Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The PRESS Plays the Race Card (and Is Playing Us for Fools): My Response to the Progressive

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:01 PM
Original message
The PRESS Plays the Race Card (and Is Playing Us for Fools): My Response to the Progressive
About half the threads in Democratic Underground GD Primaries are some variation of "Hillary plays the race card" "No, Obama plays the race card". Since there is no way to resolve this issue, this leads, inevitably to "Hillary has cooties" (Some MSM pundit said this recently on TV) "Obama is a sissy girl" (Tucker says this a lot).

For the record:

Bill Clinton said "Jesse Jackson" after South Carolina Bad Bill Clinton

Obama printed a race memo before South Carlino in which his camp listed a number of distortions of things which Hillary and her people had done or said that they wanted the MSM to talk about Bad Obama

Looks like they both did something they should not have done and got caught and stopped doing it. No more race memos from Obama. Big Dog got put back on the porch by Hillary. And for the record Chris Matthews started the whole thing on the night of the New Hampshire primaries on MSNBC when he told the TV audience "methinks that paleface speaks with forked tongue", remarks he repeated into the next day with elaboration about how racial intolerance from Boston of all places had caused New Hampshire voters to reject Obama because he was Black, even though Irish- American Tweety must have known (as Irish-American me knew, watching the returns) that the Irish-American matriarchy in New Hampshire was always going to select a woman. Tweety is also the first person to say that Obama's middle name Hussein is a political topic---you can thank Media Matters for catching that. Tweety is the leader of the MSM efforts to portray Hillary as a stiletto heel wearing ice hearted lesbian bitch queen who murders her political rivals in the cradle as if they were SIDS (actual metaphor he used on air)Tweety is a real trend setter.

So, why is the Progressive attacking Hillary and not Matthews? Because journalists are like lawyers. It does not matter if they stake out positions on the left or the right. They are all members of the same happy club. Look at how Rachel Maddow and Pat Buchanan sit and laugh together on MSNBC. Pat Buchanan engineered the dirty tricks that drove Musky out of the race in 1972. And they didn't just make him cry. Here is what they did to Muskie:

http://www.woodstockjournal.com/elections.html

Note the series of attacks on other Democrats that were attributed to Muskie. All the nasty comments that were attributed to Muskie. Read Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72 and you will see that it worked. The dirty tricks had everyone hating Muskie---and the drugs they slipped him had Thompson convinced that he was a drug addict.

I am pretty sure that Rachel Maddow, whom I am told is a Rhodes Scholar, knows all this. Apparently, she does not care. Neither does Keith Olbermann. They see nothing wrong in chatting amiably with the man who brought us the Killing Fields and Watergate and who advised Nixon to burn the tapes and who lied to Congress.

Welcome to the hypocritical, self serving, ratings obsessed world of news as entertainment. In this world, a fellow journalist--even someone as reprehensible as Bill Kristol--matters more than a US soldier without body armor, or a grieving war widow or a family without health insurance or a homeless vet. Bill Kristol is somebody . He is a contact. He might be able to help you get your next book published.

Do you think Thomas Paine worried about getting his next book published? He wrote what he did, because it had to be said, not because he had a column to fill, and he was hoping to make a name for himself. Would Rights of Man make it to the top of the charts? Would it get mentioned in the New York Times ? Would they read it in Europe?

Here is the sorry truth. The nation's so called left wing press is a commercial enterprise like any other part of the MSM and it cares more about its own image and box office gross than it does about the truth. When "hip" "cool" Obama came along, the nation's left wing press decided to latch onto him the way that aging Ted Kennedy did--because they hoped to ride the wave of his celebrity.

Anyone like me who was around in 1968 saw the same phenomenon with Gene McCarthy. Of course, the left wing press was smaller then. No internet. So it did not reap the millions (maybe billions if you count book deals, interviews, spin offs in movies, advertising) that it generates now. The poseurs did not care that they were shooting the Democratic Party in the foot with their "Divide and Conquer" Humphrey is as Bad as Nixon line. They only cared about their own ego.

That's right. The forefathers and mothers of these pretend liberal journalist used to call Hubert Humphrey a fascist. And say "If you have to vote for him, stay home."

Do not be fooled. People at Huffington Post and other so called progressive or left wing sites do what they do to promote their own careers and gratify their own egos. They are rich. They have investments. It is no sweat off their brow if John McCain gets elected. But it makes them look trendy to support Obama---for the moment. Until the winds of fashion change. Until he says or does something that reflects badly on Arianna.

If they really cared, they would be writing about the real issues that plague our country each and every article rather than playing the RNC's game of Divide and Conquer the Democratic Party. If they really cared, Arianna Huffington would never have let Lawrence O'Donnell publish the divide and conquer John Edwards is a loser in her journal. I will accept that the left hates Hillary. They are just human. After hearing their esteemed colleagues in right wing press call her a lesbian bitch with laser beam eyes for 15 years they probably can not help themselves. But to malign poor John Edwards because he is standing in the way of the fashionable candidate, the Gene McCarthy du jour----give me a break!

Here is a link to the Progressive piece. It is tiny, actually. Hardly a blip compared to some of the baiter crap that the left wing has begun to toss into the Democratic Primary:

http://www.progressive.org/comment/reply/6185

But the mainstream media gave it a ho-hum, and to the extent that they covered it, they focused on the racial split in the voting.

Obama won a whopping 91% of the black vote, and Clinton won 72 % of the white vote. But white independents went to Clinton only 55% to 40%, yet you would have been hard pressed to pull that stat out of the CNN exit polling data, so little attention did it get.

Its in Clintons interest to stress the racial divide because the more the Clintonites can dwell on Obamas blackness, the more they can scare up the racist white vote for themselves.


I will give you five seconds (after you read the above three paragraphs) to tell me what the logical fallacy is. Ready, set, go. Five, four, three, two, one.

Time's up.

Who owns CNN? If you said the Clintons go stand in the corner. CNN is owned by Time-Warner, an enormous telecommunications company that employees people like Glenn Beck. CNN did things in the summer and fall of 2006 like having host Wolf Blitzer announce nightly terror warnings--even where none existed, like the bogus dirty bomb attack on the fictitious Sunday football game. If CNN announces the racial split of the vote, it is because CNN---and parent company Time-Warner are trying to introduce race into the race.

But the Progressive is not about to call out another member of the press for its crimes. Hell no! Their own staff and writers might never work for Time-Warner again! So, they do what Time-Warner wants them to do. They blame it on Hillary.

While so called progressive sites kiss Obama's feet and lash Hillary to a stake for burning, how many of them actually pay attention to the people who are fueling the fire, the bad boy and girls at MSNBC, FOX and the other MSM outlets? How many of them dare to question the NYTs and the WaPo?

The only ones who do are the so called media watchdogs like Media Matters. The rest are too busy sucking up to their more profitable cousins---and aping all their worst behavior.

So, don't tell me that so and so at this left wing journal says the sun shines out of this Democrat's ass but that Democrat eats babies. She is just doing what her better paid colleagues at journals with a wider circulation have taught her to do. She is no better than the undercover cops that used to infiltrate peace rallies in order to incite violence and other crimes so that the police would have an excuse to come in and break some heads and arrest everyone.

The press---even the self style left wing press---is nothing but a bunch of agent provocateurs intent upon dividing and conquering the Democrats, because they are just salivating at the thought of covering Chicago 1968 again and watching our heads get busted open and our Party lying wounded and bleeding on the pavement .




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
1. The media is trying to start a race war within the democratic party for ratings.
It's pretty disgusting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:03 PM
Response to Original message
2. As always - you are spot on. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asjr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
3. AMEN!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 06:18 PM
Response to Original message
4. I really wish more people would read this, it's SO true!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sam Ervin jret Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 06:19 PM
Response to Original message
5. Amateurs, compared to Rove and Co. all the evil done to Musky by Nixon seems amateurish
How sick is that thought?

How far have we fallen?

Campaigns are now run like war tribunals, with defensive and offensive strategists. Talking points and spin are propaganda and strategists are not working to educate the people as to the ideas and plans of the candidate. Instead they find the ideas that are easiest to sell, and package them. Then they try to define their opponent in the most simple and unattractive way possible.

Regardless of facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
6. You know what's especially bizarre about MSNBC?
They've been using Pat Buchanan as the authority on racial matters. Of course, he kind of showed his stripes the other night when he told the black woman to shut up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. REALLY!?
I would laugh if that wasn't so horribly wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 06:25 PM
Response to Original message
7. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
childslibrarian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Thanks for your post
Very thought provoking...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. No Problem :)
The article speaks well enough for itself, I thought.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnnyLib2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 07:16 PM
Response to Original message
10. Like it, will pass it on,---thanks once more.

Recommended
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anamandujano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 07:17 PM
Response to Original message
12. The Obama campaign started it, profited from it and you can all
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 07:25 PM by anamandujano
stop the whining now that he's getting a taste of his own medicine.

edit to add--Jesse Jackson Jr. getting the ball rolling

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/01...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anamandujano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Kick for a response--How about it . . . . anybody!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tbl92666 Donating Member (56 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. DAMN FUCKING RIGHT
I hate these PC liberals that think blacks are all saints and whites are all evil. They are as stupid as the fucking conservatives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. Karl Rove started it and McCain will profit from it. The Dems will lose from it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anamandujano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Was it Rove who pounced on Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" comment?
Did Bama jump on the case quickly and put a stop to it?

Did or did not Bama send Jesse Jackson Jr. out to fan the flames?

If Jackson was just a loose cannon, did Bama send him packing and denounce his comments?

Did or did not Bama refer to the costume photo again before Miss?

You have a nice scholarly style but you're fudging the details.

Obama was ready, willing and able to play Rove's game. It's gone on for weeks and weeks. The Clinton's who have reached out more than most whites are now considered racists. That's ok with you?

Did you speak up against Bill Bradley and his warnings to the super delegates that they would be challenged in their primaries by well financed groups if they did not go with Bama? This, of course impacting the black supers, not Kennedy or Kerry.

I'm sure there's more but could you give a few answers to these questions. Thanks in advance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anamandujano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Well, just call me thread killer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 12:38 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. It was the press that edited them and then spread them around.
Edited on Sun Mar-16-08 12:45 AM by McCamy Taylor
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801130004

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801120001

We will never know who put Clinton's remarks out of context on YouTube. Unless Obama claims credit we need to assume that it was right wing operatives, just as I am comfortable assuming that Drudge and the Moonies act under orders of the right wing, too.

And when the NYT's misquoted Hillary, that was not at Obama's insistance.

It is always the press that lies. However, the way that Rove has set it up, the RW attacks that originate on Drudge and Insight and FOX are clearly that---RW media smears that only the most paranoid Obama supporter could ever attribute to Hillary. In the general election, when the NYTs revisits all the mud slinging, they will suddenly realize that Hillary is innocent of all the charges that the TV pundits like Fineman leveled against her---that she is Nixonian---and they will blame Obama. And mainstream America will nod its head and say "Well of course Obama knew that Hillary could not be behind article that appeared in Drudge and Insight and FOX. Of course he was just pretending to get votes." Even though the TV idiots were telling his supporters "Go on! Get outraged at Hillary! Do it!" So, in the general election, Americans are suddenly going to be very embarrassed if they believed the lies about Hillary---because face it? Hillary in bed with the right wing conspiracy?--or if they were not paying attention they will be shocked that Obama would resort to such dirty politics.

And meanwhile, McCain will be standing over there looking like Mr. Clean.

This has all been planned out and Obama does not have the campaign experience to predict any of it. If he did, he would have refused to bite at the bait that Karl Rove offered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:43 PM
Response to Original message
15. Why Keith Olbermann Is Like Antonin Scalia: Wright v. Ferraro Equals Bush v. Gore
I am going to put this within a thread, because I don't want another thread out there just for KO bashers or Hillary supporters. I have a serious beef based upon journalistic ethics.

Before I even get started, I have to say one thing. FOX News set him up. The right wing has been covering Obamas Church, talking about its radical tendencies for almost a year. See my recent journal The Right Wing Media v. Obama for the details. This is old news. Why did they break the story now? Because they knew that the left wing media would handle it differently than they handled Ferrarowhich would anger women all across the country, especially Hillary supporters. In particular, they hoped that Keith Olbermann would handle it in a different way. And poor, nave KO walked right into the baited trap.

Here is how Keith Olbermann is like the Gang of Five---the five Supreme Court Justices who under Antonin Scalia ruled for Bush in Bush v. Gore. Remember what Alan Dershowitz said was wrong about their judgment? They based it upon the identities of the parties in the case. They went against their own historical practices and tendencies to rule for Bush---and said that the case could not be sighted for future precedence (although one savvy commenter said that what it really meant was that in any case in which Bush was involved , Bush would always win).

Wright v. Ferraro means that in the courtroom of Countdown Obama will always win.

Since the official transcript of Fridays show will not come out until Monday, I will have to refer to video of Friday. There is a transcript and video of the Special Comment about Ferraro.

First, here is how Ferraro and Wright are the same. Both are aging veterans of the 60s rights movements. Both struggled at a time when women and Blacks were treated atrociously if they tried to step out of line. Ferraro was an icon among Hillarys older women supporters since she has the only women to ever run on a major party ticket. Wright was Obamas spiritual mentor. That made both of them VIPs to their respective campaignsnot people to be tossed aside lightly, both for sentimental reasons and because the base of each candidate might take offense if they were slighted. Ferraro said inexcusable, hurtful things about groups to which the opposition candidate belonged----African-Americans and men. Wright said inexcusable hurtful things about groups to which the opposition candidate belonged---White people and the Clinton family. There was a pattern of such speech from Ferraro going back at least a couple of weeks this campaign and if one searched she had made similar remarks in 1988. There was a pattern of similar remarks going back for years from Wright. There is no proof that Hillary was aware of Ferraros remarks until the rest of the world became aware of them. Obama says that he was not aware of Wrights remarks until the world became aware of them.

So, how did Keith Olbermann handle these two remarkably similar situations?

Ferraro: Rather than invite Hillary onto his show to explain to his left wing progressive audience that she did not share Ferraros views and regretted them and perhaps talk about the role that the press has played in fabricating controversy in an attempt to divide and conquer the Democrats this primary season, KO decided to jump straight into a Special Comment, usually reserved for war criminals like Bush and Cheney. Thats right. Hillary is now ranked among the war criminals and Constitution busters for the crime---of which John Edwards was once found guilty by the Huffington Post---of standing in Obamas way. Since KO never does a frivolous Special Comment, this alone is enough to indict her in the eyes of many Democrats---unless it backfires and makes his Special Comments seem frivolous.

http://thenewshole.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/12/762...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lChUBe6mYC8&feature=rela...


How about the specifics of the indictment? KO accuses her of allowing Ferraro to make inflammatory statements for fifteen days (without offering proof that Hillary knew about the statements or that anyone else knew about them). He invokes the name of David Duke a preposterous bit of overblown rhetoric akin to the kind of name calling that gets OReilly listed as a worse person (as in when he says that Obamas oratory is similar to Hilters). He repeats Obama talking points (specifically the one about how can he be ready for VP but not ready for president---I cite Dan Quayle and rest my case).

He says:

Somebody tells her that simply disagreeing with and rejecting the remarks is sufficient.

He says:

Your only reaction has been to disagree, reject, and to call it regrettable.
Unless you say something definitive, Senator, the former congresswoman is speaking with your approval.
Her only reaction has been to brand herself as the victim, resign from your committee and insist she will continue to speak.
You must remedy this.
And you must reject and denounce Geraldine Ferraro.


Here is the worst part of the Special Comment imo:

This, Sen. Clinton, is your campaign, and it is your name.
Grab the reins back from whoever has led you to this precipice, before it is too late.
Voluntarily or inadvertently, you are still awash in this filth.


Read that closely. KO has lead her to the precipice---at that moment. He has just repeated a list of lies and innuendos straight out of his own MSM that attempts to back up a phony claim that Hillary is a Bitch whose 3 am ad is racist when it isnt . KO is trying to say that even if it was not intended to be racist,, even if it is inadvertent or someone elses fault--- it is Hillarys fault if the world believes that it is racist. This is a bit like saying that an innocent man railroaded, convicted and executed for a crime that he did not commit was responsible, because he should not have looked so damn guilty . Or that Hillary should have been nicer to the MSM, so that they would not be making up lies about her all the time.


If someone else---say Drudge---doctors 60 Minutes video footage to change what Hillary said, it is Drudges fault if the world gets the wrong impression. It is not Hillarys fault for not anticipating that Drudge might doctor it. If the MSM spreads a smear, it is the MSMs fault. Sometimes (gasp) it is Obamas fault, as in the case of the race memo that Obamas camp produced in South Carolina. And earlier this week, it was KOs fault. But maybe KO would have us believe that Hillary used her laser beam eyes to force him to do the Special Comment to get some female sympathy votes.

Note Olbermanns final demand. The only way to make it right is to reject and renounce Ferraro and---if possible---muzzle her. Apparently that decision was like Bush v. Gore. It was not intended to set a precedent.

Wright: Oh boy! Did KO ever fall into this right wings trap on this one. He even came in when he was supposed to be out to help his chosen Democratic candidate through a tough spot.

Here is the video since I do not have the transcript yet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lk3Rra3CgMA

First thing to note, Obama was allowed to appear on Countdown to explain and defend himself to KOs audience, which consists of a lot of likely Democratic voters. There will, of course, be no special comment. Also note Obama did not fire Wright. He allowed him to step down. I would not repudiate the man. Obama said. And later The comments that have been played are contrary to what I believe but he considers Wright to be part of his family, so he will not distance himself from the man.

KO asks if Obama thinks that Wright will be used against him in the future. Obama believes that he will. The headline beneath the two men reads Wright is no longer on Obamas spiritual advising committee

Obama uses the excuse that Wright came of age in the 60s and has a lot of anger and frustration. Praises the work people of that generation did to help us have less anger. We are seeing a transition from the past to the future.

The two men conclude their interview amiably. KO has done what he used to do in the past for all Democrats. He has defused a right wing media smear. Minus points to his substitute host for making a snarky comment about how Hillary must be deriving malicious enjoyment from Obamas trouble (is she a mind reader?), and for the Hillary bashing story in which Orin Hatch is quoted as a reliable source claiming that Hillary lied about her contributed to SCHIP .

(Guys, we know that we have entered the Twilight Zone when Countdown quotes members of the Right Wing Conspiracy like Drudge and Orin Hatch in order to come up with anti-Hillary smears)

So, what was disparate about the treatment that the two plaintiffs received in the court of pubic opinion called Countdown? Olbermann said that nothing short of a rejection and denunciation of Geraldine Ferraro the human being would absolve Hillary of the sin of allowing the American TV news viewing public to believe that her campaign had made racist attacks on Obama (even though he was one of the MSM journalists stoking the rumor with lies and distortions at that very moment!) However, Obama said that he would not repudiate Wright and even gave reasons why he considered the man an member of his family. He would only criticize his words.

The excuse which Obama made for Wright is applicable for Ferraro. In the 60s, members of the womens movement were often treated hostilely by members of the civil rights movement, who acted as if womens concerns about reproductive choice, equal pay and day care were frivolous compared to racial equality---even though womens issues cause the nations children of all colors to grow up in poverty---and women were told to wait until men of color achieved equality before they tried to ask for their rights. If KO does not understand this, then he should read Angela Daviss Women, Race and Class . However, KO should have known this, and if he didnt his guest Alter should have known this. If Bill Moyer was doing the interview, I can guarantee that he would have raised the issue of Ferraro and talked about the parallels on this point. Bill Moyer is not afraid to delve into complex topics.

When Obama announced that he was letting Wright resign but keeping him as part of the family and when he said that he disagreed with his words but would not repudiate the man, we did not hear anything like this pass through KOs lip:

Your only reaction has been to disagree, reject, and to call it regrettable. Unless you say something definitive, Senator, the (minister) is speaking with your approval.

No, KO nodded his head in agreement and consoled Obama over the fact that his political enemies would probably try to score points off this affair. Makes you wonder if the two men exchanged high fives after the cameras were off them. How about the way your points rose after the Ferraro affair! Yeah! Good thing, too. Im gonna need them

Things KO did not say that he said to Hillary: You had to have known about Wrights political beliefs for at least a year, because that is how long the right wing media has been reporting on them. As the candidate, it is your fault if people get a bad impression of your campaign, even if the bad impression of your campaign is created by someone over whom you have no control. Even if that someone is a member of the right wing media that regularly attacks you. How are you going to make it up to America, Senator?

That would have been equal treatment before the law in the court of Countdown I would like to think that the Wright affair opened KOs eyes to the atrocious way that he handled the Ferraro affair, but I dont think so. Until he apologizes, I will have to believe that he is playing along with the rest of the mainstream media which has decided that it is fun to set the Democrats at each others throats in hopes of witnessing another Chicago 1968. Primary coverage as a gladiatorial battle. The Democratic Primary as monster truck competition. KO loves sports.

In defending Obama, KO was hoping to blunt the impact of the silly Wright story. For this, I applaud him. However, by failing to address the Ferraro story at the same time---and he could have done it. He could have said "This has made me rethink the Ferraro incident and realize that the press over reacted"---he must have realized that he was doing something potentially much more harmful to the Democratic Party. He was deepening the rift between two camps within the Democratic Party, both of whom can make excellent cases that they are the most oppressed group in America---

Blacks have been enslaved, lynched, incarcerated, subject to police brutality, given lower wages and inadequate education.

Women are the group that is most often the victim of violence including child sex abuse, rape, hate crimes, domestic violence---and this has been the case since the beginning of time in all ethnic and racial groups. Women have also suffered from inadequate education and lower wages.

Indeed, as Davis spells out in her book and as Frederick Douglas whom Hillary mentioned in one of the debates advocated, the two groups are natural allies---whom the Man has tried to keep apart. They are doing it again this election season. KO is helping them.

KO is a tool of the white power elite and he does not even know it. All because he decided---or someone at MSNBC convinced him---that only Obama can beat McCain.

Wrong! Only a united Democratic Party can beat McCain. And Hillary, who once worked Texas for McGovern, is not the enemy of the Democratic Party.

Everyone is a prisoner of his own experiences. No one can eliminate prejudices - just recognize them.

Edward R. Murrow





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hatchling Donating Member (968 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:09 PM
Response to Original message
17. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #17
21. I cite as evidence an entire thread inspired by "pornography of hate"
Edited on Sun Mar-16-08 12:53 AM by McCamy Taylor
a British left wing journalists propaganda filled with Clinton bashing written by (get this) a guy whom SourceWatch says backed the invasion of Iraq, just loooooves Christopher Hitchens and who has been found to lie on occasions to create stories. Media whores exist on the left as well as the right, especially in Europe.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Johann_Hari

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

This proves that literature is just a commodity, as Marx would have said. It follows the laws of supply and demand. At the moment, there is a demand for literature that can inspire supporters of candidates to hate the other candidate, so left wing media whores are busy turning out product, the way that drug dealers turn out meth and crack. Since all authors want to see their name in print and feel the adrenaline rush as their words move people, it gets them high, too.

Oops. This isn't really a response to a K&R. It just is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BleedingHeartPatriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 10:05 AM
Response to Original message
22. Another spot on, fan f***ing tastic deconstruction of what we are seeing right before our eyes.
:applause:

BTW, I am struggling with whether I should relate my experience at the Denver County Caucus, the grassroots level, with watching and participating in apportionment of delegates for each candidate and how each candidate's campaign representatives managed the apportionment.

It was only after reading your post that I was able to understand, more clearly, the differences in behavior of the campaign staff of each camp and the media influences that contributed to the some of those differences.

In a more reasoned time, I might post those impressions, however, this is not a very reasoned time at all, here on DU. I have two more conventions, at least, to attend, and I think I'll hold out until I have more of a continuum of events.

MT, I cannot thank you enough for your posts, in the midst of drive by posts and RW disruptors, those posts are a shining literary light.


:kick: :kick:




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. I think you should speak out. The truth will set you free--as long as you speak compassionately.
I suspect that some people remain silent for fear of alerting Republicans to Karl Rove's dirty tricks. This is a fool's silence. I know that the Free Republic reprints my posts about the Brokered Democratic Convention and the 1972 Strategy w/o comment. However, Republicans are raised knowing that they will only win elections through dirty tricks, since on the national scene they are the minority. Every four years they get together and decide what strategy they will use to suppress or sway or corrupt the vote to steal another election. Every four years they are fed "code" by certain people like George Will who tell them what the strategy will be.

For Democrats to keep quiet about what Rove, the RNC and the MSM are doing in hopes that Republicans with IQs less than 80 might not catch on to what the rest of the party is doing is a fool's endeavor. What we should be doing is educating the members of our own party (who do not grow up being indoctrinated that politics is a war in which anything goes and dirty tricks are mandatory). If respected Democrats came out and told the base what the stakes are, the Dems would listen.

As I have said before, a large number of Americans hate and distrust the corporate media. It would be very easy for Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, John Edwards to speak out about the attacks which the press is making upon the Democratic primary. This is what the Democrats need to be doing right now. Forget Craig Crawford's "Attack the Messenger". The Messenger is waging war of we the people. We, the people need to strike back against the handful of telecommunications companies that control the message.

"People need to hate the Phone Company " The President's Analyst
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BleedingHeartPatriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. I know.
Edited on Sun Mar-16-08 05:52 PM by BleedingHeartPatriot
I will.

I've been told the same by a respected person in my non online world, as well.

:toast:

on edit, thank you for your response. It means a lot. I am working on the newest entry to my journal now. :hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BleedingHeartPatriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
23. Uno mas kick!
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Dec 22nd 2014, 07:32 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC