy. King's organizing and soaring rhetoric were keys to waking up America to the sins of racism. However it was Johnson's political skills and willingness to use them that enacted one civil rights law after another. It also created the politics we know now a solid South for the Republics. To deny this reality would be like saying Abraham Lincoln didn't free the slaves even though Frederick Douglas agitated for abolition.
However this not the first time in this campaign that truth has been sacrificed in the name of some sort of political correctness. Prior to Iowa Caucuses MJ Rosenberg claimed that Clinton was playing the race card. There was no real evidence for this and the charge disappeared as soon as Obama won his victory.
It continued with the hysteria over Jack Shaheen's truthful statements about Obama's cocaine use. Obama has admitted it and has written about it. Shaheen had the nerve to suggest Republicans would use it again Obama. Two days later Republican operative Ed Rollins did just that. However Shaheen was sacrificed to the forces of PC who prefer lies over the the truth.
Yesterday there were two more examples of soft-headed and lazy journalists trying to wrap a cocoon around Obama. The first was a slander against NYS Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. He was accused of using "shuck and jive" as a racial negative against Obama. However, a simple call to either Cuomo or the journalist who ran the original story would have shown that the phrase had nothing to do with Obama. People have to get over the fact that various phrases associated with Blacks have now entered everyday conversation. Perhaps some have to get their keyboards out of their mouths?
There should be no doubt that as Shaheen tried to point out that the Republicans will use race against Obama if he is the nominee. It pains me to defend Karl Rove since he is likely to lead the attacks on Obama or any Democratic candidate. However his WSJ Op-Ed piece was hardly racial.
Obama's comments at the Democratic Debate were cold and rude. Calling them "trash talk" seems a perfect description. For those who don't like "trash talk" as a phrase should look at the backpage of the NY Daily News with the headline "Trash Day." It is all about trash talking.
Playing pick-up basketball at Harvard is racial? Because Harvard is so associated with the Black Ghetto? If I said I played pick-up basketball at Penn what would that tell anyone?
Finally, Rove is not the first person to suggest that Obama is lazy. It has been pointed out that he missed many votes in both the Illinois Legislature and the U.S. Senate. It has also been said that as Chairman of a Senate Sub-committee he has rarely called a meeting. Juan Gonzalelez in a NY Daily News column headlined "I smell Obama baloney" also raises this issue among others. Perhaps there are legitimate reasons to miss votes and not to call hearings, but why not say what they are rather than smear people?
Both Politico and Dan Abrams have started to look at the Press. The Media does not like the Clintons. Abrams also claims the Press wants a Black President and implies they will sacrifice truth and reality and fairness in order to protect Obama.
You combine the desire for a Black President with an incredible smugness and sanctimony and laziness ignorance the Media is clearly ready to sacrifice truth and decency in order to shield Obama.
Finally, Rove is not the first person to suggest that Obama is lazy. It has been pointed out that he missed many votes in both the Illinois Legislature and the U.S. Senate. It has also been said that as Chairman of a Senate Sub-committee he has rarely called a meeting.
Many problems with your essay here, but I'll just respond to the above: There are other, better words that can be used to describe a politician missing votes.
It is not likely that Obama missed those votes because he was lying in bed and just didn't want to make it to work that day.
January 11, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are right about legislators. I even raised that myself. However, point this out does not make one a racist.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 11, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes there are better words and I agree with you that Rove made a partisan choice there. And one can think that's an attempt to get Hillary elected because the evil Rovites think she will be a better candidate to run against. To that I say: so what?
But I could definitely see that coming just watching him in the debates. The better word might be "laid back." You don't think that many ordinary voters are not eventually going to see that about Obama, that he's got a "laid back" personality in some ways? Some in their heads will think that's "lazy," others will think it's a good quality. What people call it is not going to affect the vote that much, those that see him as "another lazy black" are racists and will not vote for him anyway.
It's just getting too carried away with fear of framing, it's paranoid. If someone is a racist, they will pick up the framing. But they weren't going to vote for him anyway!
Meanwhile, this sort of thing alerts the candidate to how he/she appears to the public that might be on the fence. If he/she doesn't want to appear that way (in this example, "laid back") didn't mean to appear that way, doesn't like that some people see them that way, doesn't feel it accurately represents the way they really are, they can learn to change their way of communicating. It's not a minor skillset for a president to have, after all, as their communications with other leaders will be very important.
January 11, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's just getting too carried away with fear of framing, it's paranoid. If someone is a racist, they will pick up the framing.
It's dog whistle politics. It's not paranoid. Someone picking up on the framing is the intention, so how can that be paranoid? You're saying that's what he's doing.
"Laid back" doesn't really fit the standard political personality traits that are talked about. I mean, comparing others in terms of style, I think Jimmy Carter seemed laid back. Bill Clinton definitely seemed laid back, and I never heard anyone call him that.
Can you think of any other political candidate ever called lazy like that?
January 11, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who is the target and what is he trying to accomplish?
If he was trying to put on the label of "lazy black," then that's appealing to racists. Racists are not going to vote for Obama, anyway, because he's black, you can see that. Makes no sense.
If he's trying to label Obama just plain lazy, which is what I take it as because that's what he said, and he pointed out missing votes and background buzz, well, now, that's a whole nother thing. It's also something that Obama can do something about, and it's also something that's basically been said on in other terms on this website and other liberal ones.
It's just politics, not dog whistle politics. Candidates have "smeared" each other this way as long as there have been elections. Liar is a favorite, then the other guy explains why it wasn't really a lie. If you already have an image of the guy as a liar, you are happy to have someone reinforce you. If you aren't sure, the one called a liar might be able to convince you he's not. Lazy is another person's laid back or cool-headed.
You expected Rove to just coo about the Democratic candidates? Of course he was going to address them with a certain amount of smarm, but something more nefarious, I don't see. It's all out there.
Likewise with MJ's thread. The emails are targeting people who wouldn't like having a Muslim president, they think on Muslim can't be trusted. This is a demographic that is going to vote for Obama even if you prove he's not a Muslim? I don't think so. Those are lunies running that operation, not Karl Rove types, makes no sense.
Makes sense to tar McCain in South Carolina as having an illegitimate black baby because he's trying to get conservative votes.
January 11, 2008 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
If he was trying to put on the label of "lazy black," then that's appealing to racists. Racists are not going to vote for Obama, anyway, because he's black, you can see that. Makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense. Rove isn't whistling to some deep woods racists in an imagined redneck South. He thinks, I assume, that he is whistling to the deep, more sinister parts of you and me.
January 11, 2008 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
he is whistling to the deep, more sinister parts of you and me.
That's exactly right. He's chipping away at the electability question, reminding people that even though you, my illustrious Wall Street Journal Reader, might be fine with a black President, remember, everyone else isn't...
Which is indeed racist.
Rove I don't think is "trying" to get Hillary to be the nominee, or any other nefarious plot. It's to the Republicans' advantage to get people to start doubting whether a black man can get elected, plain and simple.
January 12, 2008 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
So Daniel, the African-American running for President is a "lazy" "drug-using," "shucking and jiving" Negro. Nice. Nobody is saying Hillary is a racist but you, sir, are.
January 11, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are just a fool. It is a shame that thinking is so foreign to people on the extremes.
Obama is a drug using. How do I know that? Obama has spoken about it and written about it. Did you know that?
Cuomo, according to the journalist who wrote the story did not say Obama was a "shucking and jiving Negro." Long after praising Obama Cuomo used the phrase but no one thought it was about Obama.
Is Obama lazy? I have no idea. He has failed to vote a lot in both the Illinois Legislature and the Senate. He also has rarely called his subcommittee into session. As I said he might have perfectly good reasons for this. However, to raise the question is hardly racist.
While your reponse was particular offensive and stupid all of them make my point. It seems so painful to some on the Far Left to have Obama criticized making up facts or suppressing the truth is preferred.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 11, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems so painful to some on the Far Left...
Is the person you're talking to on the "far left"?January 11, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was thinking of the guy below who called me a racist. However, I think it is true of many of the people in the blogsphere. I also had MJ Rosenberg in mind and many people I encounter in academia.
Afterall, for example all the immediate responses to my post were about specific charges directed against Obama. I was not vouching for their truth. Only that it was not racist to raise them. I assert that like the far Right the far Left likes to look away, or prevent discussion of facts they don't like.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 11, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Daniel ---
I love your post; it's both interesting and stylishly done and said most everything that needed to be said.
On the other hand (Isn't there always?) I do agree with cscs's implication that you weaken your argument by suggesting only the "Far" parts of the political spectrum display unreasonable reactions to criticism.
After all all that needed to be said in response to Sean1979's snark was --- "Hunh?"
January 11, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen
First thank you for the compliment.
Second it is precisely because the Right does this all the time that it dismays me when the Left does it. Whether it is the Supplysiders, the Religious Right or any of the other members of the Bush coalition of incompetents.
'
I was writing about the Medias and the far Left's effort to shield Obama from criticism by ruling off limits even things that are true from discussion. The Right did not seem relevant to this discussion.
Until I started participating at the Cafe and reading TPM, and now going back to graduate school, I thought that the denial of facts and truth was exclusively the province of the Right. It has been horrifying to me how similar the extremes of the Left and Right really are.
I am sorry for not making that clearer.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 12, 2008 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
If someone asks the police to stop his neighbor from beating him up at will, is the policeman a hero? Well, yes, if he has to risk something. But LBJ faced no personal risk, only his post-presidential career, and that was brought down by Vietnam much more than Civil Rights.
I think it is not at all symmetric to equate LBJ and King. It insults the man that was facing death daily, without Secret Service protection.
BTW, not sure if you intend it, but it's interesting to call Republicans "Republics." I ilke that, as an answer to "Democrat Party".
January 11, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is not symetric at all. Johnson was far more important than King. Not more heroic but more crucial. Johnson, for whatever reason, had the power of the presidency, the knowledge and the willingness to push Civil Rights dreams into laws. That, not glorious speeches is what changed the country. Although when Johnson said "we shall overcome" as President nothing was quite so electrifying.
Who was more important Frederick Douglas or Abraham Lincoln? Who freed the slaves?
Thanks for the final line. I hate the use of Democrat.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 11, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're dodging the point. It goes without saying that those in office make laws and administer the laws.
The laws only caught up with the feeling in a majority of Americas that the laws should change. Somebody had to do that, and it might have been Kennedy. Any president that wanted to avoid more protests would have done the same. That's called serving the public. But to motivate the public required the actions of King.
Douglas, Sojourner Truth, and many other abolitionists were more important than Lincoln.
Politicians respond to people, not vice versa.
January 11, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not dodging the question. I believe the view you are espousing is inaccurate and gives too much weight to a small minority of people without any formal power. Also abolitition which had started in England was in America largely a White Protestant movement. Without the politicians dreams stay just that dreams. The slaves did not free themselves. It took the willingness of Lincoln holding the office that could do it and having the politcal will to act.
So too the Civil Rights. To believe that the agitators and not the Johnson was the primary cause of the enactment of the Civil Rights laws just imagine Barry Goldwater as president in 1964or Stephen Douglas in 1860.
Politicians do respond to people but to all the people, those for something, those opposed and thos who don't care. That former slaves opposed slavery is not to remarkable. That those disscriminated against opposed bigotry is not to remarkable. That the leaders of the nation, who could have done nothing, acted is the crucial moment.
I would suggest James Oakes' "The Radical And The Republican." about Frederick Douglas and Abraham Lincoln. While Oakes is very good at trying to balance the two men it becomes clear that because Lincoln was President he, and he alone, could free the slaves.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 12, 2008 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're mistaking the gun for the shooter.
Funny to think that slaves and freedmen were sitting around waiting for English-derived white Protestant abolitionists to free them. Forget about the Underground Railroad? Many slaves did in fact free themselves.
So too with Civil Rights. To believe that only the Great White President was responsible is kind of insulting, to put it mildly. Forget about the Mississippi Bus Boycott? The Freedom Marches, Bull Connor, the people killed and beaten? Huey Newton? Stokely Carmichael? Where wqere you living in 1964? I was in DC, and still there when King was killed. Nobody would have rioted if LBJ had been shot.
Fine. Let's have LBJ day instead of King day.
January 12, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
But LBJ faced no personal risk, only his post-presidential career . . . . Tom Wright
I'm going to assume that the phrase "personal risk" includes (means?) loss of the Presidency and suggest that when Johnson said "We shall overcome" and sent the 1964 and 1965 civil rights legislation to the Congress, he was taking a very great political risk, the only risk that really matters to a man whose life is politics.
In July 1964 when Johnson sent the Civil Rights Act to Congress ("We've lost the South for a generation") the expectation was that he would face a Rockefeller Republican and Johnson would have remembered 1948 and Strom Thurmond and how close Dewey came to winning. Looking out to 1968 he could and did fear a resurgent "heir apparent" (Bobby Kennedy) contest for the nomination.
Johnson's choices were critically necessary to the enactment of the civil rights legislation and to beginning the dismantling of the apartheid state which was the South. He risked a lot and deserves very great credit.
January 11, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you equate "person" with "presidency" it still does not follow that Johnson faced a risk. He was already President. I put it as post-presidential career.
Johnson took one big chance, with lots of company, all the legislators that voted for the Civil Rights Act. As I said, King was facing risk to his person, not simply his self-esteem, daily.
Of course Johnson is to be admired, but only for facing the inevitable and no longer delaying it. He may have defused a trend toward insurrection, but he was not the mover, he was the reaction.
The classiest thing he did was to not run for president in 1968.
January 12, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
. . . he was not the mover, he was the reaction.
As well, one might say that when Martin Luther King came to the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, the "insurrection" and Rosa Parks and the NAACP were already present, that MLK "was not the mover, he was the reaction."
"Histories which see events as the consequence of decisions made by political leaders and their closest advisors not only have the virtue of great narrative coherence, but are also in many cases empirically correct in a very straightforward way." Tim Burke on "traditional" v. "cultural/social" history
January 12, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rosa Parks was selected as a photogenic example, and King was the best speaker, but can we agree that Parks was arrested, and King was killed, while LBJ retired to his ranch? Can we agree that some risk more than others?
Back to subject, both Clinton and Obama are running president; neither is King, neither is yet LBJ. But LBJ is not, because of being the one in office, more important than King. I will grant he was instrumental, at that time. And that's all.
Of course there are outsized individuals (great-man history). But which are the great ones? What is great about seeing the obvious and acting to survive politically?
Do you think we should not have King Day?
January 12, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing in Clinton's statement about King and LBJ (that appears to be in the background of this back and forth) suggested she was commenting on a difference in courage, or risk, in the actions of Dr. King compared to those of LBJ, or claiming some kind of credit for LBJ that would negate credit to Dr. King.
She was merely observing the obvious; that grassroots passion needs to be fulfilled by political power. Dr. King had the courage, took the risks, and ultimately paid the personal price, to build demand for change from outside the establishment -- but, it took someone with power within the establishment, using the power that he possessed (and Dr. King did not), to bring that demand to fruition, in terms of effective law.
It would be fair to criticize Clinton's observation as beside the point in the context of Obama's campaign for presidential power. But it is tendentious to say it is racist or disrespectful to Dr. King.
January 12, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the Saheen cocaine comments, Hillary Clinton herself personally called Obama to apologize for them, and fired Shaheen for saying them.
Yet you continue to defend them.
That's a strange position to take.
January 11, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because they were totally right. Of course she cut Shaheen loose. If she didn't all you would have heard was how racist the campaign was.
It seems to me a lot stranger that you won't acknowledge that what Shaheen was not only true but said by Obama himself, as to the drug use, and was used by Republicans already. What you seems to be saying is that a politically wise decision makes something untrue. Why do you think someone who told the truth should have been attacked let alone fired? Why should telling the truth need defense?
To further answer you question about who is on the far Left. It is those who divide the world in to victims and victimizers. Those in the designated "victims" group can do no wrong, and indeed they failures are explained away or more often attributed to the "victimizer" groups. This includes rejecting the truth in favor of a more comfortable fiction. In this I see no difference with the Bush crowd.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 11, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems to me a lot stranger that you won't acknowledge that what Shaheen was not only true but said by Obama himself, as to the drug use, and was used by Republicans already.
Or, it's possible that Clinton had to apologize for her employee's statements because it was wrong and unfair to raise the issue on a television show as a negative talking point about her opponent.
Your characterization of "truth telling" is completely inaccurate. The point was raised in the context of why one candidate was better than another. The point made wasn't simply "Obama wrote about his druge use in a book," as a factual, "truthful" statement. The statement was made to score political points. It was political spin.
That's far from truth-telling.
The thing that also makes it unfair is that, Obama is obviously comfortable talking about his prior drug use. It's not like he's hiding it. It would be one thing if Obama hid it, and it came out during the campaign. Then, that's fair game.
But to take something Obama wrote about in a book, something that he talks about with young people to persuade them NOT to take drugs, admitting to them that he's made some wrong choices in his life, and use that against him, that seems to be an incredibly cheap shot.
It has nothing to do with victims and victimizers. It has to do with right and wrong, and there's a difference. Things can be wrong, without having to play the victim card.
January 11, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a peculiar definition of truth. So if Obama mentions his drug use and someone says the Republicans will make an issue of it that is not only absolutely true, but Rollins and Romney have already made an issue.
Your formulation of a cheap shot is why Democrats can't retain the presidency and lose so often. If pointing out a true fact that will be used by Republicans in the general election is a cheap shot then the Democrats should not bother fielding a candidate and surrender now.
You keep saying Obama is comfortable talking about his past drug use. Then why is arguing that the Republicans, who have already, will use it a cheap shot unless you want to supress the truth?
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 12, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Karl Rove/Wall Street Journal piece is here:
"Why Hillary Won"
I suggest people read it for themselves rather than rely on narratives built by someone else about what it says or what he was trying to do by writing it.
I would like to say, though, that I have seen lots of blatant and clear slurs against all three candidates on this site. If Rove's slurring anyone there, he's got much more virulent competition here, by both commenters and contributors. Rove's piece is analyzing the horse race, while this piece on TPMCafe is not bothering with that.
Also it is wise to keep in mind how memes get spread: by reporting on them, blogging on them, writing on them, discussing them, emailing them, etc. More than ever before, on this race the "MSM" will pick up and cover "what the blogs are talking about."
from Politico's "mea culpa":
Why would anyone even bother with a push poll when they have blogs to spread disinfo. now? The last few days I look at the comments here and I just see disinfo., disinfo, disinfo., narratives spun about the candidates by a bunch of amateur spinners competing to out spin each other. And a lot of it is not just spin of some facts, but just made up in the person's head. Sometimes makes me feel dirty just reading the threads, certainly I get nothing useful out of doing it.
January 11, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Karl Rove, the innocent horse race analyzer.
Cmon, art, you're smarter than that.
The Politico quote is actually quite damaging, in my opinion. Most journalists rationalize their crappy news coverage by either claiming writing articles about Hillary's cleavage and such is actually important journalism, or they take the ratings route, claiming they need to run stories about Hillary's cleavage and such because they're simply "giving the people what they want."
Politico takes the latter, admitting they are basically ratings whores.
The Politicos also admit in that article they're not going to "the blogs":
Clearly not "the blogs."
Drudge rules their world.
January 11, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right that Drudge will probably be used, or perhaps some of Murdoch's English papers to put out the most trivial and scurrilous garbage. However, it seems to me that the big victim is the ideal of online journalism.
Online was suppose to be different than TV or print journalism. Instead they seems as ignorant, lazy and creepy as any other journalists. The whole point of my post is why should who journalist are pushing, whether Bush over Gore in 2000 or Obama so slant the drumbeat of the coverage?
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 11, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if I'm so smart, what the smartie thinks is that Karl Rove is not going to intentionally and blatantly present any intended campaign tactics in a public op-ed. I think he'd do just the opposite--try to appear objective so that he's trusted as knowledgeable.
Also keep in mind that he did not leave his last job with the Republican minions exactly raving about his recent performance, genius no more. Of course, some people on the left just cannot let go of the idea that he is a genius and they must elicit paranoia at his every word, parsing each and every one of them.
I think the whole thing about framing is getting real carried away into nonsense, much ado about nothing. Were people who wouldn't vote for a moderate Muslim for national office going to be people who vote for Obama anyway? No! So why worry so much if they have gotten the idea that he's Muslim that they are going to find out later is wrong? They are not going to vote for him anyhow, they're prejudiced.
What is the big deal about basketball pick-up at Harvard? It's supposed to remind people that Obama is black? Don't you think they can see he's black? Harvard is not exactly the ghetto. I think it's more likely Karl's trying to make himself sound hip, convince everyone he knows wassup, not an old fart that doesn't understand politics anymore. Remember the Rove rap video?
January 11, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is Karl Rove. The guy who oversaw the Bush campaign in 2000 where a push poll mysteriously appeared in SC:
Leopards, spots, and all...
January 11, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
And they are at it again! Exactly the same theme. Which is precisely why I think you are so way off-track in reading the Rove piece as you are. That's thinking from a inside-the-liberal blogosphere frame without seeing the big picture.
I just listened to about 1 1/2 hours of the ABC radio conservatives in the car. It was "McCain is an evil liberal" day and into the night on ABC radio today, Mark Levin at the end of my trip gave that away, not embarassed about it in the least. He said Rush, Sean and him had all been doing that topic after his article on same got published in National Review Online yesterday and after the debate yesterday.
First I heard Hannity tell me how McCain is against every godly thing that saint Ronald Reagan stood for. He said "the media" is trying to get me to vote for McCain (LOL, if I havent' heard that before! He's not "the media". No one will admit to being "the media," not Olberman, not Tweety, not Josh Marshall, not the New York Times, not Fox, not Huffington, whenever somebody refers to "the media, it's someone else!) He brought on a Ronnie expert and they discussed how Ronnie would be rolling over in his grave at what some of the evil GOP conseratives. That "the media" is trying to redefine what conservativism is and we gotta stop them. The first step there is bringing down the evil John McCain who in reality is a liberal.
Next up Mark Levin, where the attacks on John McCain got more vicious and much more loud, he was yelling towards the end of my trip. He said McCain/Liebermann are responsible for not getting enough tax cuts. He railed about the "Gang of 14" and filibuster just exactly like I have seen many liberals do on blogs. He instructed me as to how McCain is a flaming liberal on trade, immigration and taxes. He called him a liberal at least 20 times, and that Lliberal Lieberman who hangs out with him.
Then he got on Fred Thompson on for a short interview before a campaign stop and they railed on that some more. Thompson was allowed to say he respects McCain as they sit next together but disagrees with everything the stands for. Levin thanked him for standing up for the right things.
Then he played a tape from the MSNBC Joe SScarborough show of the night before where apparently Huckabee had made some jokes about Fred Thompson, something about Metamucil, he instructed the audience that MSNBC is a liberal network and that Joe Scarborough is a liberal. (!) and he asked Fred to comment, and Fred did his grown-up thing about pity that we have to have so much juvenile humor, it's "the media."
Ok so, then they move on to define Huckabee as evil #2. Do not vote for Huckabee. Huckabee is socially conservative but he is a liberal populist on taxes and other issues. Then after Fred had to get off, they discussed how Huckabee is just as dangerous as Huey Long and we musn't let him steal conservatism from us.
The last part I heard was that McCain was trying to steal the glory for Bush's success with the Iraq surge from Bush and his own generals.
Now I ask you, with this all going on, to reread Karl Rove's op-ed again, and tell me it doesn't sound like the voice of reason trying to explain the Dem results to to the WSJ editorial page readers, who are know to be on the conservative side. He's pointing out the populist support on the Clinton side, and the wine track support on Obama's side, He's not addressing the American people, nor is he trying tro start a meme on blogs. He's not plotting anything there. He's got his hands full figuring out who the GOP candidate is going to be.
I think reading so much into it is paranoid. It's just the way he talks! He's a Republican, remember. It's not easy to remember what they sound like if all one listens to are liberal voices on blogs where anyone leaning GOP is chased away.
January 11, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now I ask you, with this all going on, to reread Karl Rove's op-ed again, and tell me it doesn't sound like the voice of reason trying to explain the Dem results to to the WSJ editorial page readers, who are know to be on the conservative side.
You make a good case for this not being an evil plot. But I don't think that implies that the coded racial references don't exist. Isn't it entirely possible that Rove made these references not because he had a secret agenda to turn WSJ editorial page readers against Obama, but because he just can't help employ coded racist messages? Occupational hazard, among other things.
January 11, 2008 11:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I think you are describing what I am thinking better than I am. I do think too many left of center attribute too much to this kind of thing as being able to manipulate poltically and get a bit paranoid. If, as you said, it's appealing to deep and dark recesses of the brain, that's not very controllable, and therefore just as prone to backfire. It's done naturally by someone like Rove, not "on purpose." This is sort of the same thing as the Huckabee "secret messages" thread. It's not "secret" to him, he's just doing it thinking everyone else understands.
If you step back and look at the whole situation, how can Rove really know which candidate would be better to compete against, Hillary or Obama, if he doesn't know yet what angle his own party is coming from yet? I think he's straightforwardly trying to analyze the situation, trying to pick up what kind of demographic groups are forming that he might be able to manipulate later, that he's not manipulating yet. (I do think this type of knee-jerk reaction to Rove/Atwater politics is part of the reason of losing out to them in the past.)
Add to this that the Afro-American culture thing is very complicated stage in our society (and worldwide) right now, i.e., seems sometimes that rap is more popular with white and Hispanic kids than black. You can't necessarily tell whether someone using that kind of terminology is trying to slur or trying to be hip and appealing! Depends upon what demographic they are talking to.
Also, liberals tend to jump on this type of thing as a slur because of old P.C. sensitivity. But did it ever occur that the "suspicious" things Hill and Bill are saying are an attempt to co-opt some of Obama's appeal rather than slur him?! After all, Hillary did that speech that one time where she goofily adopted a sort of Afro-American cadence. And Bill knows exactly how to "act black." If that were the case, you would fight back in a totally different way.
January 12, 2008 5:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
It could also just be that Rove secretly just wants to be Maureen Dowd in his new life, the snark and the labeling of candidates with attributes was very similar. :-) Only a bit more seriously, it is part of the job to pick out how Saturday Night Live and Comedy Central will be parodying the candidates before they do.
January 12, 2008 5:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Artappraiser for the links. It was after reading the who Op-Ed as well as the entire story about the Cuomo statement i decided to write this post.Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 11, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Check out Josh's latest.
January 11, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Occurs to me that part of what he is complaining about there is solved by using "he said/she said" journalistic coverage of campaigns. I never understood why that kind of coverage was derided by bloggers.
Yes "stenography" from just one P.R. source is providing free propaganda. But to present a good selection of the statements/talking points of two opposing P.R. sources in an attempt to be objective is actually more scientific than having some reporter add his own spin on top of it for me. I can then go on for more research or analysis on who is closer to the facts, or, if I a rabid groupie of one side or another, I can just believe what they side said.
The big papers do it in stages. They put out the "he said/she said," then maybe more analysis a day later, a chart with fact checking on the "saids."
It's just dumb to expect someone like Josh to rewrite it all and try to interpret, it just adds more spin. You can't just hold the info until you have figured it out, it might be moot by then. "He said/she said" has its uses, especially in political campaigns.
January 11, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never understood why that kind of coverage was derided by bloggers.
Because it's rarely followed up by any kind of analysis, and, when it is, it's buried on A23. And most people, I don't think, read the papers, and teevee journalism is notorious for substance-free he said/she said.
January 12, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is the typical lazy journalism. An English paper puts out a unsourced slur. It allows the American Media to both repeat the slur and then do handwringing at the same time.
Nightline used to be the master of this technique. This way you get to be both in the mud and above it at the same time. Pretty sleazy.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 12, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
These nit-picking journalists and supporters are doing Obama less of a favor than they think. In fact, they may be doing him no favor at all. By inviting their readers to view and vet every political criticism of, and every political criticizer of, Obama and his campaign statements and appeals through the prism of racism, they are directly contradicting and weakening his message of "change" and his assertion that he is the candidate who can get us beyond, or help us rise above, our acrimonious racial history.
It seems that various Obama supporters, white as well as black, see this approach as a way to create solidarity between Obama and African American voters and, most important, to diminish the popularity of the Clintons within the African American community. But I don't understand why they think this negative approach -- which undermines the candidate's most powerful message -- is necessary. To win African American voters from Clinton to Obama, they don't need to convince them that the Clinton's are racist. (Which, no matter how minutely and tendentiously you parse their statements, would be a difficult job within a community that knows them and genuinely likes them.) Instead, they need to convince African Americans that Obama, if he wins, will be at least as good, if not much, much better, on the issues that most affect their lives. They also have to convince them that Obama CAN win -- a message that is undermined by the racism-in-every- statement/even-our-friends-are-racist/"Bradley effect" storylines. Those storylines don't promote hope or build on the African American community's natural desire to see, and help, one of their own succeed -- they promote hopelessness, paranoia and cynicism.
The campaign is also contradicting Obama's message of "change" and moving beyond "the politics of the past" by running around seeking the endorsement of too many politicians from the past. It may be hard to tell John Kerry that this isn't the right time for his endorsement (or the right place -- I don't remember Kerry being all that popular in South Carolina), but the Obama campaign should have done so. If you are running as the insurgent candidate, getting endorsed by the establishment is only useful AFTER the insurgency has been successful, as a symbol OF its new power.
These two mistakes, and their timing in this critical period after his loss in New Hampshire, makes me wonder if Obama's marketing team is as sharp as it needs to be.
January 12, 2008 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the real question is, how much message control does Obama have over people like Michael Eric Dyson and JJ Jackson Jr, both of whom I've seen go on TV and somewhat insinuate racism. I really don't know. (Just as Hillary doesn't seem to have all that much control, either...)
January 12, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
You may be exactly right about Dyson though a lot of Gays I know aren't so charitable. However Jackson Jr. was introduced as Obama's campaign co-hairman. Is he? If he is Obama can fire hime as Hillary did Shaheen, no?
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 12, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Got my self confused. JJ Jr. I don't think talked about race, but basically said Clinton cried about her appearance, and not Katrina and the Iraq war...
He is the co-chair.January 12, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
It goes without saying that agitators not in office need the action of those in office for changes in law to happen. Therefore, saying the obvious is in fact making a point.
But I am not responding to Clinton's statement, rather to others here that try to make symmetric the irreconcilably different
January 12, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink