McCain Screws Up More Facts About Iraq, And CBS Covers It Up

Ohhh I love Keith Olbermann, and I love how ignorant (or pathological) McCain is, because they provide entertainment like this:



Yes, McCain gets ANOTHER basic fact about the situation in Iraq wrong, WHILE attacking Obama and accusing him of not knowing what he is talking about! Yes, and these facts he can't get right are about the Surge, the very thing that has been the centerpiece of his foreign policy arguments, and he doesn't know the basics. Or, he knows he is lying. Who knows. Another reason this story is great, is because it shows the lengths CBS News went to to edit the interview and cut out McCain's lie/gaffe in order to protect him. Talk about a love affair.

Anyway, it is a great clip because Keith hits all the right questions. It is all probably a wash though, because the rest of the media (like CBS) will continue to carry McCain's water for him, and selectively report reality in order to protect McCain from the harsh reality of...reality.

Update: The Jed Report puts it together beautifully:



And here's another one, with video of McCain talking about the Anbar Awakening before the Surge, if anyone had any doubt:

McCain Employs Parlor Tricks For The Media While Obama (And Reality) Thumps Him On Foreign Policy

John McCain has been running around the media telling everyone that Maliki (and the Iraqis) endorsing Obama's withdrawal plan, and the fact that McCain has flip-flopped on Afghanistan to follow Obama's lead there, doesn't mean a thing, because according to him "the Surge has been a success." The media, dutifully nod their heads in agreement, as they hang on McCain's every word with love filled eyes.

The only problem is, the Surge hasn't worked. It hasn't worked by a long shot. Read my previous blog on this subject. Basically the drop in violence in Iraq can mostly be attributed to three things. First, "successful" ethnic cleansing in Iraq under our watch. The fighting decreased because the militias largely finished their job in killing or expelling the opposing ethnic groups from mixed neighborhoods and areas. The result, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians dead, and around 4.5 million Iraqi refugees. If that is "success", then pop the champaign, but it wasn't the doing of the Surge. Secondly, the US started buying off Sunni militias and arming them, to get them to fight against al-Qaeda. Yes, we gave our previous enemies weapons and money in exchange for their temporary support. And when they eventually want to use those weapons and that money against us, or against fellow Iraqis again, I guess that'll be written off as an "oops". But certainly that wasn't part of the Surge. Thirdly, Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr declared a unilateral cease-fire to regroup, but has always remained on the verge of returning to violence, and it is certainly able to at any time.

For more on those, read my previous blog where I outlined the non-success of the Surge. What really led me to write this post, however, was how the media is eating all of this pro-Surge nonsense up. A fellow Kossack wrote an epithet-laden diatribe against the media, specifically aimed at Andrea Mitchell, and I think it was absolutely appropriate. He or she, like many others, including myself, is absolutely sick of how absurdly biased in favor of McCain. This Kossack shares my exasperation. It is beyond ridiculous. It is insanity at this point.

Luckily not everyone on MSNBC is as incompetent, so I'd like to give kudos to Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, who both hit the nail on the head on Countdown just now when reviewing how wrong McCain has been on Iraq and Afghanistan, and really how perfectly everything is falling behind Obama during his trip overseas. Keith made an excellent point when he highlighted the paradox that McCain insists that the Surge has been a success, yet we can't withdraw for years to come, even though the very goal of the Surge was to be able to leave a sovereign Iraqi government in place! He can't have it both ways, yet the vast majority of the media seems to want to let him have it both ways. Maddow quite aptly pointed out that McCain and Bush are now defining success in Iraq by us staying in Iraq, while Obama is defining success by getting out of Iraq.

Perhaps the best part was Rachel Maddow pointing out exactly what I pointed out on Saturday, that both Bush and McCain have previously committed to withdrawing our troops from Iraq when a sovereign Iraqi government tells us to leave, which is exactly what their Prime Minister just said the Iraqis wanted. I'd like to think she reads my blog, but that probably isn't very likely (psst, Rachel, leave me a blog comment if it's you!). Looking back, here was Bush:

"We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It's their government's choice," the president said during a Rose Garden news conference. "If they were to say 'leave', we would leave."

And McCain:

QUESTION: Let me give you a hypothetical, senator. What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there? I understand it's a hypothetical, but it's at least possible.

McCAIN: Well, if that scenario evolves, then I think it's obvious that we would have to leave because— if it was an elected government of Iraq— and we've been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government, then I think we would have other challenges, but I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.

Yeahhh....

Anyway, I'm going to watch Maddow tear McCain up on his lies about oil prices... (You see, McCain is blaming Obama for high gas prices because he doesn't support offshore drilling, never mentioning that HE didn't support it either, until his recent flip-flop, and never mentioning that every economist and even Bush acknowledges that drilling out have no effect on gas prices for many many years, and even then it would have no effect. This is a perfect example of how the mainstream media gives McCain a free pass on his absurd lies and distortions, while only a very few, like Maddow, actually set the record straight. This isn't anti-McCain or pro-Obama, it is pro-reality. Sadly most of the media is committed to expunging all reality from their reporting. Oh, and for the record McCain, the price of oil increased nearly 600% since Bush took office, after being relatively flat for decades. Now who is responsible? Furthermore, who supports the exact same policies that led to those skyrocketing oil prices? Here's a hint: It isn't Obama.)

I'll put up some video if I can find it. (Got it:)



Now THAT'S journalism (disregard Howard Fineman's fallacious conventional wisdom about the Surge "working", and once again, read my previous blog on this, because "improvements" in Iraq have next to nothing to do with the Surge). And here's some more journalism:







It is time for MSNBC to get rid of Joe Scarborough or David Gregory and give Rachel Maddow their time spot, because neither of them hold a candle to Maddow, especially Scarborough, he himself is a former Republican congressman, so it is not surprising he is nothing but a Republican shill pumping the GOP propaganda on MSNBC. In fact, be proactive, sign the petition calling for MSNBC to give Maddow her own show!

The Week That Should Have Ended McCain's Presidential Hopes

Check out Max Bergmann's article, "The Week That Should Have Ended McCain's Presidential Hopes" on the Huffington Post, where he lays out the 10 biggest gaffes/screw ups/lies/flip-flops of the last week from McCain, screw ups that should have been plastered all over the news, but weren't, at all, because the media is in love with McCain. You can be sure if some reverend that has ever met Obama (be it Wright, Jesse Jackson or someone else) did any of these things, the media would have looped that crap 24/7 while blasting Obama. When McCain does them himself, nada. It is ridiculous. But definitely check it out, some I've written about on my blog, some I haven't.

Ah yes, here is another gaffe that, while not warranting any real coverage, is pretty funny. You may recall that the media loves to spread a myth that McCain doesn't like to exploit his time as a POW for political gain, which like pretty much everything the media says about McCain, is romanticized garbage. In reality McCain never misses an opportunity to bring it up. He puts it into his ads (his most recent ad might as well just said "vote for me because I was a POW"). He is basically the Rudy Giuliani of "I was a POW". Giuliani was ridiculed for pretty much making every sentence out of a noun, a verb and "9/11". The fact that Giuliani was mayor of New York City when 9/11 happened was the entire basis for his candidacy. Well, McCain is essentially doing the exact same with "POW". McCain can't beat Obama on the issues (because he supports Bush's failed policies that around 4 out of 5 Americans recognize as ruinous), he certainly can't beat McCain on character or ability to inspire and lead. So, he has to bring up the POW thing at every possible opportunity.

Anyway, the funny story, this is what happened today, during one of McCain's attempts to work in the fact he was a POW into a sentence:

Asked what first comes to his mind when he thinks of Pittsburgh, McCain chuckled, "the Steelers. I was a mediocre high school athlete but I loved and adored the sports but the Steelers really made a huge impression on me particularly in my early years."

And then McCain told a rather moving story about his time as a P.O.W. "When I was first interrogated and really had to give some information because of the pressures, physical pressures on me, I named the starting lineup, defensive line of the Pittsburgh Steelers as my squadron mates."

"Did you really?" asked the reporter.

"Yes," McCain said.

"In your POW camp?" asked the reporter.

"Yes," McCain said.

"Could you do it today?" asked the reporter.

"No, unfortunately," McCain said.

Awww, isn't that nice? Too bad it is a big fat lie. Not only did he lie about it once, he managed to lie about it three times, first when he said it, another time when asked if that was really true, and a third time when asked where it all went down. Do you know why we know it is a lie? Because he talks about his POW experience at every possible opportunity, including this very story, only every other time he told it and wasn't in Pittsburgh, the football team he used was the Green Bay Packers. So McCain either flat out lied to an audience and reporters three times, just to make them like him (and so he could remind everyone he was a POW), or he seriously had no idea which team her used, even though he has repeated the same story over and over again, and even wrote the story in his book. I'm gonna say he is a big fat liar, because that isn't something you mess up after you tell it a hundred times.

And another thing is funny, which I don't think anyone else has mentioned, but McCain is basically acknowledging that information gained through torture is not reliable, because people will tell you complete bullshit to make you stop hurting them. Maybe he should consider that next time he votes with Bush to make torture legal.

NBC's David Gregory is apparently taking the media's love affair with McCain to a whole new level. Despite all of McCain's recent gaffes/screw ups/lies/flip-flops, and despite the fact that Obama is kicking his ass in every poll, David Gregory poses this question: "Is the sheen off the Barack Obama candidacy?" Are you serious???!!! We don't question what is wrong with McCain's campaign, we question Obama's?? AAHHHHH!!!! What a hack...a total embarrassment...

Fox News' Quest To Demonize Michelle Obama

Brave New Films had a new video highlighting Fox News' attempts to demonize Michelle Obama, in order to take down Barack Obama, and not without a fair bit of subtle and not-so-subtle racism:



Also, please recall when McCain said he didn't love America for 31 years, and no one cared.

And as far as "Obama's Baby Mama" goes, refer to my previous blog.

The Media Hearts McCain

Here is an article about the media's sick love affair with John McCain, the love affair that causes them to look the other way while he flip-flops, pushes extreme right-wing policies, lies, and gets the facts wrong, again and again:

Loving John McCain
by Eric Alterman & George Zornick, The Nation

McCain's (Demographic) Women Problem, And Where's The Media?

There has been much hype in the media about Obama's non-existent "problem" with women, despite polls showing that women favor Obama over John McCain by large margins, and despite the fact that Obama is doing better among women than John Kerry did in 2004. In the end the primary battle did nothing to hurt Obama among women, yet the media, always looking for an excuse to hype a non-issue into a ratings grabber, has consistently brought up the "problem" on purpose, just like the consistently tried to make Obama out to have a "Latino problem" (when none existed), or a "white blue collar worker problem", when none existed there either. The media is either completely ignorant, or willfully deceptive to get higher ratings, and I'm guessing the latter.

Anyway, while the media has gone out of their way to try to label the first black presidential candidate as having some sort of demographic problem, they have been completely ignoring McCain's actual demographic problems, among women, Latinos, blacks, educated people, and various income groups. Today the San Francisco Chronicle has a story about how McCain even has a problem among Republican women, many of whom are switching over to support Obama. Here are some examples of what women are saying about McCain:

"I cannot see a more counterproductive candidate for women," said Jillian Manus-Salzman, a leading California Republican activist and generous GOP donor in the nation's most populous state, an ATM for presidential campaigns. "I cannot vote for McCain."

Susan Eisenhower - granddaughter of former GOP President Dwight Eisenhower and a Washington, D.C.-based expert on foreign policy and national security issues - said Wednesday she is backing Obama over McCain because the Democrat has shown more understanding of how the Iraq war, the economy and other key issues affect women's daily lives. "The war issue is a strong one ... as lower-income, middle-American families are taking a disproportionate share of the burden. ... It really touches the lives of women who are left behind while their husbands are deployed overseas and families who have lost a loved one."

And Harriet Stinson, the 82-year-old founder of Bay Area-based Republicans for Choice, said that - after 60 years of Republican registration - she has finally reregistered as a Democrat.

"I couldn't take it anymore," she said, arguing that on issues like funding birth control and support of sex education, McCain "couldn't be worse."

"If he overturns Roe v. Wade, what criminal penalties would he propose?" she said. "He's had a terrible record (on reproductive rights). He's zero, he couldn't be any worse ...he's all against big government, and he wants big government ... to get involved in the most private decision women can make. And a lot of women have no clue on how he is on this."

[...]

"Hillary supporters will find tremendous common ground with Barack Obama," said Malcolm, a Clinton backer. "He believes what they believe. John McCain believes what George Bush believes."

Stinson said GOP women must ask critical questions of their candidate.

"If McCain is so against abortion," she asks, "why does he oppose all the measures needed to reduce the need for it - making insurance companies cover contraceptives, federal funding for birth control and comprehensive sex education?"

[...]

Manus-Salzman said she hasn't yet endorsed Obama, but she will not be surprised if Republican women begin writing checks and openly expressing their support.

"I would have had a hard time selling Republican women on Hillary Clinton," she said. "But selling Republican women on Barack Obama is a whole different story."

"They don't see him as a partisan," she said. "My instinct, as a woman, is that this is a truly special person who respects women, who will listen to our voice and use women to rejuvenate and resurrect this country."

"I cannot vote for McCain. I cannot ...we don't want to be perceived as a one-issue vote. But in this case, the Supreme Court is in play, medical advancements are in play ...to ignore his positions ... and simply say, 'We're going to agree to disagree?' " I don't think we can do that."

Yes, John McCain has REAL demographic problems, but the media doesn't like to make it look that way, while they go out of their way to make up problems for Obama. Why do you think that is? Something tells me if he was a white male, we wouldn't be seeing the media spending so much time trying to paint him as inherently disadvantaged among so many groups, even when he clearly isn't. Is it that hard for the media to believe that a black man can be acceptable to so many different groups?

Flip-Flop McCain And Where's The Media?

It looks like John McCain's propensity for flip-flopping is finally being noticed by some in the MSM, it took them long enough. It still probably won't go anywhere, but it is good that someone at least noticed it, so the idea is out there now. Check it out here.

Of course the media doesn't much care about the issues or even important campaign developments, because they are still working overtime to try to sensationalize and hype up some non-issue to smear Obama with. Like CNN right now keeps hyping up a story about an overcautious Obama volunteer who told two women wearing Muslim headscarfs that they couldn't sit behind Obama because they were afraid of the Republicans taking advantage of it. Only CNN isn't saying it was a volunteer, they are leaving that part out and making it sound like it was straight from the official Obama campaign, even though Obama's campaign firmly denounced it:

It is offensive and counter to Obama's commitment to bring Americans together and simply not the kind of campaign we run. We sincerely apologize for this behavior.

And then Obama called the two women to apologize personally, and they forgave him. Yet still the sensationalized story aimed at creating a nonexistent controversy surrounding Obama, even though he had NOTHING to do with it. If anything the story should be why these volunteers had to worry so much about the GOP trying to use two people among a mass of people sitting behind Obama to attack Obama with "Obama is a Muslim" smears. The fact that they were that worried about something like that happening should tell us that there is a big problem with the GOP, and bigotry in this country. Yes, they were wrong to do what they did, and they overreacted, but they weren't doing it because they hate Muslims, they were worried for Obama because they know how pathetic and shameless the GOP is. Why don't they report on that story?

It's because they love John McCain, and they don't want to say anything bad about him. So instead of reporting on his nonstop flip-flops (with the single exception of the above example) or his support for disastrous policies or his belief that we should be pursuing immoral and unconstitutional policies. No, of course we can't report on that, because the media isn't concerned with informing people, it is concerned with cheap attacks that get ratings. Disgusting.

What A Viral Video Says About McCain's Character

Okay, I'm going to start this post with a naughty word warning:

Warning: Naughty Words!
Do Not Continue If Easily Offended!
Now that that is out of the way, I should make it clear that these aren't my naughty words, they belong to John McCain, and I don't approve of them, and I'm only repeating them here because I don't believe in censorship either. You will find no sugarcoating with cute little ***'s here, nope, I'm going to be true to reality, and serve it up unabridged. So here we go.

Many people are aware that John McCain called his wife, Cindy McCain, perhaps the most offensive (to women), misogynistic word out there, a cunt:

In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain’s hair and said, "You’re getting a little thin up there." McCain’s face reddened, and he responded, "At least I don’t plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt."

Now to those who know about John McCain's character, this should come as no surprise. A) He is NOTORIOUS for his vicious temper, B) He is notorious for his potty mouth, and C) He has repeatedly shown his disrespect for women by repeated cheating on his first wife with many women (including current wife Cindy), and then divorced her after a car accident for a skinnier, much richer wife (again, Cindy).

Now there is a viral video out on the internet which is a critique of the media's silence on this horribly offensive comment coming from a presidential candidate, even though they had an orgy of Obama bashing for nearly two months over a couple out of context sound bites from his former pastor that had absolutely nothing to do with him. So this video has a legitimate point, several actually, but some may find it offensive (because it repeatedly uses McCain's naughty word), or a bit over the top, which it may be for some viewers. I went back and forth with myself over whether or not I'd post about it here, because I wasn't sure if it was too much, but in the end I decided it was fair game, for the following reasons:

• It isn't just sliming McCain for the sake of a cheap attack, it actually has a point, and unlike many right-wing smears against Barack and Michelle Obama, which try to paint them as terrorists or militant angry blacks, this is actually true and has been confirmed by several witnesses.
• It highlights the double standard the media used in attacking Obama over ridiculous guilt-by-association smears, while essentially ignoring ANYTHING negative about McCain, especially his past (while they have picked Obama's apart).
• It highlights a part of McCain that most people don't know about (because again, the MSM doesn't even talk about it), which is his explosive temper. While this shouldn't be a major campaign issue (there are so many more important issues out there), it should at least be known, because having a hothead like McCain in the White House with a history of yelling obscenities at people his disagrees with is a bad idea. We need someone who can calmly negotiate with foreign leaders we disagree with, someone who won't jump to name calling or reckless decisions fueled by rage or hurt pride instead of facts and judgment. Obama has shown himself to be just the kind of leader we need in the White House, but McCain has a long history of having very poor character when it comes to judgment, his temper, and his arrogance. The voters have a right to know more about the person who wants to control the most powerful military in history.
• Women deserve to know, specifically the minority of women who supported Hillary and were angry at her loss, and now intend to spite Obama and the Democratic Party by supporting McCain, even though Hillary lost according to the rules, and there was no unfair treatment, and sexism had nothing to do with her loss. These people deserve to understand more about the person they intend on supporting, they deserve to know the low regard he has shown for women, repeatedly, just as they need to know that he is against reproductive rights for women, and would extend Bush's policies toward limiting choice, and would likely have it in his power, if elected, to overturn Roe v. Wade. Before they rush into supporting him out of spite, they need to be well aware that they are hurting themselves in doing so.

So the video is funny, but is also serious. Many may not get that it is intended to provoke a more serious look at John McCain's character, especially from within the MSM which has had a love affair with him for years now. It is vulgar, but only because McCain's comments were vulgar, and its true purpose is to educate, not just get cheap laughs. And people should also be mindful that "cunt" is a horribly offensive and misogynistic word, and it not OK to use against anyone, especially not your own wife. People made a big deal about some people, generally Republicans, calling Hillary a bitch, and needless to say this word is a lot more offensive than even bitch. It should also be noted that this video has no relation to Obama's campaign, or any fixture of the Democratic Party, unlike the majority of the smears coming from the right-wing, most of which seem to originate from the Tennessee GOP. Anyway, without further ado, the video (do NOT watch this at work without headphones):



Okay, for the weak-hearted, here is the censored version.

And for anyone who doubts that the word "cunt" isn't always resting on the tip of his tongue, watch this.

What The Internet Has Done To Politics

I think we are finally starting to see that the internet has fundamentally changed politics in America forever. In the last couple years we have seen a big wave of Democratic victories around the country, and unlike in past elections it wasn't a one-time event, because we are set to do it again this year, and longterm estimates show us likely picking up even more wins in 2010. A lot of this is thanks to the horrible job Republicans have done running this country for the last eight years, essentially running it into the ground while them and their corporate pals got rich. It's been a real race to the bottom with them. So obviously we would expect to see Democrats gain power as part of the backlash, but I think we are seeing more than just that.

For those of us who have more or less grown up in the age of internet and computers we may be inclined to take such technology and unprecedented access to limitless information for granted, but we need to keep in mind that the technological revolution is an amazing feat for democracy. Never before have we had such easy access to so much information about current events, and past events. Before we had to rely on the mainstream media for current events, so we only got the corporate-filtered news, but in the last few years this has really started to change with the rise of the blogosphere and progressive media alternatives like Huffington Post. Now it is much easier to get REAL information, and as they say, knowledge is power. They can't keep the blinders on us any longer. Sure, many people still only listen to corporate MSM news, but there is an uprising, and enough people are plugging into the internet for their news that a fundamental change in our information intake is inevitable.

The best part is the ease of looking up historical information, and we see the benefits of this every single day in John McCain's campaign. He says one thing or does one thing a couple years, or a couple months ago, and then flip-flops and says something completely different on the campaign trail, and the magic of the internet lets us quickly go back and compare new McCain to old McCain, and the magic of YouTube often lets us juxtapose the two. As recently as 10 years ago that wasn't really possible, at least not like it is today. 20 years ago it would have been impossible without rummaging through archives and libraries and microfiche, and you couldn't just enter a search term, you had to scan it all with your EYES. The things we take for granted nowadays.

Another example, yesterday and today Rudy Giuliani has been running around saying we have to break the Constitution and violate the most sacred tenets of our justice system and American values to effectively fight terrorism, yet through the unprecedented power of the internet we quickly find out that back in the 90s he said that the law was our greatest weapon in the fight against terrorism. And thus Giuliani's hypocrisy and fakery is quickly exposed. Ten years ago that wouldn't have happened, unless someone had happened to remember a certain quote from 15 years earlier, correctly remembered the date, and went to the library to scour for the actual quote through tons of articles. And then what would they do with it? Tell their friends? Call their mom? At most write an op-ed article in the paper, but in the end no one would know about the quote, and even if they were told, they'd have to take the person's word for it. Now, all you have to do is click here for the quote. Now that is the beauty of the internet. And now the quote is flying around the blogosphere, and truth triumphs over lies and hypocrisy where only a decade ago truth wouldn't have stood a chance. Really, stop and think for a moment about what that really means, and how revolutionary such a simple thing is in the context of history. It's amazing.

And every single day McCain or Bush or some other Republican do something that can instantly be mythbusted and exposed for the lie/hypocrisy/distortion it is. Add to that unprecedented access and transparency in things like campaign contributions or government spending (thanks Obama!), and the power, for the first time in history, is with the people. It is clear Bush and McCain and Giuliani and the rest of the Republicans can't win on the issues without deception and lies, and with the advent of the age of internet that is going to be a lot harder to pull off.

I know a lot of this is obvious, but most people don't really stop to ponder it, to really appreciate the opportunity such amazing access to information brings to democracy. It is truly historic, and I really think that the liberation of knowledge is going to change everything, and I think we can already see a lot of those changes taking shape from coast to coast, where people are waking up to the reality that they've been played for fools by the Republicans for decades, and they aren't going to be fooled any longer. Does this mean a permanent end to the power of the Republican Party? Can the Republicans compete with the Democrats in an informed electorate? I don't see how.

Viva la internet! Viva la conocimiento!

Please share your thoughts. Liberae sunt nostrae cogitationes.

NBC's Tim Russert Has Passed Away

[Reposted from MSNBC:]

NBC's Tim Russert dead at 58
Washington bureau chief, ‘Meet the Press’ moderator collapsed on job
BREAKING NEWS
NBC News and MSNBC
updated 3:39 p.m. ET, Fri., June. 13, 2008

WASHINGTON - Tim Russert, NBC News’ Washington bureau chief and the moderator of “Meet the Press,” died Friday after a sudden heart attack at the bureau, NBC News said Friday. He was 58. Russert was recording voiceovers for Sunday’s “Meet the Press” program when he collapsed, the network said. He and his family had recently returned from Italy, where they celebrated the graduation of Russert’s son, Luke, from Boston College. No further details were immediately available.

Russert was best known as host of “Meet the Press,” which he took over in December 1991. Now in its 60th year, “Meet the Press” is the longest-running program in the history of television.

But he was also a vice president of NBC News and head of its overall Washington operations, a nearly round-the-clock presence on NBC and MSNBC on election nights.

He was “one of the premier political journalists and analysts of his time,” Tom Brokaw, the former longtime anchor of “NBC Nightly News,” said in announcing Russert’s death. “This news division will not be the same without his strong, clear voice.”

In 2008, Time Magazine named Russert him one of the 100 most influential people in the world.

Timothy John Russert Jr. was born in Buffalo, N.Y., on May 7, 1950. He was a graduate of Canisius High School, John Carroll University and the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law. He was a member of the bar in New York and the District of Columbia.

Senate staffer before entering journalism

After graduating from law school, Russert went into politics as a staff operative. In 1976, he worked on the Senate campaign of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-N.Y., and in 1982, he worked on Mario Cuomo’s campaign for governor of New York.

Russert joined NBC News in 1984. In April 1985, he supervised the live broadcasts of NBC’s TODAY show from Rome, negotiating and arranging an appearance by Pope John Paul II, a first for American television. In 1986 and 1987, Russert led NBC News’ weeklong broadcasts from South America, Australia and China.

Of his background as a Democratic political operative, Russert said, “My views are not important.”

“Lawrence Spivak, who founded ‘Meet the Press,’ told me before he died that the job of the host is to learn as much as you can about your guest’s positions and take the other side,” he said in a 2007 interview with Time magazine. “And to do that in a persistent and civil way. And that’s what I try to do every Sunday.”

Cuomo, Russert’s onetime boss, wrote of Russert: “Most candidates are not eager to present themselves for Tim’s incisive scrutiny, which is fed by his prodigious study and preparation. But they have little choice: appearing on ‘Meet the Press’ is today as vital to a serious candidate as being properly registered to vote.”

Russert wrote two books — “Big Russ and Me” in 2004 and “Wisdom of Our Fathers” in 2006 — both of which were New York Times best-sellers.

Emmy for Reagan funeral coverage

In 2005, Russert was awarded an Emmy for his role in the coverage of the funeral of President Ronald Reagan. His “Meet the Press” interviews with George W. Bush and Al Gore in 2000 won the Radio and Television Correspondents’ highest honor, the Joan S. Barone Award, and the Annenberg Center’s Walter Cronkite Award.

Russert’s March 2000 interview of Sen. John McCain shared the 2001 Edward R. Murrow Award for Overall Excellence in Television Journalism. He was also the recipient of the John Peter Zenger Award, the American Legion Journalism Award, the Veterans of Foreign Wars News Media Award, the Congressional Medal of Honor Society Journalism Award, the Allen H. Neuharth Award for Excellence in Journalism, the David Brinkley Award for Excellence in Communication and the Catholic Academy for Communication’s Gabriel Award. He was a member of the Broadcasting & Cable Hall of Fame.

Russert was a trustee of the Freedom Forum’s Newseum and a member of the board of directors of the Greater Washington Boys and Girls Club, and America’s Promise — Alliance for Youth.

In 1995, the National Father’s Day Committee named him “Father of the Year,” Parents magazine honored him as “Dream Dad” in 1998, and in 2001 the National Fatherhood Initiative also recognized him as Father of the Year.

Irish America magazine named him one of the top 100 Irish Americans in the country, and he was selected as a Fellow of the Commission of European Communities.

Survivors include Russert’s wife, Maureen Orth, a writer for Vanity Fair magazine, whom he met at the 1976 Democratic National Convention; and their son, Luke.

Check back soon for more on this breaking story.



Tim, just ten days ago, commenting that the media ought to shape up their coverage of elections so we can focus on the important issues:

Desperate Republicans (And Fox News) Give Shameless A Whole New Meaning

We already know that John McCain and the Republicans can't win elections on the issues, at least not honestly. In order to win they have to scare people into voting for them, or they have to construct wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage to play on people's prejudices so they forget about the issues, or they resort to character assassination, swiftboating and smears. As I noted yesterday, Robert Borosage, like many, sees this as inevitable give the Republicans' untenable position on the issues:

In this exchange [the economy], McCain is in trouble. Here, as on Iraq, he is arguing for carrying the Bush agenda forward, while three-quarters of Americans think we're on the wrong course. As Obama puts it, "We have tried it their way for eight long years and it has failed. It is time to try something new. It is time for a change."

We haven't witnessed this clear an ideological division since the 1964 Johnson-Goldwater faceoff. For those who feared Obama couldn't throw a punch, he showed both a good jab and a decent left hook in pounding McCain on the economy. That's why the Republican posse is likely to scorn sparring about policy and turn this election into an alley fight, taking out the knives around patriotism, pastors and race.

There is, in fact, nothing more predictable and despicable than Republicans trying to win elections. Every election year we see the same formula, and this election is no different; if anything it is super-charged. We saw the Obama-is-a-secret-radical-Muslim-cleric-terrorist-islamofascist-Iraqi-Saddam-9/11-9/11-9/11! emails first, full of their ridiculous lies, yet forwarded to nearly every email address in the country, and people are dumb enough to believe that crap. The emails couldn't get any more asinine unless they ended with "Forward this to at least 20 friends in the next 5 minutes or you will suffer 14 years of bad luck and your genitalia will turn black and fall off!" And even then, these same idiots would probably believe it and forward it along, fearing for their genitalia, or perhaps just the prospect of part of them turning negro. Variations of the Obama-is-Muslim or Obama-isn't-American smears, both transparent code for Obama-is-a-nigger-but-that-isn't-okay-to-say-anymore, have flourished on the internet and on fake news channels like Fox, even though the vast majority of Americans know it is nothing but bigoted right-wing smears.

And yet Obama has overcome a year and a half of these smears and innuendo, and won the Democratic primary. But now it is on to the general, and the general population, especially on the conservative side, is much more susceptible to being played for fools than most Democrats, and the stakes are higher than ever. Yet having not been able to find any dirt on Obama, or successfully smear him in any meaningful way, despite a concerted effort by the MSM (orchestrated by Fox News) to conflate Obama with the words of his former pastor for a full two months, even though those comments had absolutely nothing to do with him, the Republicans are going to have to try out new angles.

And so yesterday the LA Times and Maureen Dowd warned of the GOP's next cynical target: Michelle Obama. And as Dowd points out, the smear machine is already pumping:

Now Republicans can turn their full attention to demonizing Michelle Obama. Mrs. Obama is the new, unwilling contestant in Round Two of the sulfurous national game of "Kill the witch."

There are some who think it will be harder for America to accept a black first lady — the national hostess who serenely presides over the White House Christmas festivities and the Easter egg roll — than a black president.

There are creepy Web sites, like TheObamaFile.com, dedicated to painting Michelle as a female version of Jeremiah Wright, an angry black woman, the disgruntled, lecturing "Mrs. Grievance" depicted on the cover of National Review.

On that site and others around the Internet, the seamy rumors still slither that there’s a tape of Michelle denouncing "whitey," a rumor that Barack Obama disdained last week as "scurrilous."

E.D. Hill, the Fox anchor who said that the celebrated fist pump between Michelle and her husband the night he snagged the nomination could be called a "terrorist fist jab," apologized Tuesday.

Back in May the GOP (yes, the official Republican Party) was trying to smear Michelle, and Obama wasn't having any of it:



And I have to agree, attacking Obama's family is definitely not something that will help the GOP, it will undoubtedly backfire completely.

In response to these continuing attacks against Michelle, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin had this to say about people who try to smear and demonize Michelle to score cheap political points on Obama:

Well, I know Michelle. She has been my friend and a friend of my wife for many, many years. She can take it. She can handle herself. She is a very accomplished person. But I will tell you this: the hottest ring in Hell is reserved for those in politics who attack their opponents' families. And if there are some Republican strategists that think that's the way to win the election, I think they are wrong.

I couldn't agree more. But, of course, that hot hot ring of hell is already pretty well stocked with Fox News reporters, as we saw the very same day:




Yeah, that's right, throughout the day they referred to Michelle Obama, the wife of a US Senator, and likely future first lady as Obama's "baby mama". Now, for a little slang lesson from Urban Dictionary (courtesy of Stroszek):

"the mother of a man's child when the parents are not married"

"The mother of one's child. The connotation is that mother and father do not and never did have any relationship beyond being sex partners. Contrast: ex-wife, ex-girlfriend."

"The mother of your child(ren), whom you did not marry and with whom you are not currently involved."

"A term used to define an unmarried young woman (but can be a woman of any age) who has had a child. As mentioned before in another definition, most of the time it is used for when it was simply a sexual relationship, compared to ex-wife or girlfriend. Usually this has a negative connotation, a lot of baby mamas are seen as desperate, gold digging, emotionally starved, shady women who had a baby out of spite or to keep a man. Sometimes they may act like this because of missed child support payments, unfulfilled promises by the father, or convenient sex by the father."

Alright, so Fox News thought it was appropriate to essentially call Michelle Obama (and Barack Obama) a whore. Apparently the people at Fox think Michelle is nothing but the woman Obama accidentally knocked up before moving on. Not only is that horribly sexist (I'd say a hell of a lot more sexist, disrespectful and offensive than anything the media threw at Hillary), but it is racist as hell. Fox News was willfully playing into racial stereotypes of promiscuous African American men and single mothers by disparaging the kind, hard working, good mother and wife of a respectable Senator down to nothing more than some knocked up tramp. Funny that Hillary Clinton was never Bill's "baby mama", or Cindy McCain was never John McCain's "baby mama", or ANY OTHER WIFE COUPLE WITH CHILDREN, yet we have the couple that will most likely be the first black president and first black first lady, and all the sudden she is Obama's baby mama. It is outrageous, shameful, despicable, completely fucked up, for lack of a more appropriate term.

But that's Fox News for you, nothing but sexist, bigoted pieces of shit (so glad Hillary's "feminist" supporters hail Fox News as the best network on TV).

So, in response to all of these smears, Obama's campaign has launched a new website, FightTheSmears.com, which will debunk all of the various smears out there attacking Obama, Michelle, and hell, probably eventually their two daughters, Malia and Sasha.



[And to be clear, as I think we always should be, there is nothing wrong with being Muslim. For better or worse, being a Muslim is no better or worse than being a Christian. You can bitch about them for not believing scientifically proven facts about evolution and the creation of the planet, or about any other attribute shared by all religions, but they shouldn't be demonized or discriminated against just because there are a few radicals out there, because I'm sure Christians or any other group wouldn't want to have to answer for every action taken by fanatics in their faiths. So no, Obama isn't a Muslim, never was, but that isn't to say that being Muslim ought to be seen as an insult.]

Dan Rather Slams The Corporate Media

I'd like to believe something will change, but until we can get some big changes in media ownership rules (i.e. undoing the Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush media deregulation), I don't see how we are going to get a press that actually cares about anything but corporate profits. I guess Olbermann should give me some hope, if only there were more of him. Anyway, here is Dan Rather addressing the 2008 National Conference On Media Reform in Minneapolis on Saturday, where he warned of the dangers of corporate media ownership:



Here's an excerpt:

Now, I have spent my entire life in for-profit news, and I happen to think that it does not have to be this way. I have worked for news owners who, while they may have regarded their news divisions as an occasional irritant, chose to turn that irritant into a pearl of public trust. But today, sadly, it seems that the conglomerates that have control over some of the biggest pieces of this public trust would just as soon spit that irritant out.

So what does this mean for us tonight, and what is to be done?

It means that we need to be on the alert for where, when, and how our news media bows to undue government influence. And you need to let news organizations know, in no uncertain terms, that you won't stand for it...that you, as news consumers, are capable of exerting pressure of your own.

It means that we need to continue to let our government know that, when it comes to media consolidation, enough is enough. Too few voices are dominating, homogenizing, and marginalizing the news. We need to demand that the American people get something in exchange for the use of airwaves that belong, after all, to the people.

It means that we need to ensure that the Internet, where free speech reigns and where journalism does not have to pass through a corporate filter... remains free.

We need to say, loud and clear, that we don't want big corporations enjoying preferred access to - or government acting as the gatekeeper for - this unique platform for independent journalism.

This all was brought on by former Bush Press Secretary Scott McClellan's new book that blasted the media for being so complicit and eating up all of his lies during the administration's drumbeat for the war in Iraq. It created some waves throughout the media, with some, like Katie Couric agreeing that the media was lacking a spine, while others got all huffy puffy defensive and said they were doing their job, even though all the evidence seems to speak to the contrary. With the historic nomination of Barack Obama, it also gave us this epiphany from Tim Russert who, with a youthful gleam in his eye, seemed to recall what journalistic integrity used to mean, and asked, why don't we do a better job? It was a memorable moment:



What you talkin' 'bout Russert? That's craaaazy talk! The media, actually informing people? Actually doing its job? Shocking.

Check out McClellan's interview with Keith Olbermann here.

Update: Watch Bill Moyers at the 2008 National Conference On Media Reform:



Visit Free Press to learn more about media control and join the movement to put media back in the hands of the people!

Jon Stewart On Our Last Election Night For Five Long Months

Last night Jon Stewart hit up the high points and the low points of the final night of the Democratic primary. Highlights include Hillary's masturbatory "Me Me Me" non-concession speech, and juxtaposing her attack on the "biased" media with a dollop of clips of the media back in the day declaring Obama didn't have a chance in hell (special shoutout to Joe Scarborough here, playing the part of ignorant douche so well, as he is accustomed to), and John McCain's painful speech-like thing. The McCain part made me laugh out loud, and it wasn't even at a joke, it was at McCain himself, give it a watch:

Media: Shut Up About The Nightmare Ticket

You know, Senator Barack Obama is about the make history. He is about to officially become the Democratic nominee after a staggering year and a half long primary battle, and at the same time becoming the first African American presidential nominee of a major political party in the history of the United States. But you wouldn't know it by the way the media talks, because for hours they have not shut up about Hillary Clinton and the vice presidency. For an amazing night for Obama, one and a half years in the making, it is shocking how it is ALL about Hillary.

I'm so sick of hearing idiot pundits raise the question of the nightmare ticket, especially when they frame it in a way that assumes Hillary is entitled to the VP spot or in a way that assumes Obama somehow needs her on the ticket to compete in the general. Both are absolutely wrong.

I've said this before, she has no entitlement because there is no consolation prize in the Democratic primary, just like Kerry didn't get a consolation prize for winning over 59 million votes in 2004. Hillary is under the mistaken impression that having 17 million voters vote for her makes her special and entitled to whatever she wants. She is wrong. I was more than tired with her sense of entitlement throughout this entire primary campaign, and it is getting even more disgusting as her supporters and the media go running with this nonsense.

And Obama most certainly doesn't need Hillary to bring in any votes. I just heard asshole Pat Buchanan (why is he allowed on TV?) say that Obama will need Hillary to get her 17 million voters. NO, her supporters are still Democrats, and the vast vast vast majority of them are not controlled by her. She does not speak for them. She can't even hold onto her superdelegates, let alone her voters. The national polls already show Obama gaining huge leads over Hillary, even among her strongest demographic: women. He is even ahead in Latino votes nationally. He wins among the poorly educated now. He wins among low-income voters. He doesn't need Hillary to bring these groups, these are all Democrats, and they will vote for the Democratic nominee (and lets not forget that many of these strengths were padded by Limbaugh Democrats).

So I know I'm going to have to do a long post comprehensively laying out why Hillary would be a HORRIBLE choice for VP. It won't be tonight, but it'll be coming soon, because I'm going to have to get this off my chest, because the media and her supporters obviously aren't going to shut up about this nonsense. [Update: Read my comprehensive breakdown of why we can't have a nightmare ticket here.]

And read about why Richardson is a great choice.

Update: In case you were looking for another one to add to the list, and it will be on my list, remember when Hillary essentially endorsed McCain over Obama, multiple times, saying that McCain was ready to lead the country while Obama isn't? Well now McCain is sending around the video of that to attack Obama, with McCain spokesman adding, "Senator Clinton articulated the fundamental difference between John McCain and Barack Obama as well as anyone." Thanks Hillary, thanks for telling the country that the Republican is better qualified to lead the country than the Democrat. And now we are supposed to accept you as Vice President...?

Update #2: This is telling:

Newsweek's Howard Fineman just said on MSNBC at 8:35pm Eastern that the Clinton campaign is demanding that Hillary be offered the VP position, which she will then decline, and then Fineman quotes the Clinton campaign as saying "don't you dare offer it to another woman." Isn't that special. Apparently, Hillary was only planning on breaking her own personal glass ceiling. For the rest of you, you can break you own.

Like we actually thought it was about women, or anything but herself.

Face Facts With Dignity

Today I opened a fortune cookie, and instead of getting my fortune, I got Hillary's:



That is what she needs to do. She needs to face the facts, let reality seep past her iron barrier of denial, and show some dignity. She needs to start acting like a representative of the people, a leader, not a spoiled child who was never taught the lessons of being a good loser.

Somehow I don't think she is going to take this route (actually, I think leaving with her dignity flew out the door weeks ago, if not months). Here is what her spokesman said today:

"I think its pretty clear that she is not conceding." Elleithee said, "I think its pretty clear that she is staying in this race. She is going, in the coming days, to be aggressively courting uncommitted superdelegates aggressively courting unpledged delegates, making the case to them that she is a candidate best ready to take on John McCain."

When asked directly when Clinton will step aside, Elietthee told reporters, "as she has said dozens and dozens of times she is in this race until we have a nominee...Until there is a nominee she is going to try to win support."

Note the new term "unpledged delegates", who used to be "pledged delegates", who represented the will of the people, the sanctity of the vote she is running around everywhere saying is the great cause of our time, and yet as far as she is concerned pledged delegates are no longer pledged, they are open to stealing, like I wrote months ago, her only plan to the nomination (aside from waiting for Obama to die) is to hijack democracy. Of course that won't happen, which is where the iron barrier of denial comes into play.

And Bill? Today he said, "I want to say also that this may be the last day I'm ever involved in a campaign of this kind." Thank god, no more angry, red-faced, paranoid, lying rants from Bill, it is finally over. Oh, well maybe it isn't quite yet. He apparently wanted to go out with a bang:

"[He's] sleazy," he said referring to Purdum (who recently wrote an unfavorable article about him, sourcing several anonymous Clinton aides). "He's a really dishonest reporter. And one of our guys talked to him . . . And I haven't read [the article]. There's just five or six blatant lies in there. But he's a real slimy guy," the former president said.

When I reminded him that Purdum was married to his former press spokesperson Myers, Clinton was undeterred.

"That's all right-- he's still a scumbag," Clinton said. " Let me tell ya-- he's one of the guys -- he's one of the guys that brought out all those lies about Whitewater to Kenneth Starr. He's just a dishonest guy-- can't help it."

Purdum's piece, featured in this month's edition of Vanity Fair, included former advisers criticizing former President Clinton for bringing negative attention to Hillary Clinton's candidacy and for surrounding himself with friends who might discredit her campaign.

The former President's tirade continued:

"The editor of Esquire-- he sent us an email yesterday and said it was the single sleaziest piece of journalism he'd seen in decades. He said it made him want to go take a shower and he was embarrassed to be a journalist when he read it."

This not being crazy enough, Bill doubled down:

"You know he didn't use a single name, cite a single source in all those things he said. It's just slimy. It's part of the national media's attempt to nail Hillary for Obama. It's the most biased press coverage in history. It's another way of helping Obama. They had all these people standing up in this church cheering, calling Hillary a white racist, and he didn't do anything about it. The first day he said 'Ah, ah, ah well.' Because that's what they do-- he gets other people to slime her. So then they saw the movie they thought this is a great ad for John McCain-- maybe I better quit the church. It's all politics. It's all about the bias of the media for Obama. Don't think anything about it."

"But I'm telling ya, all it's doing is driving her supporters further and further away-- because they know exactly what it is-- this has been the most rigged coverage in modern history-- and the guy ought to be ashamed of himself. But he has no shame. It isn't the first dishonest piece he's written about me or her."

"Anytime you read a story that slimes a public figure with anonymous quotes, it oughta make the bells go off in your head. Because anytime somebody uses those things-- he wrote the story in his head in advance, and he just goes around and tries to find some coward to say whatever they want to say, hoping to get some benefit out of it. It didn't bother me. It shouldn't bother you."

Yes, a vast...left-wing conspiracy against the Clintons, orchestrated by Obama the evil kingpin, who apparently asked a priest semi-associated with his church to say controversial things about Hillary in order to beat her at a game he already had in the bag, at the risk of having the media jump on his ass about his church yet again. Yes, because that makes so much sense, and because that is soooo Obama's M.O. And you'd think if Obama had wanted to make Bill look bad, and if it was in his power, he might have done that, ummmm, a couple months ago when it actually mattered, instead of saving it until he had virtually secured the nomination?? Think Bill, Think.

Yes, and why did the media, if it loooovvveeed Obama so much, spend TWO MONTHS trashing him for crap his former pastor said, which had nothing to do with Obama whatsoever? Why did they spend two months attacking Obama for that while trying to paint with Hillary's talking points about a nonexistent "white problem"? Hell, if that is what it looks like when the media is giving the "most rigged coverage in modern history" in favor of Obama, I imagine "fair and balanced" would be the media waterboarding Obama. Give me a break Bill.

Oh yeah, and did I mention that Bill said he hadn't actually read the article he is freaking out about? Also, the article clearly states that there is no evidence of Bill committing any post-presidential marital indiscretion.

And seriously, a Clinton giving people a lecture on honesty???

So much for leaving with your dignity, Bill.

Update: Having slept on this a bit, I gotta say, this is pretty messed up. Let's step back a few steps and look at the big picture here. We just saw a former US president attack the presidential nominee for his own party, and likely next president, accusing him of orchestrating some covert conspiracy of media attacks against him and his wife, another high profile Democratic politician. That is INSANE! This man held the highest office in the world, and he is running around the country acting like a complete child, leveling baseless and paranoid attacks against a presidential candidate, for his own party. He shames the office of the presidency, as if he hadn't shamed the office enough with his conduct during his administration, he is making it even worse now. I honestly can't even imagine Bush making that big a fool of himself after leaving office. It is just shocking. Bill Clinton is shameless, pathetic, such an angry, sad and petty man. I'm disgusted that he is a representative of my party. He is an embarrassment to all Democrats. A total disgrace.

Obama Resigns From His Chicago Church

In other news, Obama has announced that he is officially leaving his Chicago church, that he hasn't attended in some time and obviously couldn't attend as president. He made the decision after the media went after a sermon that a (white) guest pastor gave a sermon and mocked Hillary's sense of entitlement. It was a stupid thing to do, but obviously had NOTHING to do with Obama, yet the media went after it nevertheless. Obama, saying he didn't want his church to distract from his campaign anymore, and didn't want his church to suffer anymore from negative attention (people have been harassed and some have even received death threats), and he didn't want to have to be held accountable for everything everyone in his church said, just as he didn't want them to be held accountable for his campaign.

It is pretty sad that it has come to this. The media ought to be ashamed.

Here is the video:

Geraldine Ferraro Decries Racism, Against White Americans While Justifying Actual Racism

Geraldine Ferraro is at it yet again. She has taken her bigoted, sexism-baiting roadshow to the Boston Globe, and I'm going to address her ignorant and bigoted comments, yet again.

She starts out with this to frame her argument:

Here we are at the end of the primary season, and the effects of racism and sexism on the campaign have resulted in a split within the Democratic Party that will not be easy to heal before election day. Perhaps it's because neither the Barack Obama campaign nor the media seem to understand what is at the heart of the anger on the part of women who feel that Hillary Clinton was treated unfairly because she is a woman or what is fueling the concern of Reagan Democrats for whom sexism isn't an issue, but reverse racism is.

So, she contends that there are two issues at play in this election, sexism and racism. You may think she is speaking of racism against Obama, but you'd be wrong, she is talking about the magical thing called "reverse racism", which is something you only hear from bigoted conservatives who, not content with simply denying racism exists, take it further by claiming that whites are the true victims of racism, that they are persecuted by the liberals and their affirmative action who have elevated the non-whites so much that they rule everything and now the poor whites are at the bottom of the barrel, treated like second class citizens who can't open their mouths out of fear that the blacks and the liberals will beat them up. This is something you'd expect from Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Pat Buchanan. Watch American History X, watch Derek Vinyard's father talking about "affirmative blacktion" and how whites are on the losing end of some neo-nazi culture war, that is the type of people who make these arguments, and they don't have to drop the N-bomb to convey their bigotry. And yet we are hearing them here from the likes of Geraldine Ferraro. She continues her ranting:

If you're white you can't open your mouth without being accused of being racist. They see Obama's playing the race card throughout the campaign and no one calling him for it as frightening. They're not upset with Obama because he's black; they're upset because they don't expect to be treated fairly because they're white. It's not racism that is driving them, it's racial resentment. And that is enforced because they don't believe he understands them and their problems. That when he said in South Carolina after his victory "Our Time Has Come" they believe he is telling them that their time has passed.

Wow. So where to start? Let's go in order. So first we see that "If you're white you can't open your mouth without being accused of being racist." This is CLASSIC bigoted "reverse-racism" talk. If you are racist, but won't admit you are racist, and you open your mouth and spew racist or bigoted comments, as Ferraro has repeatedly in the past, and people come forward and call it racist or bigoted, this is what they always come back with "If you're white you can't open your mouth without being accused of being racist." Yes, it isn't the fault of the racist, it is the sensitive blacks and those bleeding heart liberals with their affirmative action and political correctness that are ruining things for the whites. The poor persecuted whites can't say anything about Obama without being accused of being racist! OR, maybe a more sane interpretation, perhaps you actually said clearly bigoted and racist things? It's funny that she keeps running into this problem of opening her mouth and being accused of being racist, when no other Hillary surrogates have the same problem. Howard Wolfson is constantly spewing ignorant crap about Obama, but no one to my knowledge has ever accused him of being racist, same goes with 99% of Hillary's surrogates and supporters. So apparently the "If you're white you can't open your mouth without being accused of being racist" excuse is certifiably bankrupt. Perhaps--and I'm just going out on a limb here--perhaps if you open your mouth and bigoted or racist things come out of your mouth, perhaps that is where you are running into a problem Ferraro. Perhaps that is why you constantly have people responding to you in the way they do. Moving to the next part:

They see Obama's playing the race card throughout the campaign and no one calling him for it as frightening.

So here we see an absolutely baseless accusation that Obama has played the race card throughout his campaign, without a SINGLE example, without a SINGLE shred of evidence. You may remember Bill Clinton got some press a few weeks back by making this same baseless accusation, and then when asked about it, he claimed he never said it, even though he said it in a radio interview and the evidence clearly proves that he said it. Neither of them have EVER been able to point to a single example of Obama injecting race into this campaign, indeed Obama has been very very careful to NOT make race an issue in this campaign. The Clinton campaign, on the other hand, has quite the track record of exploiting racism to hurt Obama. No Ferraro, what is frightening here is that you live in this delusional land, and you have no concept of reality, and it makes you relate to the real world in a disjointed, confused manner. You are railing against the media for not having a problem with something that never happened! You are dangerously close to becoming the crazy crackhead on the street screaming at a tree. And it is just a little disconcerting that she can't see any racism in all of the race-baiting that the Clinton campaign pulled, yet she sees racism against whites and sexism against Hillary everywhere she looks, to the point where she has made a personal vendetta out of running around various media outlets attacking Obama and everyone else for nonexistent malfeasance. I think that gives a very striking look at her worldview.

In the following part she is talking about what she calls "Reagan Democrats". Let me preface it though by dispelling this myth of "Reagan Democrats", in the words of another blogger:

There is no such thing as "Reagan Democrats." They are called Republicans. It's been nearly 20 years since Reagan has been in office, and nearly 30 since he's been elected. All the Democrats who followed him have long left the party. The voters she, and the media, may be referring to, tend to be working class whites who are either soft Democrats or independents.

Okay, so here is Ferraro on those elusive "working class whites":

They're not upset with Obama because he's black; they're upset because they don't expect to be treated fairly because they're white. It's not racism that is driving them, it's racial resentment. And that is enforced because they don't believe he understands them and their problems. That when he said in South Carolina after his victory "Our Time Has Come" they believe he is telling them that their time has passed.

Emphasis mine. So I should point out she is running with the tired and disingenuous "white problem" spin from Hillary's campaign. I'll say it again, Obama has no white problem, he has no blue collar worker problem. His big wins in places like Oregon and in the West and Midwest prove this. The exit polls and public opinion polls prove this. There is no "white problem", it is an Appalachian problem, that is to say there is something specific to the Appalachian region which makes uneducated, or undereducated people refuse to vote for Obama, while he often beats Hillary among this demographic in other parts of the country. This missing piece is RACISM. It is bigotry. You can explain it as a result of poor education and socialization, but all the sociology in the world doesn't change the fact that they hold racist and bigoted views. So here we see her defending these people who won't vote for Obama because of his race, she says it isn't racism, it is "racial resentment". She is actually trying to legitimize their bigotry by saying they are validated in feeling resentment toward blacks because of this "reverse racism" she hates so much. She wants to have us believe that they aren't refusing to vote for Obama because he is black, they are doing it because they are resentful of how great the blacks have it, and the fact that they can't open their mouthes without being accused of being racist. Yeah, Ferraro and them have a lot in common it seems. Ferraro is implying that whites aren't treated fairly simply because they are white. Can you believe this woman?? I can't imagine anyone more out of touch with the reality of race in this country. I'd say she is on par with Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh here. It is unbelievable. Whites are the ones discriminated against on the basis of race??? Have you lost your goddamn mind??

It reminds me of when I moved to a large city and I was trying to find a job, and a conservative family member warned me that I wouldn't be able to find a decent job because I'm white. His belief in this "reverse racism", his disdain for political correctness, affirmative action and other examples of "liberal" racial consciousness actually twists things so much in his head that he thinks that I'll be persecuted in the job market because I'm white, and that in the big cities all the best jobs go to the blacks. I actually laughed at his ignorance. He knows n