Rough Stuff

To revise and extend my remarks on the "Hussein" factor from yesterday, I think part of my point would be that there's really no use in deploring somewhat underhanded attacks in the course of a primary campaign. Part of the idea of a primary is for the eventual winner to be someone who's tested. In those terms, I actually think the race thus far has been too nice in a lot of ways. There's a lot more stuff about Barack Obama's Afrocentric church that the Republican Party is virtually certain to use against him if he becomes the nominee, so under the circumstances I'd sort of prefer to have Hillary Clinton's people bring it up and see if Obama can perform well in the midst of the "freak show".

Similarly, I've heard it said that so much shit's already been slung in Hillary Clinton's direction that the American people have already heard it all and won't be further impressed by anything they hear. I think that's a bit naive. Relatively few people remember, for example, when Bill Clinton pardoned some Puerto Rican terrorists in the midst of her 2000 Senate campaign, but I'm pretty damn sure the RNC research team remembers. I don't want to dwell on this sort of thing, personally, but insofar as I think it's bound to get dwelled on sooner or later, I'd tend to vote for "sooner" as the best time to hear about it all.

Comments

One of the problems that bug me tremendously is that Hillary gets all the credit for Bill's 8 years in the White House, while it's extremely difficult to attack her on anything on Bill's record; she 'll just sidestep it and claim she's a different candidate (in favor of free trade? Me?) It's really getting all the advantages of an incumbent, but only a fraction of the disadvantages.

In a related note if Obama doesn't stop campaigning in a detached above the fray style and start setting the agenda by putting Hillary on the spot, he ain't getting nowhere and deservedly so.

The only caveat is that one of Hillary's attacks backfires to the point of destroying her candidacy. The problem is that whenever that happens, Hillary stops, apologizes, faces minimal or acceptable cost (like putting the final nail on on the lost african american coffin) and starts on a new angle; of course if one tries enough angles of attack, one finds something effective sooner or later and that has been the case in this campaign.

Wake up Barack! Show us some fire! Show us that you want it!

Posted by Nick Kaufman | January 20, 2008 9:42 AM

Matt,
I think you're confusing 2 different issues. Yes, we'd all like to see this stuff come out now so the candidates can deal with it. At the same time, we need to forcefully denounce the smears as they appear in order to establish that they cross the line.

When we instead provide excuses for them or attempt to rationalize them as you did yesterday, it gives these smears a legitimacy they don't deserve. That makes it easier for the Republicans to use them effectively in the general election.

Posted by Tom | January 20, 2008 9:52 AM

I agree. Maybe candidates should preemptively list off the attacks which might come their way -- even ask others to add to the list. "Am I missing anything?" "What are the legitimate and illegitimate attacks which might be thrown at this campaign?" If this became a convention, voters could hold it against a candidate for witholding shady material, or for coordinating with opposing candidates to hide each other's skeletons from the voters. We're the employers, and we're asking candidates to fully disclose any potential time bombs which could blow up in our faces. "Is there anything about you and your past which might cause trouble for we the people? Anything, say, which could render you vulnerable to blackmail?"

Posted by ferd | January 20, 2008 9:54 AM

I think there's a bit of fuzziness about categories in this post.

It's certainly true that Barack Obama would be a stronger candidate if we knew how he would deal with the racist smears that will inevitably dog his campaign if he makes it to the general. Purely pragmatically, limiting the scope of our analysis to only electability issues, we shouldn't "deplore" these attacks.

This does not mean that we shouldn't "deplore" racism. In fact, racism is very deplore-worthy.

To the degree that Hillary is engaging in racist attacks, or looking the other way while her campaign enables racist attacks, I deplore that.

Not only is racism very, very bad (it's a little weird I need to assert that in response), but the last thing the left needs is to screw with the racial coalition that has defined the Democratic party since the 70s. A white candidate using racism to draw white voters away from her black opponent is going to trouble the racial coalition that makes the Democratic party viable. It won't kill it, but it will force Hillary to work very hard to shore up that vote, and it will make life much harder for the next minority candidate for president in the democratic party.

Posted by DivGuy | January 20, 2008 9:58 AM

To rephrase that last paragraph - racist smears enabled by a Democratic candidate have a lot of negative externalities that you're not accounting for.

And, of course, racism is wrong and we should always deplore it.

Posted by DivGuy | January 20, 2008 10:00 AM

There's a lot more stuff about Barack Obama's Afrocentric church that the Republican Party is virtually certain to use against him if he becomes the nominee, so under the circumstances I'd sort of prefer to have Hillary Clinton's people bring it up and see if Obama can perform well in the midst of the "freak show".

Oh for fuck's sake! We're back to the Dick Cohen "Six Degrees of Separation" politics here.

Let's do this to Bush: Bush appointed Rumsfeld to be Defense Secretary. Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam Hussein when he was appointed special envoy to Iraq by Reagan. Therefore Bush and Saddam are best buddies, a position that didn't seem to hurt his electoral chances in 2004.

Stop it. The stupid is burning now. Concern trollery does not become you.

Posted by calipygian | January 20, 2008 10:11 AM

Bonus Super Idiocy: Rumsfeld was appointed by Bush. Rumsfeld shook Saddam Hussein's hand as Reagan's special envoy. Obama's middle name is Hussein. Obama praised Reagan, the very man who told Rumsfeld, Bush's Secretary of Defense, to shake hands with Saddam Hussein.

Bush and Obama are secret homosexual lovers. QED.

Posted by calipygian | January 20, 2008 10:14 AM

What becomes a legend most?

Posted by greg balzac | January 20, 2008 10:16 AM

Divguy got at an important point: MattY is suggesting this b/c he thinks it will be constructive in terms of picking the "right" nominee. But if Clinton is the "right" nominee b/c she can drive white voters away from Obama only at teh cost of black votes in the general, is that really constructive?

Answer: no.

Posted by Michael | January 20, 2008 10:18 AM

"Hillary gets all the credit for Bill's 8 years in the White House,..."

Huh? Gets all the credit from whom? If you're talking Republicans, the accurate word is blame, not credit.

I voted enthusiastically for Bill Clinton twice, and would happily vote for Hillary—warts and all— against whatever loon the GOP nominates. I'm sure that as a deeply involved spouse Hillary and Bill would continually talk policy, but I would never give her credit for her husband's record. Her only notable attempt to do something in policy matters was a grand failure, and I hold her primarily responsible for that.

I'm not naive enough to think that being Bill's spouse while he was pres doesn't rub off on her in a positive way among most Dems, but that wouldn't mean squat if she was like Jeri Thompson or Judith Nathan.

Posted by bluestatedon | January 20, 2008 10:22 AM

Matt,
I think you're confusing 2 different issues. Yes, we'd all like to see this stuff come out now so the candidates can deal with it. At the same time, we need to forcefully denounce the smears as they appear in order to establish that they cross the line.

When we instead provide excuses for them or attempt to rationalize them as you did yesterday, it gives these smears a legitimacy they don't deserve. That makes it easier for the Republicans to use them effectively in the general election.

This is exactly correct. To the extent that these things will come up in any case, it's not bad that they are raised now, as opposed to later. But whenever these smears are raised, they must be crushed. It's just not acceptable to bash a candidate for the crime of having an Islamic-sounding middle name. That's absurd. America: the land where everyone can live their dream, except for people with vaguely Islamic-sounding names. I mean let's get the fuck on board here, Matt, you're not really endorsing the idea that people should be attacking Obama's middle name are you?

Posted by J.B. | January 20, 2008 10:23 AM

Sure, it would be great if some unaffiliated 527 would flood the airwaves with the "Bitch or Witch?" radio ads right now. We should have them running permanently, to see how Hilary will cope in November. Also: Vince Foster.

Posted by otto | January 20, 2008 10:31 AM

Matt,

Your comments hinge upon the premise that winning is the only thing that matters and how you get there is irrelevant. This is what the rest of the world hates about Washington and the media.

Posted by J.S. | January 20, 2008 10:31 AM

Why is that when Hillary Clinton campaigns against Barack Obama his camp followers think that Clinton is turning a fire hose on him?

The Clinton campaign did not start nor did it ever participate in fanning a racial divide between blacks and Hillary Clinton.

As Charlie Rangel pointed out, and was confirmed at the last debate by Tim Russert, it was the Obama campaign that was falsly attacking Clinton on the charge of making racially divisive comments.

Whoever is responsible for using Baracks full name or spreading information on his church it is certainly not the Clinton people.

But still, facts are not racist. Barack Hussain Obama is the man's name. The church he belongs to (membership being completely voluntary) has recently chosen to heap its highest honor on prominent anti-semite and bigot. Them are facts.

When someone choses to run for president their entire life become an open book for the public to scrutinize. When Obama people say that using Baracks full name in public is a smear it makes him seem too thin skinned for the job as President.

Hillary and Bill Clinton have spent a lifetime working to open the doors of opportunity to blacks. They get credit for their leadership in helping to create a culture in which we can now have a black candidate run for President and be taken seriously by all of America.

But for the Obama people to think that Hillary Clinton should now just step to the curb and give way for Barack to step through the door of the oval office ahead of her is an insult to the millions of American liberals who helped make this day possible.

Posted by ken | January 20, 2008 10:33 AM

Matt,

Are you suggesting that if the Republicans would use illegitimate tactics against Obama in a general electon (race baiting, for example), Clinton should test Obama's backbone by using such illegitimate tactics in the primaries?

Posted by Kenneth | January 20, 2008 10:40 AM

Well, I've never heard of a previous election in which simply calling a candidate by his full legal name is regarded as a vicious, outrageous "smear."

I guess you learn something new every day...

Posted by RKU | January 20, 2008 10:45 AM

Yes, Kenneth, that's what Matt is suggesting, wrapped up with a slightly different argument of the "complaining won't change it" sort, which is true enough.

Posted by otto | January 20, 2008 10:45 AM

The Catholic Church is riddled with pedophilia and the cover-up of pedophilia. Was Kerry asked to account for that?

Posted by evie | January 20, 2008 10:45 AM

This is the most idiotic thing I've read on this blog. Taboo enforcement is a good thing. Dems breaking said taboos isn't going to make it less likely that Republicans do the same, or make such attacks less virulent. The Republicans, with some justification, are going to feel authorized to do it by the Democrats. And the idea that this would somehow "test" the candidates ability to survive such attacks where taboos were being enforced is moronic.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 20, 2008 10:50 AM

Matt wins one pragmatism point for wanting the stuff to come out now, not in the general.

But Tom and DivGuy win two pragmatism points for wanting it to come out now *and* be denounced so it loses its edge.

Advantage, Tom and DivGuy!

Posted by Ted | January 20, 2008 10:50 AM

I am watching MTP on NBC and I wonder what if

Obama got Bloomberg to be his VP.

This would drive Clintons off the wagon. I love it.

Let us hope Obama beats the two Clintons. But, I know, this is an impossible reality.

The power of Clintons' attack machine is that you will vote for it, even when you do not want to do so. The reason is race, gender, and ethnicity baiting.

Posted by eorse | January 20, 2008 10:52 AM

There are two different approaches to the subject of Barack Obama's middle name and its related descent information.

One approaches the actual matter substantively with rational arguments.

Another approaches the way that irrational members of the public might perceive the matter.

Matt is not alone in appearing to be suggesting that the two approaches are actually similar.

On the one hand, no one can offer any substantively rational argument that Barack Hussein Obama's middle name might in any way affect his capability of governance. On the other hand, some hysterically frightened people might be appealed to with "boogity-boogity".

Therefore it is somehow right that we now allow "boogity-boogity" arguments to be made to appeal to the irrational in the belief this will somehow assist the boogity-boogitied candidate in being "tougher"?

Posted by El Cid | January 20, 2008 11:00 AM

Clinton should continue to attack Barack as strongly as possible on the issues.

But, as was said above, the Clinton campaign should never engage in racial politics. That is one of the major principles of the democratic party. We lost the south for a generation over civil rights for blacks and should leave the race baiting to the republicans.

Posted by ken | January 20, 2008 11:02 AM

Also, Michael and DivGuy win an additional pragmatism point for observing that the "rough stuff" is dividing the party in ways that may be difficult to repair in November. Including, but maybe not limited to, race.

With all due respect to the "Mithridates he died old" logic Matt is using . . . I think on the whole we'd be a stronger party if we ran cleaner campaigns.

Posted by Ted | January 20, 2008 11:04 AM

The great thing about Jonah Goldberg implying Matt was an anti-semite (Lindberg!) was that it allowed us to see if Matt could perform well in the media 'freak show'. Rough stuff!

Posted by otto | January 20, 2008 11:10 AM

Similarly, I've heard it said that so much shit's already been slung in Hillary Clinton's direction that the American people have already heard it all and won't be further impressed by anything they hear. I think that's a bit naive.

You don't say! The notion put out by the Clinton campaign that Hillary Clinton has already been "vetted" by the American people is one of the most preposterous yarns spun by this campaign. Clinton is the subject of various background rumors, charges and mythologies that mainly came out as by-products of the political attack on her husband, where she was not the focus. But she has never had to address these charges directly herself during a national campaign in which she was the target. And because Democrats tend to be a bunch of nice guys, it looks right now like she might be able to skate through to the nomination without ever having to address them - until the Republicans bring them out. The Clinton campaign is benefiting enormously from the fact that their chief opponent is attempting to run a very clean campaign that is uplifting and unifying, and won't lower himself to use this stuff. And the media won't run with it until a campaign gives them the starting signal.

It is rather extraordinary that a pathological liar like Bill Clinton has been running around since New Hampshire acting like a one man "truth squad", without his opponents doing more to remind voters about the very substantive reasons for doubting his veracity. That Clinton is not living in shame as a recluse somewhere only shows the depth of his pathological sense of entitlement and invulnerability.

Hillary Clinton is going to be buried by the Republicans. Once the real political hardball gets going, it's only going to take voters a couple of weeks to remember that - no matter what they thought of the first Clinton administration - there is no way that they want to go through another four to eight years of Clinton sleaze and corruption.

Isn't there anything that can be done to shake Democrats out of their see-no-evil habits of denial and avoidance, and reflexive water-carrying for the Clinton machine?

Posted by Dan Kervick | January 20, 2008 11:18 AM

Whoever is responsible for using Baracks full name or spreading information on his church it is certainly not the Clinton people.

Really, Ken? How did you come by this most excellent piece of information?

Posted by Joe | January 20, 2008 11:25 AM

Dan boy, there's more sleaze and corruption in any given 5 minutes of the Bush administration than in the entire careers of Bill and Hillary Clinton combined.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | January 20, 2008 11:26 AM

The Clinton campaign did not start nor did it ever participate in fanning a racial divide between blacks and Hillary Clinton

Oops...forgot this nugget of wisdom as well. Ken, don't you ever get sick of being a mindless Clintonian drone?

Posted by Joe | January 20, 2008 11:28 AM

Ken: If Hillary and her co-President, Bill, manage to get the Democratic nomination, what coalition do you see them riding into the White House on? Assume the Republican nominee is either Romney or McCain. Will the women, Hispanic, and poor voters devoid of independents and "Hillary Republicans" carry the day? Seriously. I'd love to hear how you see it.

I see it as Kerry part deux only less popular.

Posted by Joe | January 20, 2008 11:36 AM

I agree that it's important for a candidate to learn how to fight off the "rough stuff" for the general campaign. But Clinton has a better than even chance of being the nominee and if she's being seen as playing dirty politics, she'll fracture the Democratic coalition. Obama has been winning majorities not just of black voters, but of independents and young people. If Hillary is seen as winning dirty she'll alienate huge numbers of those voters.

This is the way the Democrats can lose the next election. The Democrats in Congress have already soured many voters on their leadership. The only reason Democrats are favored to win this year is people are furious with George Bush and his party. If you want to build a lasting coalition, you can't campaign this way.

And if she even tried to go after his church she'd be completely screwed.

Posted by Jinchi | January 20, 2008 11:46 AM

***there's more sleaze and corruption in any given 5 minutes of the Bush administration than in the entire careers of Bill and Hillary Clinton combined.

Steve that's an F'ing laugh. Do have fact on this or just another conjecture?

I also find in funny that the Bamabots get their panties in a bunch when anyone mention's his rascist church but....lay into Ron Paul's bunch on his letters.

Regardless of who your are for, don't you find it disturbing that the media is so obvious in their meddling in the process. These kinds of tactics have been shown to be the eventual failure of democracy. The argument here has been that, well they don't like liberterism but who gives a shit who they like or don't like. What happened to objective reporting no matter what.
Very disturbing!

Posted by northcaljustice | January 20, 2008 12:10 PM

Your comments hinge upon the premise that winning is the only thing that matters and how you get there is irrelevant.

Yes, let's put another batshit insane Republican in the White House because we can't bring ourselves to stoop so low as to sling mud during an election.

The race stuff is going to be a factor with Obama. In the general even more so. I'd like to see how he deals with it because he will be forced to later. So far, he hasn't acquitted himself well.

Posted by Jason C. | January 20, 2008 12:28 PM

Have you noticed how closely Obama's oratorical style resembles that of Malcolm X- the same movement of the head, the same pauses on the half beat. He must have studied Malcolm X's speeches and viewed film of him speaking. I admire Malcolm X but this could be a big problem for Obama in a national election with an attentive Republican "slime machine" at work.

Posted by paul katz | January 20, 2008 12:39 PM

Look the media is the slime machine! They are going to decide what you hear and what you don't. Follow the money and you can see who they will see gets the media attention. It will become especially interesting when the race becomes two horses or...three. It's okay when it's not your candidate that's getting the snub, ...but what happens when it is? I'm going to say it again, how is this a Democracy when the American people allow this to go on. The major networks should be ashamed of themselves!

Posted by northcaljustice | January 20, 2008 12:52 PM

The race stuff is going to be a factor with Obama. In the general even more so. I'd like to see how he deals with it because he will be forced to later.

Ahhh. We have to anticipate their sliminess and slime each other first for the purpose of preventing our candidates from being effectively slimed. Brilliant! Inspiring!

Posted by J.S. | January 20, 2008 1:07 PM

"because Democrats tend to be a bunch of nice guys, it looks right now like she might be able to skate through to the nomination without ever having to address them - until the Republicans bring them out."

Let's also realize that while no one in the Democratic Party is really saying much about Bill Clinton inserting himself into the campaign, you can be damn sure the GOP will be all over that if Hillary gets the nomination. "How could Hillary handle being President if she has to hide behind her husband during the campaign" and such.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | January 20, 2008 1:53 PM

I also find in funny that the Bamabots get their panties in a bunch when anyone mention's his rascist church but....lay into Ron Paul's bunch on his letters.

That's because Obama's church isn't "racist". It's Afrocentric but it isn't hateful towards any other race like the Ron Paul letters...the church's talking points on its website say:

• To have a church whose theological perspective starts from the vantage point of Black liberation theology being its center, is not to say that African or African American people are superior to any one else.

• African-centered thought, unlike Eurocentrism, does not assume superiority and look at everyone else as being inferior.

• There is more than one center from which to view the world. In the words of Dr. Janice Hale, “Difference does not mean deficience.” It is from this vantage point that Black liberation theology speaks.

Posted by Jesse M. | January 20, 2008 1:55 PM

Have you noticed how closely Obama's oratorical style resembles that of Malcolm X ... I admire Malcolm X but this could be a big problem for Obama in a national election ...

I assume this was really meant as snark. Otherwise, it would surely turn out to be the most "brilliant and inspiring" (channeling J.S.) thing said so far in this debate.

Posted by Justin X | January 20, 2008 1:55 PM

It's about time this country had an HONEST debate about race and racism.

If we don't examine why the knee jerk radical reactions happen when race is mentioned, we will not only never get beyond it, we will never be able to rid ourselves of the class warfare that goes on within it.

The lower spectrum of the economy is peopled with people of color. Why do hispanics and blacks fight each other? Is it based on economics?

Is healthcare an extension of those economics what with emergency room overloads, care disparity resulting in long term illness disparity not involved?

Our battles outside our borders are culturally, racially based are they not?

What is racism based on?

Of course we should discuss race...but please, how in the world can the folks pitting faction against faction bring any credibility to such a discussion?

Obama is poised as the ONLY candidate that can credibly address race, racism to our nation and the world. Not because he's singularly capable, but simply by the virtue of his race, his less than vein bulging reactionary personality, his happenstance at this moment in time.

He should embrace the subject of both his name and his color. He should openly discuss the harm done to ourselves and the world when we resort to the politics of winning over the recognition of our sameness.

It's a tough row to hoe. We'll see if he and Axlerod are up to it.

Vote hope, not fear. Vote unity, not divide and conquer.

Posted by G Davis | January 20, 2008 2:11 PM

This is just digging the hole deeper.

Did the treatment of Gore and the Swift-boating of Kerry teach us nothing?

You can't vet candidates against people who will MAKE SHIT UP to smear you.

Posted by PTS | January 20, 2008 2:19 PM

I also find in funny that the Bamabots get their panties in a bunch when anyone mention's his rascist church but....lay into Ron Paul's bunch on his letters.
One big difference. Ron Paul's newsletters were in HIS name, with HIS photo, raising money and support for HIM.

Obama already rejected some of his minister's more radical comments. One of the things that is appealing about Obama is that he seems like someone who can continue to socialize and work with people with whom he disagrees. More importantly, he's capable of continuing to listen to them, even if he disagrees with them very strongly.

Posted by J.S. | January 20, 2008 2:21 PM

I kind of agree with Matt here. Let me say that I am a black man who supports Obama. my problem is that the Criticism o0f Obama has been kind of tepid. Despite the impression that Obama has been the target of a racist smear campaign, the truth is that the Clintonians actually haven't really gone on an all out attack. They've actually been pulling their punches.
what concerns me is that the Republicans won't be pulling their punches. Indeed, they won't even be fighting fair. To extend the boxing metaphor, I'm really not sure that Obama can really take a punch. He may be the kind of candidate that looks good now, but folds up when the opposition lands a good solid blow. The example is Kerry, who looked pretty good -until he was hit by the Swift Boat punch.He buckled and never recovered.

HRC, lets face it, may not be the favorite here but she definitely knows how to take a punch. She's a street fighter and unfortunately, to win the Presidency, you need a street fighter with a jaw of iron. If Obama has a glass jaw, let us find out now.

Posted by stonetools | January 20, 2008 2:39 PM

Jesse,

Let me make this staement and see what you think?

The White-centered point of view does not assume superiority, nor does it assume separatism. It assumes White Eurpeons speaking for themselves as subjects in history, not objects in history.

This is a statement from Dr. Wright and all I did was change African-american with White Europeans. Could I get away with this? Heck no. Jackson would be at my church in five seconds calling me a white supremicist.

David Duke has done much of the same with his ideology. Simply remove any wording that would imply superiorty.

Dr. Wright has a documented record of giving racially inflammatory sermons as the senior pastor.He believes that Zionism has an element of white racism and has blamed the attacks of 9/11 on American foreign policy. Hmmm, not much different from Paul? He also supports the controversial anti-semitic views of Louis Farrakhan.

It is clear on their website that they follow writings by Cone of Black Power and Black Theology. Today, could McCain go to a church that studied white power and white theology and win. I think not.

All I'm saying is that whether Obama actually wrote any of this he will be held accountable for his membership in this church. It will sink him much like Paul's writings will. I've read some of Paul's complete newsletters and much of the healines are taken out of context. It's also very difficult to get anyone who will provide the full documents. Much of the MLK writings were only quotes from others writings. The welfare check comment was from a 15 page account of the LA riots. It is certainly from a white point of view frustrated at the senseless murder of innocent whites and koreans by black inner city men. Right or wrong, many felt this way following that incident. At any rate, Paul should clear this up.

Posted by northcaljustice | January 20, 2008 5:24 PM

To "norcaljustice":

White people (I am one) have been speaking for themselves as subjects of history, and everyone else as objects, for the last 500 years. You can't handle the fact that other people might claim the same right, can you?

And where has the big media attention been on Huckabee's neo-Confederate and Christian Reconstructionist links, which are least as troubling as Paul's associations?

And Mr, Yglesias, don't you feel any qualms linking to an odious racist like Steve Sailer?

Posted by Eric | January 20, 2008 6:41 PM

Eric, Racism is racism. It goes both way regardless of the circumstances. I have always lived by the tenet of treating other like I like to be treated. It's pretty simple really. Regardless of color.

Obama is a media darling so I doubt he will get raked over the coals unless his opponents press. that's the quetion posed here. They probably will and when they do, I doubt he will recover. I guess he is going to have to decide whether his white voters can handle him being a member of a racist church?

Your points are exactly what I have been saying. the media is bought and paid for. they are going to follow who they want in office positively, regardless of the skeletons in the closet. All these card board cutouts want the same thing, to dip their snout in the trough. They will say and do whatever they have to. Once elected they will push their own special interest agendas. Hopefully that includes you? If your Bear Sterns or Citi, maybe? Follow the money, it's easy. What's shameful to me is that the media is allowed to get away with such blatant fraud.

Posted by northcaljustice | January 20, 2008 7:37 PM

As I've suggested for a long time, Obama supporters, or anyone interested in being a good citizen, should read Obama's 1995 autobiography. That way, you won't be surprised by all the things that are going to come out.

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 20, 2008 8:58 PM

As I've suggested for a long time, Obama supporters, or anyone interested in being a good citizen, should read Obama's 1995 autobiography. That way, you won't be surprised by all the things that are going to come out.

Those things have come out, Steve, in book form, circa 1995.

Posted by southpaw | January 20, 2008 9:07 PM

@steve Sailor, northcal justice:

Mr. Wright's statement must clearly make some whites uncomfortable-but it isn't a racist statement. racism is :
The belief that one 'racial group' is inferior to another and the practices of the dominant group to maintain the inferior position of the dominated group. Often defined as a combination of power, prejudice and discrimination.
www.bl.uk/learning/histcitizen/voices/ref/gloss/glossary.html

Simple reading comprehension shows that Mr. Wright's statement lacks any of the elements of racism.
But go ahead with your smears. You do demonstrate what Obama will face once the Republican smear machine goes to work. thanks for the preview.Next up, Obama probably slept with white women...

Posted by stonetools | January 20, 2008 9:47 PM

Funny Stone,

You make a good point. Nothing in the Ron Paul letters are racist either by definition in full context. That didn't stop large media groups from jumping at the chance to call them that. Certainly make folks uncomfortable.

Last time I checked, Obama needed white folks too. Uncomfortable is a good word. I don't think it equals votes.

I'm not smearing your candidate. I'm just posing an opinion to this blog.

Posted by northcaljustice | January 20, 2008 11:23 PM

"He believes that Zionism has an element of white racism and has blamed the attacks of 9/11 on American foreign policy."

Well, he's right on both points - so what's the problem? That Zionist thugs and neocons don't like that?

Meanwhile, all Matt is doing here is covering for his lame post of yesterday by uttering more "Duh!" statements without materially changing his position.

He's still saying we shouldn't bother "deploring" attack ads but merely accept them and refute them.

This again is a juvenile position to take. On the one hand, it is true that it's pointless to try to see your enemy as anything other than your enemy, because he will invariably see you that way. So what? This doesn't mean you have to accept his tactics.

In "real" war, there are no rules - you do what you have to do to win, as Dick Marcinko has repeatedly pointed out. But a campaign isn't "real" war where you get to simply physically kill the "enemy." Technically, in politics, he isn't even supposed to be an "enemy", merely a misguided patriot who doesn't recognize your true value as an equal. So you aren't supposed to engage in wholesale lying, fraud, vote tampering, voter suppression, and sending Brownshirts to beat up your opponent's supporters.

And exploiting racism, sexism, and other such smears are supposed to be out of bounds, too.

Therefore, when your opponent uses them, you call him on it. And preferably tie him in to as much worse as you can prove he's doing.

Saying, "well, I don't care if you're using smears, I just intend to refute your smears" is simply stupid.

If your opponent is a scumbag who uses smears, he's a scumbag who shouldn't be electable. That is the whole point.

Which Matt, as usual, doesn't get because, to him, this is all a game to get him points in the blogosphere.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 21, 2008 4:02 AM