I suspect there were probably a few minutes late yesterday afternoon when Obama campaign officials felt a little nervous. It was the day before a big debate, which is nerve-racking enough, and all of a sudden, there's a flurry of attention -- prominent right-wing provocateurs claimed to have a controversial video of Obama making racially-charged remarks.
I also suspect, a few hours later, those same Obama campaign officials exhaled so loudly they could probably be heard outside the building. The new, explosive video that was going to change the election wasn't new, wasn't explosive, and wasn't even interesting.
The whole mess just reeked of desperation. At issue was a speech Obama delivered in 2007, as a presidential candidate, not at some secret fundraiser, but in front of a large audience at Hampton University. Reporters covered the speech, which wasn't seen as especially controversial, and all the major networks told the public about Obama's remarks at the time.
In other words, Drudge, Tucker Carlson, and Sean Hannity formed a strange sort of triumvirate to hype a five-year-old video that everyone already knew about, and which doesn't include anything interesting anyway.
Perhaps my favorite part of this silliness came when Carlson proudly boasted to Hannity on the air last night, "People will say this has already been reported. Well, actually, it hasn't been reported. And I know because I reported on it the first time."
Let that quote roll around in your head for a minute.
I'm not even sure what it is, exactly, the right finds so noteworthy about the 2007 speech. Obama criticized the government's response to Katrina? His speech used a cadence Drudge found overtly racial? Obama mentioned his former pastor?
I was also amazed when I saw one conservative last night insist that Obama never speaks this way "in public" -- as if a presidential candidate speaking to a large audience with reporters and cameras on hand somehow counts as "private."
In the larger context, I'm also struck by the extent to which the president's more unhinged detractors seem to sincerely believe they'll defeat him with old videos. Conservatives are apparently convinced the key to crushing Obama is to overlook his performance in the White House, and focus instead on his tone and cherry-picked quotes from speeches he delivered before taking office.
I'm not sure whether to be annoyed (by the ugly, racially-charged tactics), insulted (they're treating Americans like fools), or feel sorry for them.
Leave a Comment:
I generally consider myself to be informed, but I didn't know about the Stafford Act being waived for Andrew but not Katrina. To watch this clip and then have someone point out that the importance of it is Obama's accent, strikes me as truly callous bigotry, which is exactly what the clip was about.
My accent changes too when I'm talking to my relatives back East.
Go read the writer at TPM that talks about this. It may 'offend' YOU but I suspect you're white.
'Obama is pandering, is fake-black, and/or, even worse, fake-white.
My mother is English and my father is from the Caribbean. Both
have very distinct accents. Hearing them go from speaking to us to their parents
or friends and hearing that transition in cadence was always a source of joy for
me. Their changing accents held so many stories, so many different experiences,
that for a child it helped me begin to understand their journeys and the depth
of life’s potential.'
I do the same thing. My wife used to say that my accent would start coming back about halfway across Ohio, just in anticipation of visiting my relatives in West Virginia.
Always entertaining to watch a supporter of Robme trying to projecting his image to the Presidents. Check the liar sheet dumbass and you'll be enlightened. The truth shall set you free altho you might want to look up the definition of truth first, then you'll understand. Good luck.
Dan P,#1,
Gosh, first, I noticed no accent and I didn't notice it in 07 when I saw that speech. THAT'S the big deal speech? Wow. I can breathe again. LOL
All this shows me, and any reasonable person, is that Fox news (propaganda), and Shawn Hannity are a bunch of right wing racists, along with Newt (the serial adulterer who was tossed out by even the GOP) Gingrich, who loves to call Obama the food stamp president. No one takes Newt seriously but Newt, and everyone knows Hannity is a hate spouting racist who is paid by Fox to tear down Obama. If Hannity had a brain, he'd be dangerous. As it is, they feed him these lines and he, for millions of dollars, repeats them. Fox is happy and the flat-Earth bunch are happy to get more outraged over nothing. It doesn't take much to get their hate going. In this and other cases, it takes NOTHING.
Well I saw the video in 07 and voted for Obama in 08. It is hardly news to me that Obama is Black and the right-wingers are racist.
So, there's no news, in that these guys are just doing their jobs for Fox, and Newt is just looking for attention as always. There's no news that they are racist, so where's the news?
I mean, I've known all my life that many in America are racist, and that many Americans are ignorant, and more recently that Fox news plays to these people.
So? I'll be voting for Obama again, just like before.
And he'll win again, just like before.
This video never was available in its full glory, and the campaign issued the press its version, without the off script dialouge, to the press. The reason they issued a cleaned up version is because this video shows:
(APPLAUSE)
2. oBama wants to discriminate against the people in the Suburbs. Note its not we need to invest in the Surburbs and Cities, its we 'don't need' and 'invest in minority owned'
3. oBama has strong ties to Rev Wright, the G-D America, Jew Hating, racist preacher.
Speaking of Race-baiting, we have another troll with a pointy white hood.
Entropy,
You don't have a clue do you? The only KKK I knew was Senator Robert Bird. I don't know if your famed LBJ was KKK, but he was a race baiter. So when you run out of ideas you go and make false alegations, don't you. Why don't you address the subject?? You are a feeble minded coward.
How is he race baiting? Race baiting means he's specifically throwing out a racially charged term in order to rile up his audience? Using terms like "minorities" and "don't need" aren't race baiting terms. Race baiting terms would be like saying black people are on welfare. Or those people are on welfare while pointing to a black person or after having been asked a question in the context of it referring to black people. Nothing you've stated here shows race baiting unless you're just trying to find anything to be objectionist about. Saying "down here" isn't a. southern and b. isn't race baiting. Saying "don't need" isn't race baiting. Saying invest in minority business isn't race baiting.
....we already knew that Obama had ties to Reverand Wright....this doesn't even make any sense
How did the KKK even get brought up in this conversation???? No one but you brought up the KKK and now you're accusing LBJ of race baiting and of being a member? That doesn't even follow by your logic
Tell your sheep the truth for once ED the Stafford act was waived 10 days before Obama made that race bating speech and you want to hear the kicker Obama was one of the 14 senators who voted against it
Another knuckle-dragging Neo-Confederate appears. One of the right wing rabble rousers must have sicced their mad dogs on TRMS Blog. Probably the execrable Malkin.
A. Provide evidence for your claims
B. You are assuming why Obama voted "against it"- without evidence of that we cannot presume one thing or another
C. What was the context in which Obama was referring to the Stafford Act? Was he saying that it was never waived or that he was disgruntled because of how long it took to be waived?
I'm not seeing where any lies are or have been presented here which is especially strange considering it's an audio clip. So what does "ed" have to do with this?
Is it possible for someone the actively participate in racist action and at the same time accuse others of racism and not be labeled as a racist hypocrite? Well, except forr Romney.
Folks, I would like to thank all the worthless trolls who have shown up here tonight and done so much to show that the political struggle in this country is, absolutely, categorically, unequivocally, an us or them situation.
Mike, Mego...
My father was Scottish-British, born and brought up in Rhode Island... My mother was Irish-British, born and brought up in Tunbridge Wells, just south of London... They met in a English hospital just before D-Day, when he came down with mononucleosis and my mother was a volunteer nurse in his hospital... I lost most of my accent by immersion in American television, but put me in a room with someone from the British Isles or New England, and within ten minutes, I'll sound like a long-lost relative...
I've also noticed that, whenever I'm writing on the blogs, I often tend to use English terms and spellings, like "blighter", "wanker", "dole", "grey", "humour" and such... Doubtless, a trait passed down from my mother...
Mike...
Whereabouts in Michigan? I'm currently stuck in the EUP, about 15 miles south of the US-Canada bridge in Sault Ste. Marie...
Next up ...did you know there is a Negro in the White House?
Yes, I did- and he had a WHITE mother!
Miscegenation was illegal in a number of states when Teh Other was conceived.
Plus, he lived in Indonesia, a Muslin country, where the eat dogs and talk funny.
Is a muslin country the place where they make muslin?
LOL
#2 Sicknffintired:
LOL, E-gads WHO KNEW HE WAS BLACK???
Gosh, thanks for pointing that out, Fox! Thanks Hannity! How did I miss that in 07 when I saw that video????
Still, I prefer a human being for president, so I guess I'll vote for the Black guy again. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Yawn......ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....zzz....zz...........z....
If you ever wondered which side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!
If a Republican doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a Democrat doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
If a Republican is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a Democrat is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
If a Republican is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A Democrat wonders who is going to take care of him.
If a Republican doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Democrats demand that those they don't like be shut down.
If a Republican is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A Democrat non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.
If a Republican decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping
for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A Democrat demands that the rest of us pay for his.
........seriously? So your only response here is to copy and paste a chain e-mail that isn't even filled with factually correct statements or logically cohesive statements?
Just stop. Please. Stop being stupid. Start thinking for yourself it's OK to do that. Stop repeating what you've been told and just think. It's OK. It won't hurt you. Just stop being stupid, please. Pretty please? With sugar on top?
If a person's a left-winger, he goes on a left-wing blog to talk to people who share his views.
If a person's a right-winger, he goes on a left-wing blog to harass, annoy and insult the left-wingers, because he can't live in a country filled with people that don't think the same way.
Cartoon-
He's a propagandist. He'll never stop. Self-respect isn't his thing.
It's all they have and nothing more. I actually feel sorry for the poor pathetic fools...Nah, screw'em.
Wouldn't it be great if we all grew up and stopped trying to use race, and just start treating everyone as a person. Oh My God, Don't you think we all ought to check to see if he eats watermelon and fried chicken. My mother always made sure we had it on every picnic, and Sunday dinner in the summer when I was growing up.
But then we have Brown trying to see what makes you qualify as Cherokee and a true American.....I think it is time we stopped thinking in these silly terms and get on with the real issues.
Hey Romney what do you have lined up to prove you will make a President? That is what I'd like to know.
Those on the right will never stop doing what they are doing because they clearly enjoy being malicious.
Notice they are coming to the Ed blogs in droves to make their desperate voice heard and to try and quell the opposition.
if a republican doesn't "approve" of abortion, he demand that it be outlawed, FORCING HIS RELIGIOUS (OR OTHER) BELIEFS ON WOMEN AND EVERYONE ELSE.
not all repub homosexuals quietly lead their lives. like mark foley they might solicit sex from paiges on capitol hill. or like larry "wide stance", "i am not gay, i have never been gay" craig, they are caught soliciting sex from AN UNDERCOVER COP in a minneapolis airport bathroom.
democrats are fighting for the rights of everyone, including homosexuals. republican homosexuals live their lives IN THE CLOSET and vote against bills that would make their lives, and the lives of their fellow homosexuals BETTER.
p.s., TEXAS,
even democratic CHRISTIANS understand the importance of "separation of church and state".
repubs want to FORCE their religious beliefs on everyone, demanding that we all bow to their religious whims, DOING THINGS THEIR WAY, THE "RELIGIOUS" WAY.
texas, please remember that the "individual mandate", a repub idea, is NOT socialism.
according to repubs, THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE WAS CONSTITUTIONAL BEFORE IT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, before President Obama put it on the table. through my insurance company, i have paid for viagra and vastectomies for MEN for years, the same claim YOU ALL are making in regard to birth control for women. women have not been given the same benefit as men in regard to insurance. its about time women catch up to the benefits that men have taken for granted for YEARS.
being a woman is a "pre-existing condition" to most insurance companies.
Come to think of it, things have been awfully quiet on the End Times front. Living in the South, one grows accustomed to hearing about a never-ending series of conspiratorial threats and eschatological panics.
Prophetic fads sweep the region. It’s Satan worshippers one year, “secular humanists” the next. Subliminal messages are descried in popular music; supermarket barcodes harbor the Mark of the Beast; logos on boxes of soap suds give evidence of corporate diabolism.
Under President George W. Bush, a series of preposterously bad novels by evangelical authors Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins became huge bestsellers. Dramatizing the Book of Revelation as an action-adventure melodrama like Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Terminator films, the books portray born-again American suburbanites as Jesus’s allies in an apocalyptic struggle against a U.N.-sponsored “World Potentate,” who looks “not unlike a younger Robert Redford” and speaks like…
Well, like Barack Obama, actually. Which I think explains something about what appears to be happening in the 2012 presidential election. To an awful lot of white Protestant evangelicals across the Deep South especially, President Obama has become no less than a secular stand-in for the Antichrist — a smooth-talking deceiver representing liberal cosmopolitanism in its most treacherous disguise.
Dislike of Obama has grown to cult-like proportions across the region. Statewide polls show the president losing by thunderous majorities. A recent poll by the Public Religion Research Institute highlighted in The New York Times shows that “among Southern working class whites, Romney leads by 40 points, 62-22, an extraordinary gap.” In the Midwest, Obama leads among the same group. Subtract the African-American precincts, and the president might not win 30 percent of votes in states like Arkansas and Oklahoma — one reason many Republicans suspect that national polls must be skewed.
So is it all about race? Not entirely, no. Many of the same voters who see President Obama as an African-born Muslim Socialist would very likely support, say, Condoleeza Rice. (Or think they would, anyway.)
Nor, however, are their fears entirely irrational. Because if the polls are right — and a disinterested observer would have to say that professional pollsters have grown increasingly accurate at predicting recent contests — the 2012 presidential election may not bring about “The Rapture,” but it could definitely mark the definitive end of a political era.
Specifically, it doesn’t matter how badly President Obama loses the five Deep South states won by Alabama governor George Wallace in 1968 — along with, say, South Carolina, Texas and Oklahoma. Should he prevail in most of the nine “swing states” where everybody agrees that the contest will be decided, and where Obama currently appears to lead by strong majorities, the white, GOP-accented South will find itself politically marooned.
Again.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/why-do-so-many-republicans-really-hate-obama/
well, after watching Romney and Ryan go down in flames with 'hidden videos', the Right figured they would do the same thing.
And really, we should be expecting more of the 'Angry Black Man' trope before the election. Expect that it is only going to get worse and more vile in the coming weeks.
You have that right ...we ain't seen nothin yet. The shovels and the turds are ready ! Let the Video Wars begin!
Context is the hobgoblin of virtue .
FRP - sorry "context" has nothing to do with the anger and bigotry on the right. Right now these people are apoplectic and dangerous to US all, and that is exactly why they need to be voted out of office.
Yes , but as a tool of emphasis employed to frame most sound bytes in a closed circuit paid advertisement redefining Obama in a varied list of his radicalism are generally void of said context .
Sorry ...
Racheal Maddow as much as I dont let it bother me that you are not newsworthy, and look like a man which is ok you are too bias!
and the best thing Jon Stewart ever did was derailing Tucker Carlson .
Argument over that is just icing on the cake .
Tucker Carlson reminds me of Spaulding in the movie Caddyshack - you know, the nephew of Judge Smails who picked his nose and then ate it. Also drank leftovers of other people's cocktails, swallowed a cigarette butt, and then puked into the sunroof of a car.
You know, well connected but too stupid to be valuable.
Sometimes I rue the advent of cable and satellite TV. Without them people like Tucker Carlson would be relegated to working at the local supermarket.
Forgetting the legacy hires and nepotism , it is pretty to think so .
Kanopsis: I strongly disagree with you. Without cable/satellite TV, a little toad like Carlson would be far more prominent, because then nobody would have seen him get pantsed by Mr. Stewart. It's only because of nation-wide TV that Carlson has fallen as far as he has.
Kanopsis- That might be all he was qualified to do, but Tucker was born to a prominent family. With no skills, family ties and views that are detached from reality, he'd probably have ended up in Congress.
Tucker Carlson! Isn't he the goofy looking twit in the bow tie? The one who spouts Fox propaganda? LOL
Light in the loafers? That guy?
I think Carlson is probably a Wm. F. Buckley wannabe.
Dan P.- Absolutely! The only reason for the leaking of this video, was to remind all of those people that might have forgotten: Our President is black. Even though he's educated. Even though he speaks "white" most of the time, Even though he's well mannered and calm. When he's around "his kind" the black in him comes out and we have this angry, ethnic, rhythmic, basketball playin' black man! (enter gasps and screams from women and children here). I thought we were done with all of this. Apparently I was wrong.
Days will never reach a length that would permit the easing of the revulsion adopted as a cover for the elect few . In order to point out that our nation just doesn't like uppity minorities wearing lambs clothing , there will be a meeting at so ' so's house after dark , rope provided . The party to celebrate the event will be held at lunch tomorrow , bring the family , Portraits available , barbeque and the fixin's .
Don't forget that Newt Gingrich says the President has rhythm and needs to sleep alot.
Everytime Newt Gingrich opens his mouth he sticks both feet in and swallows! Whether you like the President or not, why insult the man? I certainly don't hear the President going on television talking about Newt's plethora of infidelities. Why not? Because he is a man with a conscience who sees the personal attacks as reprehensible. Unfortunately the GOP collectively has no qualms about hitting below the belt. To make an issue about a person's race is just plain disgusting. And to put forth stereotypes as fact is the most nauseating of all. But what can we expect from those desperate enough to rehash 5 year old issues to shore up their waining support.
The Newtster swallows much more than feet.
Don't forget--worst of all--there's a (1/2) black man in the White house!!! Oh no!
Unfortunatly this video is out playing the video of Paul Ryan. That was the video that we were supposed be talking about today. I guess we are seeing fire being fought with fire. Its sad to see that both sides are desperate and have to resort to these hidden vidoes.
The American ppl heard all they wanted with Robme's '47%' speech. They know Ly'in Ryan is no different. Birds of a feather flock together yaknow.
Unfortunatly that was desperation by the left just as its desperation by the right. Unless we are hypocritical and its only desperation when the right finds a video. Its amazing as how its viewed as desperation now. Its like when all we could here was it wasnt a terroist attack. Even Ray Charlers could see that it was a terroist attack. However some people are vey naive and actualy believed Obamas lies that it was motivated by a film on you tube that was put out way back in July. I pointed it out on this same site but everybody told me that I had no proof where was my proof?Im like really common sense was an attack on 9/11 was planned.
The attack in Benghazi and the protests in Egypt and the rest of the world relating to the film are two separate issues. You are confusing the two here and misrepresenting Rice's quote. Rice stated that the protests were in relation to the film- which they were- and the flim, FTR, aired on television in the Middle East. Just because it's confined to YouTube here in the USA doesn't mean it's confined to YouTube in the rest of the world (how's that for arrogant American? geeeze). They had aired the video on Egypt's version of Fox News talking about this is what America thinks about Islam and why America wants to go to war with Iran etc. The protests were prompted on the basis of this. What we believe, then, is that protests took place all across the Middle East (which they did) and in the case of Libya we believe protests were held there that were then used as cover for the terrorist attack. This is what Rice said in the public: the belief up to this point has been that the attack was planned way before the protests happened, but when the protests took place those planning the attack decided to take advantage and jump on the opportunity. There is still confusion, but it has not yet been confirmed, as to whether or not protests actually took place at all. If that is the case then the attack was a singular terrorist incident, but we won't KNOW this until it's thoroughly investigated. Until then the statements that have been released are the best to our estimation.
But a. this is an aside because you're committing the false equivalency fallacy and b. this is additionally a red herring. Let's try to stay on topic, shall we?
"both sides" are NOT desperate.
ONE side is desperate, and that is the side of the repub party, of mitt-flop romney.
if it makes you feel better to "say" both sides are desperate, go ahead.
President Obama is NOT desperate.
repeat after me: BOTH SIDES ARE NOT DESPERATE.
What do you expect from a group of people who are basically lying to themselves that they are not losing. The whole Jeremiah Wright controversy (or lack there of) has been flushed out in the media and the public. Once again, the right is race baiting their base. I have a feeling all of this wingnut courting is going to backfire on the GOP.
Your keyboard to American eyes and ears .
Bolbis, It will backfire. Hate like that always does.
I thought the most cowardly thng that Obama has ever done was disown Rev Wright, especially after he said that he could no more disown him than he could his own grandmother. (though I understand why Obama thought he had to of course)
If you read the whole Goddamn America sermon, it's a pretty good one. He has some crazy theories about AIDS and Jews of course, but on the whole when he sticks to the experience of the black community in America, he's pretty devastating.
Then again, he did 5 years in the military, so he's earned his 1st Amendment rights
Then again, he did 5 years in the military, so he's earned his 1st Amendment rights
Mmmmm...And he "earned" them for you too, unfortunately.
So what exactly did your post add to the discussion?
Why did you waste your time?
Your characterization of events is inaccurate.
Obama cut off Rev. Wright, not after the video was revealed, but after the Press Club "performance" by Wright. Which was ridiculous, and was all about Wright. He should have known it would damage his "friend's" campaign, that was already under scrutiny. But, he did it anyway. It was at that point Obama cut him lose.
Obama even referenced Wright's press club behavior during his "race" speech.
If you're not smart enough to cypher out what I mean, there is no point in explaining it to you.
That is why this is not a discussion.
rollo
As I said, I understand why it was necessary, but that's an excellent reason not to have made the statement in the first place.
It's not exactly as if Wright just became a controversial figure on that day. If you didn't really mean you were going to stick by him, then don't use him as a prop in a speech.
large:
It's not complicated, you're just an idiot.
Banned,
Your reply was non responsive to my actual comment. What you said was that Obama was cowardly to disown Wright. I gave my opinion as to why it was not cowardice, but a severing of ties with a person who clear didn't have his best interesting at heart.
Right after Obama said that line he talked Obama Wright's behavior at the Press club. Therefore, the cowardice thing doesn't hold water.
If Wright was truly a friend, he would have known to STFU.
Answer this honestly:
Would you, in Wright's position, have done a public event after your past statements hurt your friend's Presudential campaign?
rollo:
Hmmm, ok I think my cowardly line was too strong. You've convinced me.
I agree that Wright's behavior was not in Obama's best interest. I just think that none of it should have been a surprise to anyone and seems to be consistent with his previous behavior.
OMFG!!! Someone's opinion changed as the result of an argument on the Internet!!!
Hope no one's publicity shy because, face it, without regards to the merits of the discussion, you've all become participants in an epoch making event. "Wired" will be calling.
I thought that's why we're here, the exchange of ideas.
I only name call after i get abused enough to retaliate.
I don't understand why people who have no problem with Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bil O'Reilly and the like, have a problem with Jeremiah Wright.
Really? You don't understand. I guess you've never met a racist.
I don't also don't understand why some people don't understand a rehtorical question.
bannedagain, re: #7
Oddly enough, I agree with you. Jeremiah Wright had a good point in that speech when he spoke of the Black community. I have always tried hard to see it from their side. I do understand, insofar as possible, the angst of the black community. Racism is a blight on America and needs to end. Wright had a point, IMO, and I am white. I basically agreed with much of the speech. I felt bad that Obama had to discard a man whom he'd known all his adult life. That seemed wrong, even if Wright went too far.
So much hate, abuse and enslavement from whites for decades upon decades would sure as hell make me angry! I think it probably makes God angry, frankly.
Fox news is just like the magazine "The enquirer". It is to be read primarily for entertainment purposes alone. Fox has managed to turn what should be an important race into a farce, purely as a way to get ratings. Any intellegient person has realized that fox is not the place to get your news. It is the place where you go to laugh and be a witness to the desparation of the Republican Party. Just the perfect fit for Romney, he gets to practice all of his deceitful , dishonest lies out on that show. The Country can't afford to take them seriously, they are a bunch of opportunists. All of their news reminds me of the time Hiraldo Rivera decided to dig into somebodys cellar looking for remnants of Al Capone. They haven't stopped digging. They are inciting rascism much the same way Palin and Bachman are. The Koch brothers have just decided to use us Muppets as pawns in their little game. It's good to remember that God is watching.
Carlson, Hannity & Drudge, oh my!
Dangerous fools who are wont to do explosive and incendiary things, and then laugh all the way to the bank. All three have worked incessantly to undermine American Exceptionalism and redefine it in narrow and perverse ways. All three are our national village idiots - they just don't have the collective sense to know it!
Americans of good will would do well to ostracize these three from the table of discourse as they have for too long been bringing toxic sustenance for us to choke upon as we've been trying to dine upon our future blessings! -Kevo
Amen ...
Meh. For the past four years, the right and it's scrabbling minions have sifted Obama's past harder than Mitt Romney scrutizes the financial statements of his dinner guests. They've been wholly unsucessful in finding anything to nail him on, reduced to taking words out of context and creating patchwork "scandals".
Come November 7th, we'll be back to gushing over the guest list for Kim Kardashian's next wedding so enjoy this intermission while you can.
Right now, Joel Pollak and The Former Virgin Ben over at Breitbart are pissed they didn't catch the spin-potential of this "explosive" video first.
Vetting, people!
"People will say I'm full of crap. Well, actually, I'm not full of crap. And I know because I put all that crap in me first."
That could only make sense to people with a AM transitor and a AAA battery for brains
Looking at the transcript ( http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Remarks_of_Senator_Barack_Obama_to_the_Hampton_University_Annual_Ministers%27_Conference), or for that matter the setting (a ministers' conference), shouldn't the take-away for wingnuts be that he's not a Muslim after all? Not that it should matter, but it seems to matter a lot to them. Then again, that priceless quote from Carlson tells us something about brain power, or lack thereof.
Exactly! They can't have it both ways - either he's a life long Muslim who hates America or he's a 20 year congregant of the radical Rev. Wright (who hates America) - which is it? I guess it doesn't matter, because either way he hates America - a statement that I just don't get in light of the ACA, etc.
You claim Romney, Ryan, and Gingrich are lying about Obama having removed the work requirements from welfare entitlements. I've heard Carl Rove discuss that removal on the O'Reilly Factor and Sean Hannity's show. Why not invite Rove on to your show to explain how he has reached that conclusion? (As I recall, Rove quotes various Obama executive decrees and the actual welfare laws.) All you ever do is claim they're lying without any support other than quoting other Democrats who claim they're lying.
You appear to be a regular Fox news viewer and as a result your news is filtered . There is a tool on the internets called the google .
Try : obama drops work requirement welfare fact check
You will be amazed at the results. Fox never likes to let facts get in the way of a good narrative . See: "You didn't build that"
And I do Believe Ms Maddow would love to have Mr. Rove on her show , why I am almost certain she has extended the invitation
I remember a similar invitation . I watched Betsy McCaughey , the former lieutenant governor of New York as a guest of Jon Stewart . This was for the purpose of settling wee discrepancies between hysterics and low tide . She kept smiling and repeating herself . When the language obviously couldn't be found that reflected the evidence of a "Death Panel" or its equivalent , she kept repeating and smiling .
Pro-Life: RepubliCONS from various states asked that the work requirements be CHANGED to suit their individual states for welfare work requirements> President Obama signed off on it.
Changed the work requirements was reported by fox as eliminating work requirements. See how they twist things for their agenda?
Wake up, have some more coffee!
Huh. Someone say coffee?
Reply to Pro-life-anti-death - I want you to know it took me all of 30 seconds to find this link. Please educate yourself before you vote.....this is only one of several issues you have been duped on by Faux news. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fast-fact-check-did-obama-really-eliminate-work-requirement-for-welfare/2012/08/29/f8873c50-f218-11e1-adc6-87dfa8eff430_video.html
As usual, the comPost's "fact checker" refuses to quote Obama's actual executive orders and the actual welfare laws. He just says Obama (legally?) added "flexibility" to state unemployment programs supposedly requested by some Republican (and presumably some Democratic) legislators. The "fact checker" doesn't quote the text of ANY laws or executive orders.
Have you read Mr Benen's summary of these points ?
Here is the letter from Secretary Sebelius to Senator Hatch with regard to the waivers.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/100482692/Sen-Hatch-TANF-7-18
The reason you can't find anything about removing work requirements is, there IS nothing about removing work requirements. And Sebelius clearly states the limits of and purposes for the waiver, which is to give states more flexibility in HOW they enforce the work requirements, with the requirement that they actually succeed in getting MORE people off of welfare, not less.
Or if you prefer, here is the entire policy for the waivers, as outlined by HHS.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/resource/policy/im-ofa/2012/im201203/im201203?page=all
Politifact - The ad's claim is not accurate, and it inflames old resentments about able-bodied adults sitting around collecting public assistance.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/07/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obamas-plan-abandons-tenet/
The above post #14.9 shows you the actual Guidence concerning waiver and the memorandum that was sent out is on page 2.
Mike beat me to it: the work requirement was never removed. It is a right-wing talking point that has no validity in the real world. Accusing Maddow of making something up simply because there isn't a Republican on the show confirming her statement is pretty specious reasoning. It's like saying that a law can't possibly be sexist because you found a woman who supported it. It's just bad logic. The law does not remove the work requirement. It's a complete nonsense issue created by the right to fear monger angry white people against Obama.
Pro-Life's complaint is that he can't find evidence for something that doesn't exist.
So it must be true.
pro-life,
Ed would love to have carl rove on his show to discuss "Obama removing work requirements from welfare". Rachel Maddow would LOVE to have the opportunity to ask carl rove about the work requirements being removed from welfare by President Obama. carl rove doesn't have the cajones to face Ed or Rachel because they would be called out on all their lies.
carl rove, paul ryan, mitt romney, newt gingrich are lying about the work requirement removed from welfare, it has been debunked by everyone, even SOME repubs.
Newt Gingrich is just a jealousy old white man and he is angry because Barack Obama is where Gingrich wants to be or better yet in his warped mind where he should be. THE WHITE HOUSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The reason why the SOLD MAN buys into all of this is because it is as I said he is a sold man and he also feels he should be in the White House. When he made the comment all that needs to be done is get elected and the economy will be better from the moment he is elected and he does not have to do anything is another dog whistle. Get the Black Man out and everything will be OK. DOG WHISTLE DOG WHISTLE DOG WHISTLE.
Middle class that has been buried the last 4 years needs a correction. Let’s try more like the last 30 years the middle class and poor have been getting buried. Reagan didn’t do any good except to help make things worse in the world with no controls on what the extreme wealthy do. The laws and controls have been slowly stripped away leading to this depression just because of some greedy bastards. Things have just reached a boiling point because of some really stupid politicians and rich people for their own selfish pursuits. And if they do not start correcting those atrocities, you’ll get what you ask for people beating in the heads of some corrupt rich people and politicians. Romney telling people to eat cake will never be enough, if he gets into the White House. When that piece of crap Romney is part of the big problem we have. And as it looks Republicans are about the dumbest things on this planet in the lot of them, since they keep wanting to worship their rich dark overlords.
Deb,
Your going to love the world once they get rid of the Evil Rich People. Yes it will be wonderful, reminds me of Moscow and Berlin in the 1930-45. Money is amoral, and it flows like a current, that's why it is called Currency. Where do you think that money is going to flow, to DC and then.... to the Politicians Pocket. Do you really think they will invest it in the Citizen, if they do it will be the first time. You see Deb, you and I aren't smart enough, we are drones, designed to feed the party and play our part.
The Evil Rich have created the greatest society that man has ever known, the greatest medical services in history, the fattest poor people on record, the most entertained, best housed and dressed folks ever. You sit there in your overstuffed couch, griping cause you ain't got a new Government Motors Volt or some other gadget and the Man has more. Well its because he is smarter, works harder and believes in Individual Responsibility for his life, and if you would adopt a similar attitude, you too wouild be Evil Rich. Oh, almost forgot, the Evil Rich is who we all work for, one way or another, they pay the tab.
Just more petulant baggerbabble.
When did Deb say that rich people are evil or that being rich is immoral? How did you even extrapolate this from her statement? What Deb said is that the policies have been established in such a way as to disproportionately favor the wealthy. There is a huge difference between saying we need to equal the playing field and saying we need to take everyone's money away. My assumption here, because this is such a sarcastic and idiotic response, is that you were being sarcastic and purposely moronic.
I also love this. You complain about the evil politicians taking your money and using it only on themselves and to further their own lives, but you don't see how a person who takes all the wealth from a society would do the same if they are in the private sector? There is nothing magical about the private sector versus the public sector when it comes to corruption. Wealth being concentrated to the government leads to as much slavery as wealth being concentrated to the private sector. Because, as you put it, we are slaves to them one way or another. And I guess you're saying that someone wanting to be slave to the government is bad, but someone like you wanting to be slave to corporations is good.
Personally, I'd rather not be a slave at all.
I think Carlson was trying to draw a distinction between the awesome truthful (gag) rightwing media and the 'liberal mainstream media'. "*I* knew about this back then, but the MSM is in the bag for Obama and of course didn't report this." The fact that their garbage isn't reported by reality-based reporters just proves the conspiracy to them.
Got the sun on my shoulders
And my toes in the sand
My woman's left me for the some other man
Aw, but I don't care I'll just dream and stay tan
Toss up my heart to see where it lands
On and on
I just keep on trying
And I smile when I feel like dying
On and on On and on On and on On and on
It takes a great mind to control the entire MSM, which is why Tucker is jealous.
That and ownership of vast tracts of media . Tucker is Tucker a lightweight who does what he has been told , think of a marginally brighter J Goldberg .
I agree with Steve in that- if this is the right's idea of an "eye for an eye", they are dead wrong. Unlike Romney's infamous 47% gaffe, this was indeed a public video and one that is not even controversial in its content. I would make the case however that this video does an exceptionally good job at assailing Obama's perceived candor. Of course we've all heard that Romney darkened his skin for a Latino forum (was there any closure on that?), and politicians are notorious for adjusting their images to different audiences. However, Obama has widely been portrayed as being above such dishonesty, he is seen as an respectable, eloquent public figure. For him to suddenly drop his normal accent just to rally votes in a different audience just does not sit well with people who are looking for a consistent alternative to Wooden Willard. Of course he still has my vote, policies have nothing to do with this, but before the day is out this will have an effect on even the most accepting of independent voters, black or white. Remember, the segment of the population they're trying to win over is not the far right.
Willard has a wooden icon , and he expects you to adore it .
Um...it's called speaking colloquially...It's what all public speakers do...you talk To your crowd...again...look it up...It's not fake...it's respectful...
This is interesting... I guess I hadn't thought that Obama might be seen as being dishonest by his relaxing and speaking with an African American Audience in a language and rhythm (it's true!) that black audiences expect in a speaker. I mean - what do people want him to do or be? Is he suppose to go to the debates tonight and say, "Before we get started I'd just like to give a shout out to all my peeps..." ? Look at how his language was interpreted by the Repubs... ! "Listen to his ANGER. He's so ANGRY." There is nothing more threatening than an Angry Black Man in America, remember? I've heard Obama relaxed before. I've seen him relax and speak in a way that people understand. I see that as knowing your audience, not as being fake or not authentic. He speaks in a different way on The Tonight Show than he does in front of Congress. I speak differently in church than I do at home. I call that respect. I'd think that everyone BUT the far right would understand that.
It is an unfair advantage . That makes Obama unfair , so it is fair to be unfair to Obama .
This stuff writes itself .
The far right does understand it. It's all propaganda.
Minority group members speaking to their own race(s) speak in this fashion all of the time. What is so inexplicable about this fact? Asians speaking to Asians, Latinos to Latinos, Irish to Irish.....
Rich to rich...
"People will say this has already been reported. Well, actually, it hasn't been reported. And I know because I reported on it the first time."
Translation: didn't work when we reported it the first time, Obama was elected. Let's try this again.
Definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
And Newt needs to go, how he is re-elected is beyond, beyond...he's a pig bigot!
Conservatives like to use the old "trade off" style of debate. "Romney put his dog on the roof of his car. 'Well, Obama once swatted a fly. So they cancel each other out'." Methinks this is their feeble attempt to diffuse the 47% video, to cancel it out. Someone with half a brain can figure it out...conservatives will buy it.
From the American Spectator web site:
The point the then-Senator Obama is making in the video is that the 1992 riots and the government's reaction to Katrina were one and the same. Says the future president:
The irony here is stunning.
First, as the Daily Caller notes, a full six months before Obama's speech, "the federal government had sent at least $110 billion to areas damaged by Katrina. Compare this to the mere $20 billion that the Bush administration pledged to New York City after 9/11." While Obama accuses the government of not waiving the "Stafford Act" (which provides for a matching fund ratio in reconstruction efforts) during Katrina, unlike, he says, during the Andrew and 9/11 disasters, this is simply untrue. As the DC points out, the Stafford Act was waived at various points during the Katrina clean-up -- and mere weeks before Obama's speech an additional $6.9 billion went to the hard-hit arena with "no strings attached." The notion that as a sitting senator and by 2007 an active presidential candidate Obama had no knowledge of this is preposterous.
Second, now that he himself has been president for four years what happened to all that "poverty in our midst" Obama was shouting about back there in 2007? That's right -- as notedhere, the poverty rate is expected to rise shortly to 15.7% -- the highest rate since the LBJ 1960's. And the number of Americans on food stamps has shot up by some 800,000 in 2011 to a record 46.7 million Americans.
So the Bush junta's response to Katrina is the text book example , cool .
So starting with Reagans refusal to consider the damage from the centralizing power of Capatalism by the expediency of ignoring the tendency towards monopolistic conclusions ie refusing to prosecute . This , a malformed policy that has yet to be corrected shows how Obama is responsible for the forty year descent of working people into poverty . Allowing of course for the flattening of that period in the Clinton years , but taken up with white knuckled binging by sainted conservatives under "Bush" the Decider .
Walmarts use of food stamps as a lure for healthy people to find "employment paradise" is the new ideal .
Good to know !
How much of that money did Haliburton get?
You do realize we're in the Greatest Recession since the Great Depression, yes? How high was poverty during the Great Depression? You can't suddenly act surprised when poverty exists as the result of a huge economic collapse. I swear it's like Republicans forget everything and anything that happened under Bush and completely ignore that there's a recession. No the recession is Obama's fault! No the poverty all started under him! We weren't in debt until he came into office! There was no income tax before Obama! Or food stamps!!
To compare $20B for 9/11 to $110B for Katrina (assuming, strictly for the sake of argument, that the Daily Caller reported those figures truthfully) is misleading. That the 9/11 attacks inflicted greater damage on the national psyche seems indisputable, but when it comes to physical damage and population displacement--the sort of thing for which federal reconstruction aid is required--there is no comparison. The Twin Towers' collapse devastated several blocks in Manhattan; Katrina took out not only entire neighborhoods in New Orleans, but a sizeable swath of the adjacent Gulf Coast as well.
Muzzleman,
You need to go to one of these government 'reconstruction' zones sometime to see how well your money is spent. I have a cousin that bought a dump truck and a backhoe and headed to New Orleans. Worked for 3-4 months and then bought himself a fishing boat and hasn't swatted a fly since. There were days he made over $10K, some days only $3-4K. The waste was awful, and the locals, to stupid and lazy to join in.
We would have been better off giving everyone in New Orleans $100K and tell them to haul a** and then giving New Orleans back to the alligators. That was roughly the recommendation of the American Society of Landscape Architects.
....Muzzle wasn't advocating for or against the money. He was giving a fact about how the money was allocated. How did you even extrapolate this response from his comment?
Additionally you do realize that you just admitted that the private sector is more corrupt than the public sector, yes?
Once again, those on the right demonstrate how breathtakingly callous they are.
Meaning: We got nothing.
FRP 4 characters: Good one, #21.1. I agree.
I'd suggest EVERYONE watch the full video that is posted on the Daily Caller website. It's on the third page of the article. There is nothing to see LOL He gave a shout out to Jeremiah Wright back when there was still some kerfluffle and apparently before he disavowed him. He did say that it seems like the Feds didn't care about NOL as much. There is some question about whether the Stafford Act had been waived. I don't know, have to look into that more.
I am having a hard time figuring out exactly what I, white woman, am supposed to be all het up about.
You're supposed to be outraged because the occupant of the White House isn't white. Seriously, it all boils down to something as repulsively regressive as that. The US still has a lot further to go than many people realize.
Sadly, I think you are right. A FB friend of mine says that the whole video is disturbing, not just the shout out to JW. And "can you imagine if a white politician got up and talked about investing in "our" neighborhoods!"
It's perplexing really. I consider her a pretty sharp cookie.
As the saying goes, "Knowledge is not wisdom". Your FB "friend" (she is not a genuine friend) is obviously having a lot of difficulty accepting non-white people in positions of real power who do not go to considerable lengths to appear "safe".
I like how the actual story was how the video was incomplete and didnt show the katrina comments and others. Secondly I like how Maddow doesnt discuss the issue the republicans took over this. She just makes fun of them for him introducing his pastor. She also brought up "our" neigborhoods and laughed saying that republicans were stupid for saying that "our" referenced black people. But if she was halfway intelligent she would know that in the speech leading up to that he referenced "our" several times and WAS referring to blacks. So what human being wouldnt think the one reference right after all that racism wasnt? Third, she never mentions that George bush did wave the Stafford act, they gave katrina a huge lump sum of 7 billion that was stafford act waived on top of 110 billion that was given and most of that was waved too. Its funny how Obama is misleading these people and making them feel hated as blacks, and then Maddow misleads people about the video as well. Im surprised when I watch her show, how uninformed she is, either that or she is informed and thinks she will fool everyone by excluding major facts.
....you do realize black people are part of America, yes? Even if he was referring to "our" neighborhoods to mean black neighborhoods, those are American neighborhoods. Nice try though. See racism is giving to black people in your mind. Not the guy who gets upset when black people are helped out.
What is it that Republicans are upset about? You complain that Maddow doesn't share this, yet you do not either. Hmm..
How is Obama misleading them and how is he making them feel hated as blacks? How did Maddow mislead people about the video? What is she uninformed about? In the case of the Stafford Act did that happen before this speech or after? Did that happen immediately in response to Katrina or did it happen after people like Obama put a great deal of political pressure on the Bush Administration to do more for Katrina? You complain about Maddow not sharing the entire video or not sharing the parts that conservatives are upset about (the complaint being she's not providing context). By that same logic how do you know that Obama wasn't referring to how long it took the Bush Administration to respond to Katrina and how that effects the black community?
I will never ceased to be amazed by how all the people decrying manipulating in the media almost always are the ones bending over backwards to manipulate information themselves.
...a rare moment of self awareness on Carlson's part.