It's Not On His Website, It's On "My" Website

There's a lot of talk in the diaries about whether the San Francisco event at which Randi Rhodes, doing her best to unite and uplift the nation, called Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro "whores" was an Obama fundraiser, i.e. a sanctioned Obama campaign event. Those who insist that it was, point to a page on barackobama.com promoting the event as proof; the problem with this argument though is that if you look at the url it's technically on my.barackobama.com. Why is this important? Because the point of my.barackobama.com is to allow supporters to organize and create a community on their own. It's no accident that the Obama campaign uses the same online tools as the Democratic Party website does; this is part of the legacy of the Dean campaign.

This event was created by and for Obama supporters using these tools. That's called user-generated, bottom-up people powered organizing. Saying that Obama should be held responsible for what happens at any event organized and promoted through these online tools is akin to holding me, Jerome or Jonathan accountable for every crazy word written in the diaries, which fundamentally misunderstands the point of a community blog -- that it's a community where people are empowered to create content and a community. Barack Obama likes to say that "change happens from the bottom up" and that "this campaign is not about me, it's about you" and quite frankly, his web tools reflect this philosophy.

Now, I will say the fact that Randi Rhodes said what she said at an event that was organized to raise money for Barack is further evidence of Rhodes's stunningly poor judgment -- as a public figure who has endorsed Barack Obama -- but it has nothing to do with Barack's judgment. To claim otherwise, quite frankly, is disingenuous.



Display:


Re: It's Not On His Website (1.93 / 15)

Todd, regardless of whose website it is, don't you think Obama should make a statement denouncing such egregious hate speech? Does it help him to stay silent?


TexasDarlin blog
by TexasDarlin on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:04:35 PM EST

Re: It's Not On His Website (2.00 / 1)

As Todd is saying, this would be akin to Jerome having to make an apology for everything linfar writes


by wasder on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:07:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's Not On His Website (none / 0)

That is soooo funny you used linfar as an example.

She is getting all paranoid at hillaryis44, because she got called out in her new MyDD blog that didn't jive with her actions at AROD's site.

She asked the hill44 admin to figure out how people were reading her comments!


by FOB92 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:03:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's Not On His Website (none / 0)

and wasn't she kicked out for at least a period of time? or did that 'un-happen' somehow?


by zerosumgame on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:04:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why? (2.00 / 1)

Why should he have to denounce such obviously offenisive language?

That's like asking why Hillary hasn't denounced Larry Johnson over at NoQuarter.

Or the whole Hillaryis44.org website.

There is nothing wrong with others bringing attention to it, and be outraged.

But it's disingenuous for people who have made the diaries and posts over at NoQuarter(and some here) to feign such outrage and demand Obama denounce Rhodes.


by DaveDial on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:11:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why? (2.00 / 0)

Speaking of No Quarter, that's where I saw this being pushed, and all it does is prove what an insane site that is.  I would encourage every SANE person to go there and see what is being pawned off as "research" in the diaries, just to see the kraziness supposedly on the Democratic side.  It is all attack Obama all the time with unproven innuendo and cherry picked information.  It is quite ridiculous.  As i have said before in the comments here and elsewhere, I tried to go in there to have a rational conversation, and was called a troll and an enemy because I caucused for Obama in WA State.  They are bat-guano crazy over there.  I have no idea what Larry is trying to do, but it has nothing to do with increasing awareness or educating people or improving our discourse.  It is about killing Obama's nomination. Period.  A large percentage of people there will not vote for Obama if he is the nominee and will sit this election out....  or vote for McCain.  Great Democrats.  I can't go there any more because the Stoopid hurts too much.....


by funknjunk on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:36:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's Not On His Website (2.00 / 2)

why did this get troll rated?


TexasDarlin blog
by TexasDarlin on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:13:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's Not On His Website (2.00 / 1)

I disagree with the sentiment, but there was nothing trollish about it.


And so, may evil beware and may good dress warmly and eat lots of fresh vegetables.
by thatpurplestuff on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:17:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's Not On His Website (none / 0)

thatpurplestuff is right.  I disagree with the idea, but there is nothing trollworthy there.  Gonna go mojo it to counteract.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:25:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Disagree... (2.00 / 2)

...but uprated because of the ratings abuse.  You didn't deserve to be TR'd for saying it.


by Progressive Witness on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:26:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Disagree... (none / 0)

Yeah, I dropped deuce too.  Not TR-worthy at all.


Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo
by rb608 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:39:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Disagree... (2.00 / 0)

Same here.


I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt
by fogiv on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:49:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's Not On His Website (none / 0)

a) no   b)  yes


by interestedbystander on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:32:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There is no reason this (none / 0)

Should have received a troll rating, and that's coming from an Obama man. Have some mojo to counter, it is a fair question.


Because I wont trade humanity for patriotism!
by Drewid on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:51:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

this needed to be said (2.00 / 1)

Thanks Todd. Hope some of the diarists who railed about this are reading.


by wasder on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:06:16 PM EST

Todd (2.00 / 1)

Thank you for announcing this fact.


Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!
by Student Guy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:07:34 PM EST

Re: Todd (1.50 / 8)

You don't live in say, Michigan or Florida do you?  Because he definitely doesn't think THOSE states are cool ... in fact, he's so unhappy with those states, he's willing to rip two stars off the flag!


"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."
by beebop on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:25:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No I live in what has been called by some as (2.00 / 1)

a "boutique state" full of "yuppie liberals" that "uses an undemocratic method" to choose how it nominates people and somehow "doesn't matter" because it is "insignificant" despite the fact that it is the longest running blue state in the nation (DC isn't a state).


Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!
by Student Guy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:33:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No I live in what has been called by some as (none / 0)

Minnesota?


by democrattotheend on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:39:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Todd (2.00 / 1)

Ummm... Yeah...  You may want to think before you bring up a "disrespecting certain states" argument.


John McCain defends Bush's Iraq strategy.
by recusancy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:37:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Todd (1.66 / 3)

Sorry.  That's the facts.  Only the kama sutra has been more twisted to suit one person.


"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."
by beebop on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:45:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Todd (none / 0)

I thought the Kama Sutra was meant for two?


I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt
by fogiv on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:30:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Todd (2.00 / 2)

I think they call that a non-sequitir.


Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo
by rb608 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:41:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Todd (none / 0)

I'm from Florida. I voted for Obama.


by LiberalFL on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:58:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thank you! (2.00 / 0)

Much appreciated Todd.  It's a very important distinction to make, because punishing the candidate for the things that individual users do will just cause the candidates to make their sites less interactive for the public in the future.


And so, may evil beware and may good dress warmly and eat lots of fresh vegetables.
by thatpurplestuff on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:07:47 PM EST

Re: Thank you! (1.80 / 5)

Wow - what a revealing comment. You regard apologizing as punishment?

How about this? By apologizing, he would create the dynamic whereby it's not acceptable for people organizing fundraisers on his behalf to refer to Clinton as a 'fucking whore'. he would let people know that he considers unacceptable rhetoric and does not appreciate it being unleashed in his name.

After Wright's diatribe, he didn't distance himself. he didn't make clear that comparing Hillary and her supporters to Pontius Pilate and Obama to jesus was inappropriate. Even more offensive was Wright's comment that Hillary has never beeen called a nigger. Well, no, Reverend Wright, but she's now been called a fucking whore by Obama supporters, using the tools Obama provided for their organizing means and on his behalf.

it just seems to me that if Obama wants to win blue states, he must appeal to clinton supporters. And I have no idea why, if he can't apologize and distance himself from this and Wright,  any Clinton would see him as worth voting for against McCain.

You guys need to think about how this plays in  the general election.


by Little Otter on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:27:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you! (2.00 / 2)

Wow... it's almost like you're being intellectually dishonest and twisting what I said.  Be careful, you don't want to earn a reputation for doing such things... haha.  My point was that to hold a candidate (or blogger) accountable for every event (or diary) that is on their campaign page (or blog) will decrease the likelihood of future candidates (or future bloggers) allowing the public to interact with their campaign page (or blog).

Honestly, you've gotta be a troll.  I'm not even going to bother responding to you after this post because it's obvious that you don't read posts before you reply anyway.


And so, may evil beware and may good dress warmly and eat lots of fresh vegetables.
by thatpurplestuff on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:37:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you! (2.00 / 1)

It's not a troll.  It's someone from No Quarter...  which you may or may not have noticed, is an insane blog wherein insane people congregate....


by funknjunk on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:53:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you! (1.75 / 4)

Oh, a woman objecting to the first viable female candidate for president being called a "fucking whore" at a fundraiser organized by her Democratic opponents supporters must be a troll.

This is a fucking disgrace. How is the Democratic party supposed to stand against bigotry when a nationally known talk show host, speaking at a fundraiser for the Democratic candidate, gets away with calling a woman of Clinton's accomplishments a "fucking whore".

What moral right will we have to call anyone on bigotry if we think that's acceptable campaign rhetoric?

Are you proud of this? Don't you recognize how much better it would be if Obama denounced this? Can you really support a candidate who looks the other way when his supporters act like this? This isn't a diarest on a blog - this is a nationally syndicated talk show host speaking at a fundraiser organized by obama's supporters and advertised on a website maintained by the candidate.

How do you expect to be able to object to the racism that will inevitiably be hurled Obama's way if you don't object to this?

I'm just stunned.


by Little Otter on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:17:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you! (none / 0)

It wasn't an Obama fundraiser, the money went to the sponsoring radio station:

http://www.green960.com/cc-common/mainhe adlines2.html?feed=213008&article=34 93425

"Comments made by Randi Rhodes were made during a Green 960 Event on March 22nd.  Those in attendance were required to sign up through Green960.com and paid $5 to attend.  Money raised went to Green960."


by davisb on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:18:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you! (none / 0)

The thing is....  I DO OBJECT.  I just simply disagree that Obama has some kind of moral obligation to go and denounce those statements.  He is not responsible and had nothing to do with them.  It's not his job to police even his own supporters.

We can disagree on this without hating each other right??  And, will you vote for Obama if he is the nominee?  Let's just get it on the record, because I'm so tired of seeing the hate against Obama being spewed forth from Hillary supporters, that I just want to know that one thing.  Frankly, that tells me all I need to know.  If in this political climate, you can stay home or vote for McCain....  that's all I need to hear....


by funknjunk on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:29:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you! (none / 0)

Gonna ignore the facts when they get too hard for ya, eh, Little Otter?

I feel bad for you, man; even most of the other hardcore Clinton supporters don't stoop to this level. You're in my prayers, buddy, I hope you get through this hatred- and I hope you do, truly, because hatred has a way of eating you from the inside out. This isn't worth this much hate, man. It's just not worth it.


Serious question- Is This Snark?
by ragekage on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:42:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you! (none / 0)

Is Obama apologizing for something he had absolutely nothing to do with going to untwist your undies?  No.  You're going to come up with something else to get outraged about that he has nothing to do with.  Just like the Reverend Wright stuff you just can't get over.

Let's have some friggin perspective, I implore you.


John McCain smells like mothballs.
by asherrem on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:09:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you! (1.80 / 5)

yeah, because I don't think Democrats should tolerate this kind of language out of prominent supporters. Obviously, people in the obama campaign don't.


by Little Otter on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:22:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you! (none / 0)

Your propensity for generalizing astounds me.

I think what Randi Rhodes said was disgusting--I am a democrat, a woman, AND an Obama supporter.  This "he said/she said" crap is getting out of hand.  

He no more has to apologize for what RR said than Hillary has to for what any of her supporters (not staffers) have said.  When did Hillary apologize for James Carville?  For freak's sake.  What was your reaction to the "Judas" comment?  Did you demand Hillary apologize to Richardson?  I highly doubt it.

As I said, it's about perspective.  As democrats, I thought we were a little more level-headed.  If you don't like what RR said, demand an apology from HER.  Neither the Obama campaign nor the Clinton campaign speak for all of their supporters.  If you're going to hold Obama accountable for this crap, you better start holding Clinton accountable too--I'm not, I'm more concerned with the issues, not the smear campaigns.


John McCain smells like mothballs.
by asherrem on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:40:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you! (2.00 / 3)

There's nothing level headed about calling a woman of Clinton's accomplishments and progressive inclinations a "fucking whore".  Maybe in your world that's how adults talk, but in my world, adults would be eager to distance themselves from that rhetoric. Think about it - when someone speaks out of turn and on your behalf, aren't you eager to straighten it out? Obama, apparently, isn't. He's content to let that stand out there in his name, just like he was with Wright. And with his wife's rhetoric as well. There's nothing that can be said about Clinton on Obama's behalf, apparently, that Obama finds objectionable.

If I were obama, I'd be offended that such language was used on my behalf by a nationally syndicated talk show host, and the event was organized using the tools I provided. But then I'm neither a racist nor a misogynist and if someone well known spoke out in my name, I'd want that established.

Obama clearly doesn't care when celebrities refer to Clinton as a "fucking whore" on his behalf. But that's the difference between Obama and Clinton. Clinton flew to a tarmac and apologized personally when she found out her staffer - someone who they campaign did not pay, btw -  had forwarded an email accusing Obama of being Muslim. Obama doesn't have that kind of decency. And if you think that's acceptable behavior, you don't either.

Wouldn't you be proud of him if he apologized for that? Wouldn't it make you feel like he'd elevated the conversation? But he won't do that. He's content to wallow in the mud as long as it makes him feel like he might win.

As for James Carville, Carville went to bat for Samantha Powers and said she said nothing wrong. He didn't think she should have been fired. So, I guess it goes both ways. You must think he's wrong for thinking Powers should have been kept on.

It's so weird how Obama supporters keep trying to pretend that Randi Rhodes is an anonymous supporters on the internet instead of a nationally syndicated talk show host with a substantial following. In Miami, her show got (gets?) more listeners than Rush Limbaugh. She's not some rough and tumble local girl. She's well known through out the nation.

So what are you going to do when racist Republicans start acccusing Obama's wife of being a "fucking whore". You're gonna be fine with that right? Because that's how level headed people sometimes talk. Or at the very least, level headed people look the other when bigots coopt the stage.


by Little Otter on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:31:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you! (1.00 / 1)

Again, Little Otter, you're being completely disingenuous, and you're not even original about it. Sad, really. I kind-of feel bad for you.


Serious question- Is This Snark?
by ragekage on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:40:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you! (1.00 / 1)

Persistent little troll isn't it?  I think Little Otter is angling to win the annual troll sweepstakes.


That One is the Right One for 2008.
by GFORD on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 03:47:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you! (none / 0)

Hear! Hear!  Thanks for saying this - good points.


by cameoanne on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:56:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

**Huh? (none / 0)

**Are you serious about "apologizing" not being "punishment?"
When people are forced to ask forgiveness for something they didn't do, isn't that punishment?  

I insist that you apologize to Mr. Obama for demanding that he apologize to Mrs. Clinton.  And admit it.  Anybody who would vote for John McCain simply isn't a democrat, so why continue using the threat?  It's empty.   Blue states are already in Obama's corner.  I'm in a blue state.  I demand that you apologize for suggesting that I might vote for McCain.  

And since you're insisting that candidates distance themselves from unsavory characters, perhaps Hillary should make Bill go away.   (After all, the minister used bad language.  Bill used young women.)


If the choice is between hope and fear, always choose hope. BC
by greylox on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:58:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (1.80 / 5)

Thank you, Todd.  Kudos for intellectual honesty.


by Pat Flatley on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:07:59 PM EST

Re: (2.00 / 2)

Can you imagine if MyDD were held personally responsible for every ranting diary here?  They'd have to hire a full-time apologist.


by Pat Flatley on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:11:30 PM EST

Re: (1.50 / 10)

It's a shame that MYDD feels so responsible for proHillary posters that some of them have been kicked off the site ... but I guess we hold all things Hillary Clinton and related to Clinton to a different and higher standard?  Good thing too, since none of us want to be held to the shockingly low standards set for Obama and his adherents.  Word used intentionally.


"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."
by beebop on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:21:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (1.50 / 2)

Woah, I had no idea that Mark Penn posted here.  The simple fact is that none of the site's proprietors should feel the need to apologize for the lunatics on either side.  Stop spinning and just have a discussion.


by Pat Flatley on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:24:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (1.00 / 6)

With no intelligent challenge to the discussion, you guys are really second rate!  Penn?!  Like I'm insulted by you! hahahaha


"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."
by beebop on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:30:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (2.00 / 1)

If you have any examples of videos being circulated amongst right wing blogs that were posted here by Obama supporters that show 9/11 victims jumping out of buildings, alongside clips of Hillary and Bill Clinton, I suggest you contact the admins about them.

I applaud the admins for deleting that trash.  It made us look bad as a community.


And so, may evil beware and may good dress warmly and eat lots of fresh vegetables.
by thatpurplestuff on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:29:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'll take that job (none / 0)

I'm not sure if I'm qualified, though.  I tend to apologize by saying such things as "I'm sorry you're  ability to comprehend my statements are marred by your inability to understand English."

Is there a freelance market for that sort of thing?


I'm only a click away
by juliewolf on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:51:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's Not On His Website (2.00 / 1)

Randi Rhodes has clearly demonstrated some terrible judgement, but I'm pretty sure the event was actually a fundraiser for the radio station, Green 960, not for Obama...


by davisb on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:13:10 PM EST

Re: It's Not On His Website (2.00 / 2)

Nope, the radio station, which has endorsed Obama, sponsored the event.


by Little Otter on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:28:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's Not On His Website (2.00 / 1)

And, according to that radio station, the money raised during the event went to the radio station itself, not to the Obama campaign:

http://www.green960.com/cc-common/mainhe adlines2.html?feed=213008&article=34 93425

"Those in attendance were required to sign up through Green960.com and paid $5 to attend.  Money raised went to Green960."


by davisb on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:49:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's Not On His Website (2.00 / 1)

How utterly bizarre since the announcement on the obama site described the radio station as "sponsoring" the event. obviously, there are two different versions. We'll see what happens.


by Little Otter on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:24:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's Not On His Website (none / 0)

I'm not seeing the word "sponsor" anywhere on that my.barackobama.com profile.  It actually says "THIS IS GREEN 960'S EVENT" which would seem to be in keeping with a fundraising event thrown in support of Green 960.

Seems like it's all just one version all around.


by davisb on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:29:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re (2.00 / 1)

Just one correction, the Dean "campaign" had nothing to do with paying BlueState Digital an untold amount of dollars to develop the DNC site known as Party Builder. Lets not confuse something built by the DNC and then provided to the Obama campaign with things that were done by Dean's presidential campaign.


by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:14:59 PM EST

Re: Re (none / 0)

Jerome, Todd simply noted that it was part of the Dean legacy.


by Pat Flatley on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:16:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Re (none / 0)

Yea, that's what I meant. Not really, it's Blue State Digitals platform.


by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:29:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Re (none / 0)

I don't think that Todd was suggesting that it was literally Dean's platform.


by Pat Flatley on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:32:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It is the Dean theme (2.00 / 0)

tough of bottom up campaigning.


Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!
by Student Guy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:35:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's Not On His Website (2.00 / 0)

On Randi, how dare you have such "stunningly poor judgement" by having an opinion.  My poor virigin ears!  I have never heard such outrageous sailor talk!  Oh, dear!  I am about to faint!

Please.

Stop grousing and crying about a little bit of rough talk done in a nightclub among adults.  This is not "hate speech," this is criticism of public officials.  These were not "ad hominem" attacks, as Air America's management claimed, they were explosions of frustration against the horrible actions of politicians.

You're allowed to be insulted by it, to not like it, to complain about it, to call Randi whatever names you like in return.  But muzzling Randi, taking her off her radio for opinions expressed outside her radio show, is going way overboard.


Peace, S.
by Reluctantpopstar on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:18:55 PM EST

Re: It's Not On His Website (2.00 / 6)

I tend to think we shouldn't tolerate our own versions of Ann Coulter on the left.  Anyone who thinks what she said is an acceptable way to talk about a presidential candidate doesn't deserve airtime, in my opinion.  It's one thing for a comedian to do it, but when you pretend to be a respected political commentator you deserved to be called out when you spew such vitriol.


And so, may evil beware and may good dress warmly and eat lots of fresh vegetables.
by thatpurplestuff on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:24:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's Not On His Website (2.00 / 5)

Agreed.  Here's hoping Air America fires her.  IMO you don't get to publicly say that kind of stuff and stay employed as a political commentator.

(Obama supporter here, but that was way, way beyond acceptable)


by ChrisKaty on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:30:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Whore (none / 0)

is a tricky word.

In addition to its original meaning, it has come to mean anyone who has sold out, and in that usage is applied to both men and women.

Ms. Rhodes was specifically arguing that Hillary had sold out. She may be wrong, you may disagree, but is a defensible argument that an honest person could make.

She was not implying that Hil has been spotted on the street corner, teetering on 6" heels, hiking up her mini-skirt.

Such conflation is dishonest & more hurtful to Randi than her comment was to Hil.


McCain just lied again
by wrb on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:56:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whore (2.00 / 2)

Calling a woman a "f&*king whore" in public by someone who supposedly promotes progressive values is not to be taken literally and no one has. That doesn't make it any less ignorant and stupid.
Something we expect from Republicans, but certainly not progressive radio show hosts. We should hold our "public voices" to a higher standard.
Please stop this silly parsing.
"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC
by skohayes on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:29:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whore (none / 0)

Guess I don't consider any talk radio or tee-vee voices ours.

I've never caught Rhodes' show.  Never watch tv news.


McCain just lied again
by wrb on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:39:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Whores and fairy tales (2.00 / 3)

Right, so it's OK to call Hillary, and her daughter, any nasty, sexist, misogynist name in the book, because all of them, arguably, have some other meaning in the vernacular. Bitch, whore, pimped out, even cu#t, are, I suppose, just fine and dandy.

Oh, but if you say that Obama's claim of consistent opposition to the Iraq War is a fairytale, that's out-an-out racism that can't be tolerated.

Finally, your pious claim about conflation and dishonesty and relative hurtfulness rings so patently false and hollow, so ridiculously indefensible, as to not even merit any response other than contempt.


by freemansfarm on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:46:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whores and fairy tales (none / 0)

Thanks for your appreciation.

I found the attacks on Chelsey enraging.

I don't find the use of "whore" as part of a actual argument about selling out, a big deal.

Strong words are good, in my opinion.

At least then you can disagree, strongly.

We suffer more from clouds of vague words.

Screw those who get inflamed about the word or the phrase but don't bother to follow the argument.

They are the enemy of a better world.


McCain just lied again
by wrb on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:17:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're welcome (2.00 / 2)

I guess I just don't think that Ms. Rhodes calling Senator Clinton a fucking whore is going to lead us to "better world."


by freemansfarm on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:52:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

FYI (2.00 / 1)

the 'n-word' has more then one meaning, feel free to bandy it about and let us know how that goes...

1.    Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive.
a.    a black person.
b.    a member of any dark-skinned people.
2.    Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive. a person of any race or origin regarded as contemptible, inferior, ignorant, etc.
3.    a victim of prejudice similar to that suffered by blacks; a person who is economically, politically, or socially disenfranchised.


by zerosumgame on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:18:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: FYI (none / 0)

yep

A word which black people have free license to use

Women aren't allowed  equality?


McCain just lied again
by wrb on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:35:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ground shift (2.00 / 2)

You're shifting your ground now. Before, anyone could call Hillary a "whore," because it means a sell out. You made no reference to the gender of the person doing the insulting. But, when the shoe is on the other foot, you do. If those alternative meanings of the n word make it OK to use it in reference to Senator Obama, the race of the insultor should not matter. If the word arguably invoked any of the alternative meanings, even if said by the whitest person in America, it should be Ok, right?

Strong language is a good thing, it will lead us to a better world.


by freemansfarm on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:56:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whore (2.00 / 1)

RR's statements were disgusting. And Wright's words are disgusting. Have all of you lost any sense of proportion? Anything is OK if it is pro-Obama or anti-Clinton? These things would be disgusting if they were about Clinton, Obama or anyone. What would you say if someone stood on a stage and called Obama a f*king pimp? Would that be OK? Oh, no. That would be racist, I suppose. But calling a lovely lady a f*king whore is just peachy. If a black person who was a Clinton supporter stood up and said G-D America? You would all be crying traitor. I am so tired of you.


by georgiast on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:34:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

disgusting like this? (none / 0)


"If America does not use her vast resources of wealth to end poverty and make it possible for all of God's children to have the basic necessities of life," he preached, "she, too, will go to hell."

-Rev Martin Luther King

I take it you are on the other side?


McCain just lied again
by wrb on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:43:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: disgusting like this? (none / 0)

So you approve. OK.


by georgiast on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:04:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Disgusting like . . . (2.00 / 2)

. . hiding behind Dr. King to defend racism and misogyny. Did he ever say that Italians had "garlic noses?" I must have missed that. Did Dr. King ever call someone a "fucking whore?" I must have missed that one too.

Just because something Wright said arguably sounds like something Dr. King said does not equate Wright with Dr. King.

And, in any event, I find this endless quoting of Dr. King to be tedious and disingenuous anyway. Something does not become Holy Writ merely because Dr King said it. Specifically, I strongly disagree with the quote you provided, and I'm not ashamed to say so.

First of all, I'm an atheist, so I find the word "hell" to be meaningless at best, and hateful and totalitarian at worst. There is no hell, it is a concept used to frighten people into believing, or pretending to believe, in a fairy tale. Secondly, every society that has ever existed has failed to eradicate poverty, has "God" sent them all to "hell?"

Poverty is a terrible thing, and I agree with Dr. King that it should be eliminated, but I don't agree with using fairy tales or threats of eternal punishment to get the job done

Please stop quoting Dr. King for things he never stood for, and please stop quoting him at all if you intend to use him as a club, or as a means of placing yourself, with your defense of hateful rhetoric, on the side of Dr. King, and, hence, the angels, and anyone who disagrees with on the other side.


by freemansfarm on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:13:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Disgusting like . . . (none / 0)

Ok... Dr. King ain't on your side
Should we take up Dante. or TS Eliot?
McCain just lied again
by wrb on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:57:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Still at it (2.00 / 1)

Right, you Dr. King, racist Wright, and misogynist Rhodes are one "side," and I am on the other. What a croc.

Why can't you just leave Dr. King out of it, before he rolls over in his grave. As for Dante and TS Eliot, what of them? That they were Christian poets? Good for them. Because they were great poets, does that make their belief in "hell" correct? I don't think so.

Anyway appeals to authority are logically fallacious. Stop making them.


by freemansfarm on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:13:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Pimp.. even F*cking Pimp isn't necessarily a negat (none / 0)

ive phrase.  Some definitions depending on context are positive... which you might view as misogynistic, but ultimately language is societies construct, not yours or mine exclusively.

As for what RR said, I think it was a bit strong, but ultimately its not classic hate speech but more a strong form of negative reasoning.

Too a large degree I think this is protected speech.

If you don't like it you don't have to attend or listen to her program.  Thats the other side of the issue.

Somehow blaming a candidate for a supporters speech places an unrealistic and inappropriate burden on candidates, to a place we don't want to go.


by Priest Valon on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:01:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whore (none / 0)

um, it's not "you all," it's "you the individual who made that comment."

if we all agreed, we'd be chiming in.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:07:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whore (none / 0)

The diarist never said her comments were ok. He just said Obama should not be blamed for them.


by democrattotheend on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:04:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's Not (2.00 / 7)

Of course BO is not responsible for his supporters just like HRC is not responsible for Ferraro's comments.  Fair enough.

But when i watched that tape the thing that really caught my eye was not just RR statements but how the crowd cheered her on.  A room filled with BO supporters cheering these attacks on HRC.  And the sad thing is these BO supporters would cheer just as load if RR did the same thing tonight.

david


by giusd on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:19:20 PM EST

Re: It's Not (2.00 / 2)

I had no idea that Randi Rhodes was a surrogate of the Obama campaign.


by Pat Flatley on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:20:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's Not (2.00 / 2)

What part of Obama's campaign is Rhodes?  Does she have a title?


by mikeinsf on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:25:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

As much as you may dislike it, ultimately (none / 0)

people are free to gather their own, sometimes politically incorrect, opinions on the subject.

That you don't like the un-PC nature of something doesn't mean other people can't or shouldn't hold that view.

Theres a line we don't want to cross.. which we've defined ultimately as "hate-speech", and this isn't that.

Ultimately, demanding perfection in political correctness is not going to happen because you cannot legislate private thought.


by Priest Valon on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:05:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But .. I DO hold you accountable (none / 0)

You and Jerome and Jonathan are ALL accountable for every thing posted here.  We ALL hold you accountable!  Didn't you know that?

/snark


by Southern Mouth on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:26:03 PM EST

Re: But .. I DO hold you accountable (2.00 / 1)

Campaigns and Blogs have different political standards, that's something that's not gonna be overcome. But, look, the comments on the Washington Post and ABC News are the most dispicable racist sexist crap on the political net.  The Beam is in their eye.


by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:31:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But .. I DO hold you accountable (2.00 / 2)

Amen.  I remember back when Yahoo allowed comments on news stories.  Reading some of the things that people wrote was incredibly depressing.  I worked at a movie theater when I was younger, and I tend to think of commenting on the internet as a lot like people going to see a movie in a theater.  As soon as the lights go off and no one can see them, people turn into savages that throw garbage on the floor, pee in 32oz cups (yes, I threw away many a 98.6 degree soda), and generally act like barnyard animals.  I've found that internet comments are strikingly similar. :)


And so, may evil beware and may good dress warmly and eat lots of fresh vegetables.
by thatpurplestuff on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:38:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But .. I DO hold you accountable (2.00 / 1)

Well, since he and Jerome and Jonathan are all the same people, you really only need to hold one of them accountable. :)


by Jay R on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:44:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (1.55 / 9)

Being Barack Obama is never having to say you're sorry!


"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."
by beebop on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:27:56 PM EST

Re: (2.00 / 1)

Being one of the site's proprietors is never have to say you're sorry for your post.


by Pat Flatley on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:28:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (1.16 / 6)

Being Barack Obama means never having to say you're sorry ... was there a portion of that that you wanted to discuss?


"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."
by beebop on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:31:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

Not particularly, no. If I posted, ";akljsdf;lashd;fla;laslj;sdsf" I wouldn't anticipate you wanting to discuss that, either.


by Pat Flatley on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:33:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: R. Rhodes (2.00 / 4)

R. Rhodes already lost all credibility when she reported to be mugged by a Bushie when really the crazy drunk just fell down.  I'm sure she was drunk when she gave that speech, too.  I expect she will apologize and head off to rehab soon.  But if Imus got the boot for what he said (and Obama was cool with that, remember) she should get the boot as well.


by BlueDoggyDogg on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:36:38 PM EST

Re: R. Rhodes (none / 0)

One minor distiction is that Imus made his statement over the air.  Rhodes was off the clock as it were.


by tired of dynasties on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:46:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm going to share a lesson with you .... (2.00 / 4)

I am cutting and pasting a link to Obama's government website as well as several phrases that appear there:

http://obama.senate.gov/news/050626-when _it_c

"Obama acknowledges, with no small irony, that he benefits from his race.

If he were white, he once bluntly noted, he would simply be one of nine freshmen senators, almost certainly without a multimillion-dollar book deal and a shred of celebrity. Or would he have been elected at all?"

A teachable moment occurs each time an unpleasant subject which may be at the core of America's ills bubbles to the surface.

If we are to forgive Reverend Wright and G-D America and see he's comments as understandable (by some irrational thought process that I confess aludes me), can we hold Geraldine to a higher standard for simply repeating Senator Obama's words?  Is she the first person to have pointed this out to him?

So the next time you feel tempted to take a shot at Gerri Ferraro, do -- as you say -- a little research.


"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."
by beebop on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:39:23 PM EST

It's not about judgement (2.00 / 5)

It's his complete silence on the subject.  Senator Obama was justifiably outraged by the comments made by the radio host Don Imus.  He immediately called for Imus to be dismissed when Imus voiced vile, disgusting comments about the Rutgers Women's basketball team.  However, now when faced with a situation where one of his supporters is voicing vile, disgusting comments at an Obama endorsed fundraiser then Senator Obama is completely silent.  Of course he is not responsible for the comments that were made, but his "outrage" over the Imus comments rings hallow with his lack of "outrage" when someone calls the first viable female Presidential candidate, "f*%king whore".  

Just like his "courageous" race speech, Senator Obama speaks out when it's politically expedient for him.  That within itself speaks to the hypocrisy of Senator Obama.


by polson on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:39:31 PM EST

Re: It's not about judgement (2.00 / 2)

I believe - I'm happy to be corrected if wrong - he only commented on Imus when asked directly.  Has he been asked about this yet?  If he is, I am 100% certain he will denounce - and reject - it.


by interestedbystander on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:46:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not about judgement (2.00 / 1)

Exactly...  He's not a firebreathing gotcha politician.  He's slow to judge.  That's a good thing.

And some things are so obvious that they don't need to be said.  Should he release a statement stating that puppies and kittens are cute and Hitler was bad?


John McCain defends Bush's Iraq strategy.
by recusancy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:52:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not about judgement (2.00 / 3)

He should issue a statement saying that the rhetoric was morally deplorable and anti-progresssive and that he does not want that rhetoric being used in his name.

It's pretty fucking basic and I'd expect it out of anyone who had this diatribe unleashed in their name.

This has received national attention and it needs to be addressed.

Wright observed that she's never been called a nigger and now Rhodes calls her a fucking whore. Doesn't that make the point that the inflammatory rhetoric that is being used is dragging this campaign down? Are you actually proud to be associated with someone who tolerates those two misogynistic bigots speaking on his behalf?


by Little Otter on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:16:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not about judgement (none / 0)

Why exacty is pointing out that she's never been called a nxxxxr so horrible?  I'm looking for your point of view here, not trying to be snarky.


by tired of dynasties on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:50:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not about judgement (none / 0)

Because it's a demeaning comment. The entire statement was to the effect that she's never been called a nigger and doens't know what it's like to have to work twice as hard as that C student in the White House. The point of the comment was to smear her with bigotry and ignores the fact that women face as much, and frequently more discrimination, than Africans Americans do.


by Little Otter on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:05:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

stupid statement (none / 0)

the fact that women face as much, and frequently more discrimination, than Africans Americans do.


by Bucky on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 03:33:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not about judgement (none / 0)

Thank you for the explanation.  While i may not ultimatly agree, I appreciate the dialog.


by tired of dynasties on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:38:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not about judgement (2.00 / 3)

You're wrong.

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3031317

Obama: Fire Imus
Obama First White House Contender to Call for Imus' Firing Over Racial Slur

By JAKE TAPPER
April 11, 2007--

In an interview with ABC News Wednesday afternoon, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., called for the firing of talk radio host Don Imus. Obama said he would never again appear on Imus' show, which is broadcast on CBS Radio and MSNBC television.

"I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus," Obama told ABC News, "but I would also say that there's nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude."

Obama said he appeared once on Imus' show two years ago, and "I have no intention of returning."

Racial Slur Stirs Trouble for Shock Jock

Last week, Imus referred to the Rutgers University women's basketball team, most of whom are African-American, as "nappy-headed hos." He has since apologized for his remarks, and CBS and MSNBC suspended his show for two weeks.

"He didn't just cross the line," Obama said. "He fed into some of the worst stereotypes that my two young daughters are having to deal with today in America. The notions that as young African-American women -- who I hope will be athletes -- that that somehow makes them less beautiful or less important. It was a degrading comment. It's one that I'm not interested in supporting."

Though every major presidential candidate has decried the racist remarks, Obama is the first one to say Imus should lose his job for them.

His proclamation was the latest in an ever-expanding list of bad news for Imus.

Sponsors, including American Express Co., General Motors Corp., Procter & Gamble Co., and Staples Inc. -- have announced they are pulling advertisements from the show for the indefinite future.

Tuesday, the basketball team held a press conference.

"I think that this has scarred me for life," said Matee Ajavon. "We grew up in a world where racism exists, and there's nothing we can do to change that."

"What we've been seeing around this country is this constant ratcheting up of a coarsening of the culture that all of have to think about," Obama said.

"Insults, humor that degrades women, humor that is based in racism and racial stereotypes isn't fun," the senator told ABC News.

"And the notion that somehow it's cute or amusing, or a useful diversion, I think, is something that all of us have to recognize is just not the case. We all have First Amendment rights. And I am a constitutional lawyer and strongly believe in free speech, but as a culture, we really have to do some soul-searching to think about what kind of toxic information are we feeding our kids," he concluded.

Clayton Sandell contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures


by polson on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:57:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not about judgement (none / 0)

Since we're parsing here, let's really do it.  Where is the transcript??  This is a news story, not the transcript of the interview.  Was he asked for his opinion first or no?  We don't seem to know, except you have now said that someone is "wrong".  And we don't know that....  hmmm...  just like all the innuendo over at the No Quarter blog.  Interesting.  What this is, is political expediency from some supporters when it suits them.  Don't post crap to support your thesis when it does nothing of the kind.  This blog is supposed to be a cut above I think.  

I will say outright that I will vote for Hillary if she is the nominee.  Let's hear the opposite from all the bile-spewing Hillary supporters lurking here from No Quarter.  No, it's attack, attack, attack, and no attempt at conversation or understanding, no explanation from Obama will do.  But, wait, when Hillary's Penn meets with the Colombians...  well, I'm sure her explanation will be just fine.  I'm sure there will be some discernable difference between her explanations of all her skeletons as compared to Obama's.  I'm sure.  

It's all about who "your guy" is.  Except I'm one of these enemy "Obamabots" who would gladly vote for Hillary come election time.  

All the twelve-year-old (in mind and/or body) Hillary supporters need to grow up and realize that politics is tough, and your guy lies and misrepresents the same as the next guy.....


by funknjunk on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:08:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not about judgement (2.00 / 1)

So then why are you whining when I am fighting back?  A simple, "yes, you're right.  Obama is not consistent" would suffice.


by polson on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:20:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not about judgement (none / 0)

Uh, you have made no such point.  I don't think "right" and "wrong" mean what you think they mean.  You missed my point, which is that your parsing is not as good as you think it is.  Typical....


by funknjunk on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:14:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not about judgement (none / 0)

Imus disparaged an entire race of people.
Randi Rhodes disparaged one person.

See the difference?


by jwolf on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:33:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not about judgement (2.00 / 1)

Yes.  I do see the difference.  The comments of Imus disparage the Rutgers Women's Basketball Team and the comments of Rhodes disparage Hillary Clinton.  Therefore it must be justified, right?


by polson on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:18:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Political advocacy has VERY strong 1st (none / 0)

amendment protection and rightly so.


by Priest Valon on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:22:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not about judgement (2.00 / 1)

BO and his campaign has zero tolerance for anything they decided is racially insensitive.  Fair enough. Expect if you are a friend or mentor to BO and then zero tolerance does not apply.

david


by giusd on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:58:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

buy-bye (1.00 / 5)

Okay.  Now I understand why people are l