Barack Hussein Obama

[rabbitproof]

Stop treating UD like he's a Hussein.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Oh, so you guys actually received my string of complaints a while back but just chose to ignore them?

I love when the fox guards the hen house!

All I remember you reporting was the use of british cigarrette, which we handled.

[mary]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Are you telling me there's a correct way I can use the F-word and not get edited?


(the point being that a harmless word draws more attention than a racist post...)

No, I'm telling you that some f-bombs are going to go unnoticed and not be edited.

Deciding to kick the mods in their collective crotches drew attention to your post and I wasn't going to let the f bomb go just to help you make your point.

If you see something that needs attention, feel free to report it.

[rabbitproof]

F Bomb aside,

If a poster decides to reference Josh Howard as BlackMan#5 moving forward, is this going to be ok by the mods?

[rabbitproof]

Or Palin as Titties?

It's embarrassing, man. I tell people I have civil conversations on this forum and gleam insight off them but if I direct them to a thread called "Barrack Hussein Obama", it screams "void of intelligence" and "closet racist". What's the point?

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

Stop treating UD like he's a Hussein.

Kinda ironic phrasing, considering I'm Jewish!

(though I take zero offense, since I'm of the "self-hating" variety...)

[rabbitproof]

Haha, just an ironic joke to point out we (as a society) have different rules for different people.

BTW, what's Dirk's middle name and why isn't it on a thread title yet?

EDIT:
Luckily, we only have ONE thread with "Barack Hussein Obama" on the site to prove that it is a simple misunderstanding by one person and not some sort of mass agenda to treat someone differently solely on the basis of where they come from.

Errr, wait.

[mary]

So you're saying some of the threads in the political forum are not intelligent discussions??

Well there's a big "effing" newsflash right there.

Cripes, we're not babysitters.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by mary

So you're saying some of the threads in the political forum are not intelligent discussions??

Well there's a big "effing" newsflash right there. .

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to mary again."

That's easy to agree with...

[jthig32]

So...wait. Do you agree with Mary?

Look, no one wanted to delete the second "Hussein" titled thread more than me.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by jthig32

So...wait. Do you agree with Mary?

Look, no one wanted to delete the second "Hussein" titled thread more than me.

That's good to hear (though I'm not surprised, considering you've never led me to believe you're a racist...)

And I do agree with Mary - the Political Forum is almost comical in it's ignorance (I mean, half the links come from left or right-wing conspiracy websites and nobody seems to have an opinion of their OWN - they're friggin' quote factories!)

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Are you telling me there's a correct way I can use the F-word and not get edited?

I went to fcuk today... for a new shirt.

[Underdog]

And I'm not accusing the mods (any of you) of supporting racism, but I certainly do see it "slide" a lot more than f-bombs... I'm just wondering aloud which should be a higher priority for censorship - dangerous ideas or harmless words (because they certainly ain't droppin' "f-bombs" out in Israel/Palestine!)

[dalmations202]

I can take just about anything and conclude to my agenda that it was a racist remark.

Everyone called W -- Dubya like he was/is some backwards racist hick -- but that wasn't really the point. I could elect to take serious offense to it and call most of the posters (including myself) a racist and use this to defend myself. Or is it concluded that racist remarks can only be made to a minority group? I just don't understand it.

Hussein is only a racist insult -- if you elect to see it as that. I see it as his middle name.

Why does everything have to be racist or sexist?

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

I can take just about anything and conclude to my agenda that it was a racist remark.

Everyone called W -- Dubya like he was/is some backwards racist hick -- but that wasn't really the point. I could elect to take serious offense to it and call most of the posters (including myself) a racist and use this to defend myself. Or is it concluded that racist remarks can only be made to a minority group? I just don't understand it.

Hussein is only a racist insult -- if you elect to see it as that. I see it as his middle name.

Why does everything have to be racist or sexist?

The person who sparked this conversation has repeatedly asserted a connection between Obama and a "Muslim conspiracy" - it's not my perception so much as it is his intention (and he's made no secret of it...)

I'm not trying to make a big deal out of "nothing" here - I'm not black, I don't come from a family that was in this country when slavery existed, and I'm not voting for Obama or McCain... So, what's my agenda? (other than calling-out racists, which isn't so much an "agenda" as it is a result of being raised to love my fellow man...)

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Underdog

The person who sparked this conversation has repeatedly asserted a connection between Obama and a "Muslim conspiracy" - it's not my perception so much as it is his intention (and he's made no secret of it...)

I'm not trying to make a big deal out of "nothing" here - I'm not black, I don't come from a family that was in this country when slavery existed, and I'm not voting for Obama or McCain... So, what's my agenda? (other than calling-out racists, which isn't so much an "agenda" as it is a result of being raised to love my fellow man...)

Sorry UD,

It wasn't meant for you personally, or your posts.

I was commenting on the overall tone of the thread, and how I have been around and dealt with racism -- non-racism all my life.

I have found that anything can be offensive to some people -- when they want it to be, and nothing can offend them if they don't want to take it that way. It is all in the eye of the beholder.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Sorry UD,

It wasn't meant for you personally, or your posts.

I was commenting on the overall tone of the thread, and how I have been around and dealt with racism -- non-racism all my life.

I have found that anything can be offensive to some people -- when they want it to be, and nothing can offend them if they don't want to take it that way. It is all in the eye of the beholder.

Gotcha - I can't disagree with anything you just said...

(also, I tend to make the same goof you just did by addressing the entire thread in a response to a particular person - no harm, no foul!)

[Dirkadirkastan]

It's pretty obvious to me why the "Hussein" was put in the thread title.

One popular political smear tactic is to state an objective and unequivocal truth that has no consequence whatsoever, unless the reader (usually the other side) implies a second meaning that might be offensive. In this case, the poster can claim Hussein is just the middle name, so any implications regarding Saddam/Muslim background/whatever can be held against the defensive reader. ("I didn't say that, YOU did...")

[Murphy3]

It's also pretty obvious that there's at least a significant chance that Obama has believed in some rather scary things at some point in his life when you consider his connections. I suppose it all could be nothing more than a coincidence... Or, what if it's not? I could never vote for the guy knowing that there's a decent chance that he's thinks along the same line as some of the nuts that he has been associated with at one time or another.. Plus, when you throw in the fact that he likes to abort living children... well, that more than seals the deal.

I suppose you could also throw in the fact that the guy doesn't hasn't really done anything of note throughout his political career once elected. But hey, America wants change.. even if the change means they're electing something like Obama.

[rabbitproof]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

I can take just about anything and conclude to my agenda that it was a racist remark.

Everyone called W -- Dubya like he was/is some backwards racist hick -- but that wasn't really the point. I could elect to take serious offense to it and call most of the posters (including myself) a racist and use this to defend myself. Or is it concluded that racist remarks can only be made to a minority group? I just don't understand it.

Hussein is only a racist insult -- if you elect to see it as that. I see it as his middle name.

Why does everything have to be racist or sexist?

I thought the W thing existed because "President George Bush" often isn't specific enough.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

I thought the W thing existed because "President George Bush" often isn't specific enough.

He's referring to "Dubya"

[rabbitproof]

Got you.

While there's logic in what dalmations202 says (we form our own reality), it doesn't excuse the reality that sometimes the different treatment of individuals is caused by prejudice.

[Mavdog]

what is obvious (besides the hollow charge of obama believing "in some rather scary things")? that there are many people who have a problem with other people who don't look and act like them.

it's not surprising, but a bit disappointing, that there is still an undercurrent of racism in this campaign. our society has been dominated by wasp men for so long that doesn't change overnight. and believe me, having a non-white man as president would be a huge change.

that is not to say that there isn't racism in reverse, people being held down for so long is bound to result in bitterness and anger by those afflicted. that is not meant to condone it, but to understand its genesis.

what I do see is that our country has come such a long way, has acheived such an admirable level of equality for the most part, that we as americans should be proud. to look back at just a half century ago and have those institutions change so dramatically in a couple of generations is quite an accomplishment.

yet we have way to go, and the current war against islamic extremism provides some people with a justification for discrimination. it's pretty common for that affect to occur in a time of conflict, it's darn easy to hate a group of people when some of those people are guilty of crimes against our country.

yet we must reject that urge, we must call out those who use the wedge to divide us. our country is better than that.

[mary]

This is "somewhat" OT.

One time in college I knew a guy named "Mohammed Hussein". He was from Iraq.

Now, I don't mind telling you that I was raised in a area that was NOT particularly diversified. And there was a time and a place that I might've avoided any and all "Mohammed Hussein's".

Mohammed and I were in the same graduate program. One semester he offered to help me with my finance class (he had the class the previous semester). And so, on his own free time, without asking for anything in return, he helped me get through that class.

Once I got shed myself of my prejudices, I never cared once what his name was, where he was from, or what his religion was. Over time, its become clear to me that people can be "good" even if they are wholly different from myself. Mohammed Hussein was one of the many people that helped me learn that lesson.

That's all I got.

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by Underdog

And I'm not accusing the mods (any of you) of supporting racism, but I certainly do see it "slide" a lot more than f-bombs... I'm just wondering aloud which should be a higher priority for censorship - dangerous ideas or harmless words (because they certainly ain't droppin' "f-bombs" out in Israel/Palestine!)

The problem is that 'Dangerous Ideas' become subject to personal interpretations.

An F-bomb is pretty clear.

What you believe is a Dangerous Idea may be vastly different than what someone else sees as a Dangerous Idea...where does it end and when does it begin.

At least with F-Bombs, we can all agree on what that actually is.

Somewhere there must be a standard to keep things civilized, the use of certain words is a clear boundary.

As for Dangerous Ideas...Some people believe that the comments that Rush Limbaugh made regarding Donovan McNabb is dangerous. While others believe it was simply a person pointing out the problem with some in society and other media members.

What's Dangers? The thought that society and some media is racist or the thought that Rush is racist? Which one do you believe?

Is Obama racist? how's that for dangerous...or are those against Obama racist?

Who's going to be the judge?

When someone speaks in favor of Obama are they independant thinkers, or sheep following the chosen one?

When someone speaks out in favor of McCain are they independant thinkers, or sheep following more of the same?

Go ahead, disagree...just what are you disagreeing with?

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

The problem is that 'Dangerous Ideas' become subject to personal interpretations.

An F-bomb is pretty clear.

What you believe is a Dangerous Idea may be vastly different than what someone else sees as a Dangerous Idea...where does it end and when does it begin.

At least with F-Bombs, we can all agree on what that actually is.

Somewhere there must be a standard to keep things civilized, the use of certain words is a clear boundary.

As for Dangerous Ideas...Some people believe that the comments that Rush Limbaugh made regarding Donovan McNabb is dangerous. While others believe it was simply a person pointing out the problem with some in society and other media members.

What's Dangers? The thought that society and some media is racist or the thought that Rush is racist? Which one do you believe?

Is Obama racist? how's that for dangerous...or are those against Obama racist?

Who's going to be the judge?

When someone speaks in favor of Obama are they independant thinkers, or sheep following the chosen one?

When someone speaks out in favor of McCain are they independant thinkers, or sheep following more of the same?

Go ahead, disagree...just what are you disagreeing with?

How many more times are you going to bring up Limbaugh/McNabb to defend yourself as a racist???

Also, I'm not an Obama or McCain supporter, so I'm not sure what the hell the rest of your rant was about...




This 92bDad message was brought to you by:


IT'S A HELL OF A DRUG!

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by Underdog

How many more times are you going to bring up Limbaugh/McNabb to defend yourself as a racist???

Also, I'm not an Obama or McCain supporter, so I'm not sure what the hell the rest of your rant was about...




This 92bDad message was brought to you by:


IT'S A HELL OF A DRUG!

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Underdog again.

[dude1394]

Ah those acquantances for the democrats, the salt of the earth I tell ya'.

ONE of the "bundlers" who has raised $50,000 to $100,000 for the Barack Obama presidential campaign is Terrence Bean, who once controlled the biggest producer of gay porn in America.

Bean, the first gay on Sen. Obama's National Finance Committee, is the sole trustee of the Charles M. Holmes Foundation, which owned Falcon Studios, Jock Studios and Mustang Studios, the producers of about $10 million worth of all-male pornography a year.

[dude1394]

So Rezko and Ayers launced Barack's political career. Boy talk about being spawned by rats.
Ah those democrat "patriots". Don't do drugs and don't vote democrat.

CHICAGO - Jailed political fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko, the Chicago real estate developer who helped launch Barack Obama on his political career, is whispering secrets to federal prosecutors about corruption in Illinois and the political fallout could be explosive.
ADVERTISEMENT

Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich, whose administration faces multiple federal investigations over how it handed out jobs and money with advice from Rezko, is considered the most vulnerable.

[rabbitproof]

And for the second time in three days, a speaker at a Republican rally invoked Obama's middle name, Hussein, in an apparent attempt to feed lingering fears about the Democrat's background.

Lehigh County Republican Chairman Bill Platt twice used Obama's middle name before McCain and Palin arrived at the campaign stop in the town of Bethlehem. The campaign quickly issued a statement saying it did not condone "this inappropriate rhetoric."

McCain has called the use of Obama's middle name both improper and inappropriate and once apologized after a supporter warming up a rally used it. Hussein is a common name in Muslim cultures and its use in the campaign is seen as an effort to link Obama to radical Islam even though he is a Christian. Obama's father was a Muslim from Kenya.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10...ldnt-say-face/

[dude1394]

Let's see.

Hussein was mentored by an american hating reverand for almost 20 years. Very reminiscent of radical islamic political views.
Hussein tried to give islamic terrorists iraq and legislate a war defeat for america. And still feels we should have lost that engagement.
Hussein is the most liberal, socialistic, european candidate in our history.
Hussien's political career was launched by a domestic terrorist.

Tough s***. It appears that Hussein moniker for his politics than Washington or Jefferson would be.

[rabbitproof]

You're embarrassing yourself, man.

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf6YKOkfFsE

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

So Rezko and Ayers launced Barack's political career. Boy talk about being spawned by rats.
Ah those democrat "patriots". Don't do drugs and don't vote democrat.

gee, you must have missed the references to obama in the story.....oh, they say that obama is NOT being implicated?

Obama fundraiser, convicted of fraud, spills beans
By MIKE ROBINSON

Jailed political fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko, the Chicago real estate developer who helped launch Barack Obama on his political career, is whispering secrets to federal prosecutors about corruption in Illinois and the political fallout could be explosive.

Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich, whose administration faces multiple federal investigations over how it handed out jobs and money with advice from Rezko, is considered the most vulnerable.

Rezko also was friendly with Obama -- offering him a job when he finished law school, funding his earliest political campaigns and purchasing a lot next to his house. But based on the known facts, charges so far and testimony at Rezko's trial, there's no indication there'll be a so-called "October surprise" that could hurt the Democratic presidential nominee -- even though Rezko says prosecutors are pressing him for dirt about Obama.

"I think this strikes fear into the Blagojevich administration and the Statehouse Democrats but not into the Obama campaign," says state Sen. Kirk Dillard, R-Westmont, a John McCain delegate to the GOP convention but an old friend of Obama.

Rezko, 53, a real estate developer, was convicted in June of scheming to use his clout with the Blagojevich administration to squeeze $7 million in kickbacks out of a contractor and seven money management firms seeking to do business with the state.

Within two months, Rezko was seen in U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald's office, along with his attorneys.

There has been no official confirmation that Rezko is talking but his sentencing has been postponed indefinitely and both sides say they are going to "engage in discussions that could affect their sentencing postures."

"They never would have delayed the sentencing if he weren't talking -- it's proof positive," said Jay Stewart, executive director of the Better Government Association of Chicago.

In addition, attorneys say federal investigators have been questioning Blagojevich contributions around the state using information that only Rezko could have supplied. Finally, courthouse personnel requesting anonymity because grand jury probes are secret said Rezko has been repeatedly brought from his cell to the U.S. attorney's office to talk to prosecutors.

Rezko could have a lot to tell. He has raised millions of dollars in campaign money for many Illinois politicians and according to federal prosecutors used his clout to control appointments to state boards.

Obama has sent to charity $159,000 that Rezko raised for his campaigns for the state legislature, the House and the Senate. Rezko raised nothing for Obama's White House run.

Obama's name came up in testimony at the trial four times, twice in connection with an obscure legislative memo, as a guest at a Rezko party and when defense attorney Joseph Duffy told jurors his client was a friend of the senator.

None of the witnesses accused the Democratic nominee for president of doing anything improper. In June, Duffy told the Chicago Tribune that prosecutors had not asked him a single question about Obama.

But questions concerning Obama's relationship with Rezko linger, particularly over Rezko's role in the purchase of the Obamas' home.

The two have known each other for years, starting when Rezko offered Obama a job after he graduated from Harvard Law School in 1991. Obama didn't take it, but a friendship developed.

The men talked politics frequently and occasionally dined together with their wives.

In 2005, the Obamas paid $1.65 million for their home near the University of Chicago. The sellers wanted a parcel they owned next door to sell on the same day, and Rezko's wife, Rita, was the buyer. At the request of the Obamas, Mrs. Rezko later sold them a 10-foot strip of land to enlarge their lot. They paid $104,500.

The deal took place while Rezko was under investigation and when details of the cozy relationship surfaced, Obama said it was a "bonehead" error to have asked for the additional land because it looked like he was getting a favor.

"I regret it," Obama said at the time. "I'm going to make sure that from this point on I don't even come close to the line."

McCain and vice running mate Sarah Palin have mentioned Rezko little if at all. But Republicans have aired a television ad focusing on Rezko. And McCain aides have repeatedly tweaked their opponent over the real estate deal in e-mails to reporters.

"We're delighted to have a debate on judgment with Barack Obama, who bought his million-dollar mansion in a shady deal with a convicted felon," McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said in August.

Blagojevich, meanwhile, got a black eye from the trial.

One witness testified that Blagojevich talked about hiring him for a major state job while his $25,000 donation to the governor's campaign fund was lying on the table.

Two attorneys testified that Blagojevich hinted that they could get lucrative state contracts if they raised money -- possibly for a future White House campaign.

Obama's name has not surfaced in accounts of the investigation since the trial. But Rezko himself raised it in a letter to the judge months ago.

"Your Honor, the prosecutors have been overzealous in pursuing a crime that never happened," he wrote. "They are pressuring me to tell them the wrong things that I supposedly know about Gov. Blagojevich and Sen. Barack Obama."

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

You're embarrassing yourself, man.

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf6YKOkfFsE

So be it....The dude cast his vote imo and it wasn't with his country.

[Mavdog]

exposed, and it's not very pretty for the republicans.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Terrorist Barack Hussein Obama
By FRANK RICH
IF you think way back to the start of this marathon campaign, back when it seemed preposterous that any black man could be a serious presidential contender, then you remember the biggest fear about Barack Obama: a crazy person might take a shot at him.

Some voters told reporters that they didn’t want Obama to run, let alone win, should his very presence unleash the demons who have stalked America from Lincoln to King. After consultation with Congress, Michael Chertoff, the homeland security secretary, gave Obama a Secret Service detail earlier than any presidential candidate in our history — in May 2007, some eight months before the first Democratic primaries.

“I’ve got the best protection in the world, so stop worrying,” Obama reassured his supporters. Eventually the country got conditioned to his appearing in large arenas without incident (though I confess that the first loud burst of fireworks at the end of his convention stadium speech gave me a start). In America, nothing does succeed like success. The fear receded.

Until now. At McCain-Palin rallies, the raucous and insistent cries of “Treason!” and “Terrorist!” and “Kill him!” and “Off with his head!” as well as the uninhibited slinging of racial epithets, are actually something new in a campaign that has seen almost every conceivable twist. They are alarms. Doing nothing is not an option.

All’s fair in politics. John McCain and Sarah Palin have every right to bring up William Ayers, even if his connection to Obama is minor, even if Ayers’s Weather Underground history dates back to Obama’s childhood, even if establishment Republicans and Democrats alike have collaborated with the present-day Ayers in educational reform. But it’s not just the old Joe McCarthyesque guilt-by-association game, however spurious, that’s going on here. Don’t for an instant believe the many mindlessly “even-handed” journalists who keep saying that the McCain campaign’s use of Ayers is the moral or political equivalent of the Obama campaign’s hammering on Charles Keating.

What makes them different, and what has pumped up the Weimar-like rage at McCain-Palin rallies, is the violent escalation in rhetoric, especially (though not exclusively) by Palin. Obama “launched his political career in the living room of a domestic terrorist.” He is “palling around with terrorists” (note the plural noun). Obama is “not a man who sees America the way you and I see America.” Wielding a wildly out-of-context Obama quote, Palin slurs him as an enemy of American troops.

By the time McCain asks the crowd “Who is the real Barack Obama?” it’s no surprise that someone cries out “Terrorist!” The rhetorical conflation of Obama with terrorism is complete. It is stoked further by the repeated invocation of Obama’s middle name by surrogates introducing McCain and Palin at these rallies. This sleight of hand at once synchronizes with the poisonous Obama-is-a-Muslim e-mail blasts and shifts the brand of terrorism from Ayers’s Vietnam-era variety to the radical Islamic threats of today.

That’s a far cry from simply accusing Obama of being a guilty-by-association radical leftist. Obama is being branded as a potential killer and an accessory to past attempts at murder. “Barack Obama’s friend tried to kill my family” was how a McCain press release last week packaged the remembrance of a Weather Underground incident from 1970 — when Obama was 8.

We all know what punishment fits the crime of murder, or even potential murder, if the security of post-9/11 America is at stake. We all know how self-appointed “patriotic” martyrs always justify taking the law into their own hands.

Obama can hardly be held accountable for Ayers’s behavior 40 years ago, but at least McCain and Palin can try to take some responsibility for the behavior of their own supporters in 2008. What’s troubling here is not only the candidates’ loose inflammatory talk but also their refusal to step in promptly and strongly when someone responds to it with bloodthirsty threats in a crowded arena. Joe Biden had it exactly right when he expressed concern last week that “a leading American politician who might be vice president of the United States would not just stop midsentence and turn and condemn that.” To stay silent is to pour gas on the fires.

It wasn’t always thus with McCain. In February he loudly disassociated himself from a speaker who brayed “Barack Hussein Obama” when introducing him at a rally in Ohio. Now McCain either backpedals with tardy, pro forma expressions of respect for his opponent or lets second-tier campaign underlings release boilerplate disavowals after ugly incidents like the chilling Jim Crow-era flashback last week when a Florida sheriff ranted about “Barack Hussein Obama” at a Palin rally while in full uniform.

From the start, there have always been two separate but equal questions about race in this election. Is there still enough racism in America to prevent a black man from being elected president no matter what? And, will Republicans play the race card? The jury is out on the first question until Nov. 4. But we now have the unambiguous answer to the second: Yes.

McCain, who is no racist, turned to this desperate strategy only as Obama started to pull ahead. The tone was set at the Republican convention, with Rudy Giuliani’s mocking dismissal of Obama as an “only in America” affirmative-action baby. We also learned then that the McCain campaign had recruited as a Palin handler none other than Tucker Eskew, the South Carolina consultant who had worked for George W. Bush in the notorious 2000 G.O.P. primary battle where the McCains and their adopted Bangladeshi daughter were slimed by vicious racist rumors.

No less disconcerting was a still-unexplained passage of Palin’s convention speech: Her use of an unattributed quote praising small-town America (as opposed to, say, Chicago and its community organizers) from Westbrook Pegler, the mid-century Hearst columnist famous for his anti-Semitism, racism and violent rhetorical excess. After an assassin tried to kill F.D.R. at a Florida rally and murdered Chicago’s mayor instead in 1933, Pegler wrote that it was “regrettable that Giuseppe Zangara shot the wrong man.” In the ’60s, Pegler had a wish for Bobby Kennedy: “Some white patriot of the Southern tier will spatter his spoonful of brains in public premises before the snow falls.”

This is the writer who found his way into a speech by a potential vice president at a national political convention. It’s astonishing there’s been no demand for a public accounting from the McCain campaign. Imagine if Obama had quoted a Black Panther or Louis Farrakhan — or William Ayers — in Denver.

The operatives who would have Palin quote Pegler have been at it ever since. A key indicator came two weeks after the convention, when the McCain campaign ran its first ad tying Obama to the mortgage giant Fannie Mae. Rather than make its case by using a legitimate link between Fannie and Obama (or other Democratic leaders), the McCain forces chose a former Fannie executive who had no real tie to Obama or his campaign but did have a black face that could dominate the ad’s visuals.

There are no black faces high in the McCain hierarchy to object to these tactics. There hasn’t been a single black Republican governor, senator or House member in six years. This is a campaign where Palin can repeatedly declare that Alaska is “a microcosm of America” without anyone even wondering how that might be so for a state whose tiny black and Hispanic populations are each roughly one-third the national average. There are indeed so few people of color at McCain events that a black senior writer from The Tallahassee Democrat was mistakenly ejected by the Secret Service from a campaign rally in Panama City in August, even though he was standing with other reporters and showed his credentials. His only apparent infraction was to look glaringly out of place.

Could the old racial politics still be determinative? I’ve long been skeptical of the incessant press prognostications (and liberal panic) that this election will be decided by racist white men in the Rust Belt. Now even the dimmest bloviators have figured out that Americans are riveted by the color green, not black — as in money, not energy. Voters are looking for a leader who might help rescue them, not a reckless gambler whose lurching responses to the economic meltdown (a campaign “suspension,” a mortgage-buyout stunt that changes daily) are as unhinged as his wanderings around the debate stage.

To see how fast the tide is moving, just look at North Carolina. On July 4 this year — the day that the godfather of modern G.O.P. racial politics, Jesse Helms, died — The Charlotte Observer reported that strategists of both parties agreed Obama’s chances to win the state fell “between slim and none.” Today, as Charlotte reels from the implosion of Wachovia, the McCain-Obama race is a dead heat in North Carolina and Helms’s Republican successor in the Senate, Elizabeth Dole, is looking like a goner.

But we’re not at Election Day yet, and if voters are to have their final say, both America and Obama have to get there safely. The McCain campaign has crossed the line between tough negative campaigning and inciting vigilantism, and each day the mob howls louder. The onus is on the man who says he puts his country first to call off the dogs, pit bulls and otherwise.

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

exposed, and it's not very pretty for the republicans.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Terrorist Barack Hussein Obama
By FRANK RICH
IF you think way back to the start of this marathon campaign, back when it seemed preposterous that any black man could be a serious presidential contender, then you remember the biggest fear about Barack Obama: a crazy person might take a shot at him.

Some voters told reporters that they didn’t want Obama to run, let alone win, should his very presence unleash the demons who have stalked America from Lincoln to King. After consultation with Congress, Michael Chertoff, the homeland security secretary, gave Obama a Secret Service detail earlier than any presidential candidate in our history — in May 2007, some eight months before the first Democratic primaries.

“I’ve got the best protection in the world, so stop worrying,” Obama reassured his supporters. Eventually the country got conditioned to his appearing in large arenas without incident (though I confess that the first loud burst of fireworks at the end of his convention stadium speech gave me a start). In America, nothing does succeed like success. The fear receded.

Until now. At McCain-Palin rallies, the raucous and insistent cries of “Treason!” and “Terrorist!” and “Kill him!” and “Off with his head!” as well as the uninhibited slinging of racial epithets, are actually something new in a campaign that has seen almost every conceivable twist. They are alarms. Doing nothing is not an option.

All’s fair in politics. John McCain and Sarah Palin have every right to bring up William Ayers, even if his connection to Obama is minor, even if Ayers’s Weather Underground history dates back to Obama’s childhood, even if establishment Republicans and Democrats alike have collaborated with the present-day Ayers in educational reform. But it’s not just the old Joe McCarthyesque guilt-by-association game, however spurious, that’s going on here. Don’t for an instant believe the many mindlessly “even-handed” journalists who keep saying that the McCain campaign’s use of Ayers is the moral or political equivalent of the Obama campaign’s hammering on Charles Keating.

What makes them different, and what has pumped up the Weimar-like rage at McCain-Palin rallies, is the violent escalation in rhetoric, especially (though not exclusively) by Palin. Obama “launched his political career in the living room of a domestic terrorist.” He is “palling around with terrorists” (note the plural noun). Obama is “not a man who sees America the way you and I see America.” Wielding a wildly out-of-context Obama quote, Palin slurs him as an enemy of American troops.

By the time McCain asks the crowd “Who is the real Barack Obama?” it’s no surprise that someone cries out “Terrorist!” The rhetorical conflation of Obama with terrorism is complete. It is stoked further by the repeated invocation of Obama’s middle name by surrogates introducing McCain and Palin at these rallies. This sleight of hand at once synchronizes with the poisonous Obama-is-a-Muslim e-mail blasts and shifts the brand of terrorism from Ayers’s Vietnam-era variety to the radical Islamic threats of today.

That’s a far cry from simply accusing Obama of being a guilty-by-association radical leftist. Obama is being branded as a potential killer and an accessory to past attempts at murder. “Barack Obama’s friend tried to kill my family” was how a McCain press release last week packaged the remembrance of a Weather Underground incident from 1970 — when Obama was 8.

We all know what punishment fits the crime of murder, or even potential murder, if the security of post-9/11 America is at stake. We all know how self-appointed “patriotic” martyrs always justify taking the law into their own hands.

Obama can hardly be held accountable for Ayers’s behavior 40 years ago, but at least McCain and Palin can try to take some responsibility for the behavior of their own supporters in 2008. What’s troubling here is not only the candidates’ loose inflammatory talk but also their refusal to step in promptly and strongly when someone responds to it with bloodthirsty threats in a crowded arena. Joe Biden had it exactly right when he expressed concern last week that “a leading American politician who might be vice president of the United States would not just stop midsentence and turn and condemn that.” To stay silent is to pour gas on the fires.

It wasn’t always thus with McCain. In February he loudly disassociated himself from a speaker who brayed “Barack Hussein Obama” when introducing him at a rally in Ohio. Now McCain either backpedals with tardy, pro forma expressions of respect for his opponent or lets second-tier campaign underlings release boilerplate disavowals after ugly incidents like the chilling Jim Crow-era flashback last week when a Florida sheriff ranted about “Barack Hussein Obama” at a Palin rally while in full uniform.

From the start, there have always been two separate but equal questions about race in this election. Is there still enough racism in America to prevent a black man from being elected president no matter what? And, will Republicans play the race card? The jury is out on the first question until Nov. 4. But we now have the unambiguous answer to the second: Yes.

McCain, who is no racist, turned to this desperate strategy only as Obama started to pull ahead. The tone was set at the Republican convention, with Rudy Giuliani’s mocking dismissal of Obama as an “only in America” affirmative-action baby. We also learned then that the McCain campaign had recruited as a Palin handler none other than Tucker Eskew, the South Carolina consultant who had worked for George W. Bush in the notorious 2000 G.O.P. primary battle where the McCains and their adopted Bangladeshi daughter were slimed by vicious racist rumors.

No less disconcerting was a still-unexplained passage of Palin’s convention speech: Her use of an unattributed quote praising small-town America (as opposed to, say, Chicago and its community organizers) from Westbrook Pegler, the mid-century Hearst columnist famous for his anti-Semitism, racism and violent rhetorical excess. After an assassin tried to kill F.D.R. at a Florida rally and murdered Chicago’s mayor instead in 1933, Pegler wrote that it was “regrettable that Giuseppe Zangara shot the wrong man.” In the ’60s, Pegler had a wish for Bobby Kennedy: “Some white patriot of the Southern tier will spatter his spoonful of brains in public premises before the snow falls.”

This is the writer who found his way into a speech by a potential vice president at a national political convention. It’s astonishing there’s been no demand for a public accounting from the McCain campaign. Imagine if Obama had quoted a Black Panther or Louis Farrakhan — or William Ayers — in Denver.

The operatives who would have Palin quote Pegler have been at it ever since. A key indicator came two weeks after the convention, when the McCain campaign ran its first ad tying Obama to the mortgage giant Fannie Mae. Rather than make its case by using a legitimate link between Fannie and Obama (or other Democratic leaders), the McCain forces chose a former Fannie executive who had no real tie to Obama or his campaign but did have a black face that could dominate the ad’s visuals.

There are no black faces high in the McCain hierarchy to object to these tactics. There hasn’t been a single black Republican governor, senator or House member in six years. This is a campaign where Palin can repeatedly declare that Alaska is “a microcosm of America” without anyone even wondering how that might be so for a state whose tiny black and Hispanic populations are each roughly one-third the national average. There are indeed so few people of color at McCain events that a black senior writer from The Tallahassee Democrat was mistakenly ejected by the Secret Service from a campaign rally in Panama City in August, even though he was standing with other reporters and showed his credentials. His only apparent infraction was to look glaringly out of place.

Could the old racial politics still be determinative? I’ve long been skeptical of the incessant press prognostications (and liberal panic) that this election will be decided by racist white men in the Rust Belt. Now even the dimmest bloviators have figured out that Americans are riveted by the color green, not black — as in money, not energy. Voters are looking for a leader who might help rescue them, not a reckless gambler whose lurching responses to the economic meltdown (a campaign “suspension,” a mortgage-buyout stunt that changes daily) are as unhinged as his wanderings around the debate stage.

To see how fast the tide is moving, just look at North Carolina. On July 4 this year — the day that the godfather of modern G.O.P. racial politics, Jesse Helms, died — The Charlotte Observer reported that strategists of both parties agreed Obama’s chances to win the state fell “between slim and none.” Today, as Charlotte reels from the implosion of Wachovia, the McCain-Obama race is a dead heat in North Carolina and Helms’s Republican successor in the Senate, Elizabeth Dole, is looking like a goner.

But we’re not at Election Day yet, and if voters are to have their final say, both America and Obama have to get there safely. The McCain campaign has crossed the line between tough negative campaigning and inciting vigilantism, and each day the mob howls louder. The onus is on the man who says he puts his country first to call off the dogs, pit bulls and otherwise.

Great, Great post with this article...I have said this all along, I see it with the media, I hear it and I read it (Especially here). I know who is playing the race card, I will just call you out as you play it. I am not overreacting with this here, it is in plain sight. This article has said exactly what I have said, and even the bit about what if Obama did the same thing to McCain? Would it be accepted? NO, NO, NO!!! It would be his undoing, and Obama and his camp knows that. McCain and his camp have went too far, and now it is totally about the race of Obama. But, I do think this is making it harder for McCain to win, because there are so many young voters, minorities and whites that are ready for change, and hear Obama loud and clear. McCain hopes he can bring out that racist side of his fellow whites and invoke fear (Like Bush) and get the votes he needs. Could this work? Yes! If it does, will this turn back the hands of time? YES! But, GOD forbid I hope not.

[Underdog]

Great article, Mavdog...

The worst part is that Palin could have denounced the shouts of "kill him!" right then and there and come across as the "bigger man" - she squandered an opportunity to take the high road on a very touchy subject (and that's NOT how you win over undecided voters in America!)

[rabbitproof]

"OFF WITH HIS HEAD!"

Lol. Wtf?

I know McCain is old but the crowds are really get medieval with it.

[Usually Lurkin]

violent escalation in rhetoric, especially (though not exclusively) by Palin.

violent escalation. Ha.
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/12...y-insane-rage/

Not exclusive to Palin. What an understatement.

[Mavdog]

you don't see the difference between people such as madonna and sandra bernhardt, and the mccain/palin campaign itself?

only a very partisan viewpoint would equate the two.

not so subtle efforts by the mccain/palin camaign itself that legitimize these attacks is the issue, not the unaffiliated fringe people such as malkin refers.

very ironic of course as malkin herself is guilty of disseminating some of these baseless accusations about obama as well as deranged attacks on michelle obama. it's baffling she acts like she is innocent when, after she brings gasoline and matches to the party, a fire breaks out that burns down the house.