People-Powered Progressive Politics. Covering NYC & The Nation.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Shuster adds to MSNBC bias reputation
On tonight's Hardball, David Shuster showed us why MSNBC is quickly earning a reputation for being a left-wing version of the Fox News Channel. MSNBC has been quite hostile to Hillary Clinton and her supporters all throughout the campaign. Even Obama supporters have admitted that there is clearly a bias at the network and an obvious adoration of Sen. Obama.
Tonight Shuster did his best not to disappoint loyal Obama supporters by being completely hostile to Will Bower and PUMA Pac's Darragh Murphy. At different points in the interview, Shuster was either laughing at them or being extremely snarky. He sarcastically shot back at Murphy, "Alright let's vote against him because he was in Hawaii." When Bower pointed out Obama's flip-flopping, Shuster sharply defended him, "but that's the standard Will" and went on to list past McCain flip-flops. He clearly looked like an Obama surrogate and closed with an incredibly presumptuous statement for a reporter; "Well, I think most Democrats would disagree with you, and I think even most Republicans would disagree with you." What a pompous ass-hole.
Shuster continued his unfair attack by pointing out that PUMA has only raised $50k, as if that meant they did not have support. If they had no support, why have them on the show? Why so angry David? He clearly is unaware that PUMA is a grassroots effort and not some San Francisco millionaire's club.
Whether you're for Obama or not, you have to understand that MSNBC invited Bower and Murphy on the show. Since when did Hardball turn into The Bill O'Reilly Show? I think a little more objectivity was called for here. Of course, Shuster has always had an axe to grind against the Clinton's. Especially after getting suspended in February, 2007 for whining about the way Chelsea was being used during the campaign and complained that Hillary was "pimping out" Chelsea (as seen above). Classy, huh? So it's no wonder he seized on the opportunity to be totally hostile to Hillary supporters.
Between Patti Solis Doyle and Bill "Judas" Richardson, I can't help but notice that the Obama camp is not exactly stacked with the most loyal people in the world. Just wondering how much trouble Obama has to be in before they turn on him. Or maybe some hotshot will come out of nowhere in 4 years and challenge Obama, if he's in fact the president. Let's stay tuned to see how quick they jump ship.
Get used to saying it because the Democrats have just chosen the wrong nominee. Obama will not win in November. Not unless him and his supporters do some major damage control with Clinton supporters, which would mean reaching out to them in a way they seem incapable of.
The Obama supporters who think Clinton played dirty, haven't seen anything yet. Obama's empty record will finally be in the spotlight. He will have to be much clearer on how he intends to bring change, especially to the voters in middle and rural America. He will now have to puth forth credible, detailed plans rather than rely on lofty themes and buzz words. Good plans, what a concept!
There are already millions of Clinton supporters who have vowed not to vote for Obama. Some of them will not vote for him even if Hillary is on the ticket. There has been too much damage done by his surrogates, his supporters, the media and himself. Obama has a lot of work to do to win over Clinton's army. Whatever he does now will probably be received as disingenuous and way too late.
McCain has some work to do as well. If he can recapture the same spirit of his 2000 campaign then it will be no contest. This is doubtful. He's alligned himself to Bush way too many times since then. However, if he can win over many of Clinton's supporters and enough of the more conservative independents, he will be our next president.
If Hillary is picked as Obama's running mate, then it's hard to see how he loses. However, I hope to God she doesn't choose to go this route if she is offered the spot. I think there are better opportunities ahead for her, and she would be far more effective in a different role.
So for all the pundits and Obama supporters trashing Hillary for not conceding tonight, I say, fuck off already and get used to saying it, "President McCain."
"Why is it that of all the wonderful Catholic priests in the Chicago Archdiocese, Obama long ago chose Pfleger to hang with?" Catholic League President Bill Donohue said in a statement. "Truth be known, Pfleger has a very troubling history."
“Senator Obama says he wants to bring people together. Then why does he choose as his clerical friends people like Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Father Pfleger?" Donohue also said. "They are two peas in a pod, both equally divisive, separated only by the color of their skin.”
The job of uniting the Democratic Party after a long and divisive primary season just got tougher, thanks to yet another Chicago Christian leader who's a longtime friend and associate of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has rejected the comments of another controversial pastor who sharply mocked his Democratic nomination rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. (Reuters/Getty Images)Precisely at the time when Obama's camp needs to be building bridges to supporters of New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, the Rev. Michael Pfleger, who's known Obama for about 20 years, took to the pulpit of Obama's church Sunday and ridiculed Clinton, using racially divisive language.
The timing could not be worse.
The Democratic National Committee's rules and bylaws committee will meet Saturday to hash out how to deal with the delegations of Florida and Michigan, which are going to be punished for ignoring party rules and holding early primaries.
Clinton supporters plan on staging protests, insisting that the committee count the votes as cast, even though no candidate campaigned in either state and Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan.
But hanging over the Saturday meeting will be the mocking comments made by Pfleger from the same Chicago pulpit that Obama's pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, used racially inflammatory language about America to Obama's regret.
Obama was forced to say Thursday he was "deeply disappointed" by Pfleger's pulpit performance in which he mocked Clinton by pretending to bawl after saying she was "entitled" to the nomination because she was white and Bill Clinton's wife.
"There's a black man stealing my show," Pfleger wailed in his mock Clinton voice.
Pfleger quickly followed Obama's statement with his own apology, but the Clinton camp was not mollified.
"This is going to hurt Obama's efforts right now to bring the party together coming out of the primaries Tuesday," ABC's chief political correspondent George Stephanopoulos said today on "Good Morning America."
"The feelings between Clinton supporters and Obama supporters are rubbed very, very raw. This makes that worse," Stephanopoulos said.
The folks at MSNBC should take a look at this video before they do one of their disingenuous, defensive self-analysis that they do every now and then, after they get called on their bias. How about all talking heads, like Anderson Cooper, that got all defensive about what Bill said lately? I'd like to have him and Blitzer strapped downed and forced to look at this.
The pro-Obama case against MSNBC's pro-Obama political coverage
Dangerous Liaison Even Obama supporters admit there's a pro-Obama bias at MSNBC. Their reputation is finally becoming mainstream.
And this was only the latest example of the network's undeniable Obama favoritism. David Shuster's comment about the Clintons' "pimping out" their daughter, Chelsea, was clearly boneheaded, but, as Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson pointed out, it caused such a stir among Clintonites because it highlighted the rest of the network's anti-Hillary coverage. Now, that's not to say that their slant has been bad for business; to the contrary. And it has certainly made for some enjoyable television--Matthews is often supremely engaging (who, after all, does not enjoy watching someone exclaim that seeing Obama speak gives him a "thrill going up my leg"), and however withering he can be, Olbermann is frequently hilarious. But the network's coverage has helped create a bubble around Obama supporters that in the end is neither healthy nor desirable.
In fact, MSNBC's bias has actually hurt the Illinois senator. After all, it was the Obama cheerleading from MSNBC (among others) that helped lead to Clinton's New Hampshire comeback. And even if you think (as I do) that the Clintons have made too big of a deal out of the "sexist" and "unfair" portrayal their candidate has received in the press, if you watch enough MSNBC, you realize that their claim isn't without truth. How could you believe otherwise when Olbermann, with his trademark hauteur, told Hillary that "voluntarily or inadvertently, you are still awash in this filth [of the campaign]," or when Matthews took such self-evident glee in trouncing Clinton in between the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary? Similarly now, by mocking Clinton's decision to stay in the race, Olbermann has only bolstered her argument that "the boys" are trying to push her out. And finally, on a number of primary nights, but most notably in Pennsylvania and Ohio/Texas, MSNBC has become so excited by early exit polls that it has raised expectations that Obama ultimately could not live up to.
The problem here is that when supposedly "straight" news anchors phrase questions in leading ways, and report one campaign's spin as if it were fact, it distorts what is actually going on in the campaign--even for those of us who make a living obsessing over and writing about politics. And when anchormen themselves shill for Obama, the distinction between his talking points and the truth grows even blurrier still. So, as much as I find MSNBC entertaining, their creation of a parallel, pro-Obama universe is the type of thing I'd expect of Fox. That's when I know it's time to change the channel.
Isaac Chotiner is a frequent contributor to The New Republic.
Great clip from today's Hardball. Joan Walsh takes on Chris Matthews and Joe Madison and warns Obama supporters about possible backlash of their demonizing of the Clintons and confirms the involvement of the Obama campain in pushing this story.
I'm looking at my Google page and this is about the only story on the page that is not bashing Hillary and actually takes the time to put things in their proper perspective.
I'm looking at a tvr'd "Meet the Press" right now and the Hillary bashing continues with a panel basically dedicating this episode as a "How Hillary Lost" show. There's Maureen Dowd telling us that the calls of sexism by the Hillary side are "poppycock;" Doris Kearns Goodwin ending a thought with "or God forbid what this thought suggested." The only moderate voice seemed to come from Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post who said she "would differ a little bit from some of the people around the table who thought this was intentional."
If you go to the page of the TPM YouTube video, you will see the most hateful, vitriolic, vile comments against Hillary to date. It's so obvious that the Obama side, who is fixated on thrusting the final dagger in the Clinton campaign, is not interested in anything the Clinton supporters have to bring to party. They really feel they can win without us. For me, this weekend is the final straw. I've finally decided that I will not be voting for Obama if he is the nominee. I've been on the fence for quite a while on what to to if he was the nominee, but the Obama side and the media have, just pushed me over. I'm still not sure if I can find myself voting for a Republican but I will either be staying home or writing in Hillary's name if she is not the nominee.
The consequences could be stark if McCain wins. However, in the case Hillary is not the nominee, I think it would be better to lose the presidency than to lend legitimacy to the wing of this party that finds it OK to disenfranchise millions of voters to win, and finds it OK to use a sexist, biased media as a weapon against a fellow Dem. They apparently are OK with swift-boating fellow Dems and the left-wing blogs like Daily Kos, with their juvenile, vile community, is OK with not only lifting their preferred candidate but destroying the opposing Democrat. The left-wing blogoshere, which has spent the last eight years complaining about right-wing tactics, is guilty of behaving in the same manner. For those of you who will no doubt point to NO QUARTER, I say that this is just one site who is just reacting to these tactics and their resentment stems from, to a large degree, the lack of substance from Obama and the vitriolic attacks of his supporters toward Sen. Clinton and her supporters. Most of this is defensive as opposed to what Obama supporters have managed to do, destroy the the original "inevitable" candidate.
I'm not OK with being forced to follow the "it" crowd; a fashion statement. I'd rather lose and pick my battles with McCain than be told to follow a candidate or face "race riots" as Michelle Bernard said on MSNBC on 5/19/08. I'm not OK with being told I'm a racist because I'm not following the "black candidate" after it took months for that community to even consider him black.
I'm not OK with the media choosing our candidate. I'm not OK with Donna Brazile asking me for money on behalf of the party, when she's done her best to promote her candidate with her "undeclared" support, while also, doing her best to "send a message" and make sure Florida voters pay the maximum price for what Florida Republican politicians created.
This party, which started this campaign with an embarrassment of riches, has exposed their sores and is now infected.
The signature defect of modern political journalism is that it has shredded the ideal of proportionality.
Important stories, sometimes the product of months of serious reporting, that in an earlier era would have captured the attention of the entire political-media community and even redirected the course of a presidential campaign, these days can disappear with barely a whisper.
Trivial stories—the kind that are tailor-made for forwarding to your brother-in-law or college roommate with a wisecracking note at the top—can dominate the campaign narrative for days.
Who can guess what stories will cause the media machine to rev up its hype jets?
Actually, I have gotten pretty good at guessing which ones will. So have many of my colleagues and a generation of political operatives.
This weekend’s uproar over Hillary Clinton invoking the assassination of Robert Kennedy as rationale for continuing her presidential campaign is an especially vivid example of modern journalism as hyperkinetic child—overstimulated by speed and hunger for a head-turning angle that will draw an audience.
The truth about what Clinton said—and any fair-minded appraisal of what she meant—was entirely beside the point.
Her comment was news by any standard. But it was only big news when wrested from context and set aflame by a news media more concerned with being interesting and provocative than in being relevant or serious. Thus, the story made the front page of the New York Times, was the lead story of the Washington Post, and got prominent treatment on the evening news on ABC, CBS, and NBC.
It would be a big story if Clinton said something like this: “Hey, I know it looks bad for me now. But, think about it. Obama could get shot and I’d get to be the nominee after all.”
It is a small story if Clinton said something like this: “Everyone talks like May is incredibly late, but by historical standards it is not. Think of all the famous milestones in presidential races that have taken place during June.”
It seems pretty obvious that the latter is what Clinton meant, and not too far from what she actually said. It was not surprising that the Argus Leader’s executive editor, Randall Beck, put out a statement saying, “Her reference to Mr. Kennedy’s assassination appeared to focus on the time line of his primary candidacy and not the assassination itself.”
Gloating, unshackled sexism of the ugliest kind has been shamelessly peddled by the US media, which - sooner rather than later, I fear - will have to account for their sins.
History, I suspect, will look back on the past six months as an example of America going through one of its collectively deranged episodes - rather like Prohibition from 1920-33, or McCarthyism some 30 years later. This time it is gloating, unshackled sexism of the ugliest kind. It has been shamelessly peddled by the US media, which - sooner rather than later, I fear - will have to account for their sins. The chief victim has been Senator Hillary Clinton, but the ramifications could be hugely harmful for America and the world.
I am no particular fan of Clinton. Nor, I think, would friends and colleagues accuse me of being racist. But it is quite inconceivable that any leading male presidential candidate would be treated with such hatred and scorn as Clinton has been. What other senator and serious White House contender would be likened by National Public Radio's political editor, Ken Rudin, to the demoniac, knife-wielding stalker played by Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction? Or described as "a fucking whore" by Randi Rhodes, one of the foremost personalities of the supposedly liberal Air America? Would Carl Bernstein (of Woodward and Bernstein fame) ever publicly declare his disgust about a male candidate's "thick ankles"? Could anybody have envisaged that a website set up specifically to oppose any other candidate would be called Citizens United Not Timid? (We do not need an acronym for that.)
I will come to the reasons why I fear such unabashed misogyny in the US media could lead, ironically, to dreadful racial unrest. "All men are created equal," Thomas Jefferson famously proclaimed in 1776. That equality, though, was not extended to women, who did not even get the vote until 1920, two years after (some) British women. The US still has less gender equality in politics than Britain, too. Just 16 of America's 100 US senators are women and the ratio in the House (71 out of 435) is much the same. It is nonetheless pointless to argue whether sexism or racism is the greater evil: America has a peculiarly wicked record of racist subjugation, which has resulted in its racism being driven deep underground. It festers there, ready to explode again in some unpredictable way.
To compensate meantime, I suspect, sexism has been allowed to take its place as a form of discrimination that is now openly acceptable. "How do we beat the bitch?" a woman asked Senator John McCain, this year's Republican presidential nominee, at a Republican rally last November. To his shame, McCain did not rebuke the questioner but joined in the laughter. Had his supporter asked "How do we beat the nigger?" and McCain reacted in the same way, however, his presidential hopes would deservedly have gone up in smoke. "Iron my shirt," is considered amusing heckling of Clinton. "Shine my shoes," rightly, would be hideously unacceptable if yelled at Obama.
Soon after the 2004 election, after spending so much time, energy and money supporting John Kerry's failed bid, I remember being outraged by some remarks made by the the founder and CEO of the DLC, Al From. From, who is infamous for his centrist and hawkish policies, said in March 2005, “You’ve got to reject Michael Moore and the MoveOn crowd.” From added “rank-and-file Democrats ‘are more like us than MoveOn,’ which [Al] From called a group of ‘elites, people who sit in their basements all the time and play on their computers.’” (NBC’s “First Read,” 3/1/05)
I myself was a MoveOn member, and I guess I still am, although I haven't participated in any of their events in quite a while. So at the time, I took great offense to these remarks, and it seemed he was suggesting that the party needed to move toward the right if it ever wanted to win an election again.
I can't help but think that From's remarks have come to mind several times during the current Democratic campaign. Now I'm not saying that From was correct, but the vigorous support and vitriol shown by Obama supporters and the media which seems to now be overtly gushing over the junior senator from IL, have made things a little clearer. It's quite obvious that there is a rift in the party.
Obama supporters on blogs like Daily Kos, 527's like MoveOn and his supporters throughout the media would have you believe that Clinton supporters are all dumb, white racists and/or feminists. The many Clinton supporters I've met while campaigning are far from being dumb or racist. In fact, many of her supporters admire the work she's done over the years on civil and human rights and her collaborations with African-American and Latino leaders. Many of her supporters didn't even start out this campaign against Obama. They just felt he wasn't ready for the job and that Clinton was ready and much more experienced. After all, if Obama does become president, America will have chosen somebody who's last complete term was as a state senator.
Some of Hillary's supporters didn't start out supporting her. As their preferred candidates finally left the race, they were faced with a decision. I for one started out as an Edwards supporter. One thing that stuck in my mind from the beginning was how Hillary performed during the debates. She just seemed so much more experienced, so much more in control and her answers were always very detailed. It also became very obvious that the media was in Obama's corner. When the piling on started with pundits like Keith Olbermann making it a mission to bring Hillary down, then seeing the ugly diaries and comments at sites that claim to be for all Dems, and when Edwards finally decided to leave the race, the choice became clear for me.
Clinton supporters are passionate for sure. As they began to express their support online, in forums and blogs, they were met with a ferocious wave of disdain from fellow Democrats. The Obama supporters were so furious that many Clinton supporters found it necessary to seek out other places they would be welcome.
So if there is a Clinton wing of the party, I would say they range from being liberal to more moderate, just left-of-center Dems. Clinton liberals can be those with traditional progressive values who feel she is the best person to champion causes like universal health care, the rights of labor, immigrants, gays and despite her 2002 vote, they feel she is the best person to get us out of the war in Iraq. Clinton moderates feel she would be the strongest leader and be the best person on issues like national defense, the fight on terrorism and the security of the nation.
On the other hand, although I don't agree with From's past statements, there is an element in the party that sees itself as entitled. They are ultra-partisan and don't feel the party should be tolerant of any part of the country that is even a fraction to the right of them. They realize that there will be more conservative Dems, in areas where there are a majority of Republicans and will even campaign for them, but they won't let them into their conversations or clubs; they won't let them speak for the party. If they had their way there would only be one party and everybody would be as vile, snarky and liberal as they are. Sounds like a mirror-image of right-wing republicans.
So here lies the danger. If Obama wins, this wing of the party will surely dominate. How will Obama unite the country as he says he can, when his supporters are unwilling to compromise and are not even tolerant of the more moderate views within their own party? And before you reply with comments about how divisive Hillary is and polls showing her supporters are unwilling to support Obama if he's the nominee, remember that she didn't start the attacks. She was very civil and withstood constant attacks from the other candidates early in the race. In fact, I remember one line vividly from the Las Vegas debate: “They're not attacking me because I'm a woman,” she said. “They're attacking me because I'm ahead.” This is from Politico's coverage (which hasn't always been friendly to Sen. Clinton) of that debate:
LAS VEGAS – New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton responded to weeks of increasing criticism from her rivals at a debate here Thursday night with a rhetorical show of force of her own.
She accused former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards of “throwing mud” and said Illinois Sen. Barack Obama is being too modest in his plans for health care and too aggressive in aiming to raise Social Security taxes.
Clinton was cheered — and her rivals' criticisms were, at times, booed — by an unusually raucous crowd made up of students, labor union members and Democratic activists at the University of Nevada Las Vegas.
Clinton supporters have to stay relevant. We have to show the blogs and the pundits that we do count and that bias and sexism will never be tolerated. The most obvious way to do this would be to not support Obama. Without us, he may never get his hands on the prize. However, to be able to make this statement, is it really worth the alternative outcome? I'm not sure that McCain doesn't keep us in the war and maybe start a new one. Universal health care will be out the window. So how will I vote if Obama is the nominee? I'm still not sure. For me, the choice will not be as relevant as I will be voting in NJ this year. I can't see either Dem losing here. But for many of you, a tough decision is pending. I also know for others I've spoken to, the decision will be very easy because you've already decided that there is no way you will vote for Obama, and as long as it's not based of race, I respect that decision.
There is another way we can show our unity and strength. We should start looking toward local races where we can make a difference. We should seek out candidates that share Sen. Clinton's values and show our support. For me, one candidate in particular comes to mind. His name is Steve Harrison from New York's 13th congressional district. I'm sure many of you have heard of the recent troubles of the incumbent Republican Vito Fossella, NYC's only Republican Congressperson.
This seat is clearly up for grabs. My good friend Steve Harrison ran against Fossella in 2006 and received an unprecedented 43% even though he was heavily under-funded and outspent 13:1. Despite promises from the DCCC that they would step in, they never did. This year could be different. He has already received endorsements from DFNYC, the NY Times, Progressive Democrats of America and National Peace Action. "We found that Mr. Harrison would bring to Congress an intelligent and educated approach to the real security of this country based on international cooperation, respect for human rights, and diplomacy," said Peace Action NY State Chair, Sally Jones. "Among the positions taken by Mr. Harrison that garnered him the support of Peace Action is his opposition to the Bush war policy that is destroying the American economy and driving down living standards."
Harrison wants the country to approach our energy problems with the same vigor and national resolve as we did putting a man on the moon. He feels that in a decade we should be free from foreign and domestic fossil fuel dependance.
Steve is also for single-payer universal medical coverage for all Americans. He opposes the war in Iraq and calls for the immediate withdrawal of forces, consistent with our troops' safety. As of the 2006 election, Fossella had voted with Bush administration policies an incredible 91% of the time.
Hillary played a big part in Steve's campaign in 2006, including robocalls from her and Bill. However, the help came too late in the race. With more name recognition this year and more support from people like us, we can get Steve to DC.
I know everybody is tapped out from helping Hillary, but a nominee will be chosen soon. Whether or not it's the person we want is a different matter. However, it would be great to show we can keep this coalition together and actually make a difference. We can send a strong message to the media by supporting candidates that share Hillary's vision and values. This will also help put her in a much stronger position if she decides to run again in four years. Think how many more superdelegates she can win if we are the ones to help put them in that position (unless they become like Bill "Judas" Richardson, kidding).
So whether you can spare $5 now or later on after the convention, I urge you to my ActBlue page and show a little love.
If you can't give anything right now, I would love for you to go to Steve's site at SteveHarrisonforcongress.com and let him know that Marc from Blue Spot sent you and that Hillary supporters have his back.
A month ago, the editors of the Utica (N.Y.) Observer-Dispatch saw a sudden spike in Web readership for stories about the Rev. William Procanick, pastor of a local church who had been convicted of sexually abusing a child.
A story about Procanick was the upstate New York newspaper's No. 1 story in April, with 10 times the readership of the second-highest story. The paper's editors wouldn't expect such a story to generate so much interest, but Procanick's church was in a little-known town with a well-known name: Clinton.
In headlines and stories, Procanick was identified simply as "Clinton pastor."
For some supporters of Barack Obama, including one who posted an item on an official Obama campaign blog, that was an easy recipe for outrage. After seeing their candidate battered over his connection with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the phrase "Clinton pastor" was all they needed to conclude that Bill and Hillary Clinton's pastor was a convicted sex offender.
Never mind that Bill and Hillary don't attend Procanick's church, which is 225 miles from their home in Chappaqua, N.Y. And never mind that the Observer-Dispatch's stories never suggested any connection between the Clinton pastor and the political Clintons. In the lightning-fast world of the blogosphere, emotions often outrun the facts.
"Okay, so now that Bill and Hillary Clinton's pastor has been convicted of child molestation, will we see the same furor directed at Hillary that Obama has had to endure these last few weeks? I don't think so!!!!" said a chain e-mail that was sent to PolitiFact and pasted on blogs.
Similar postings have appeared a blog called "Black Love is Alive," in a comment on the National Journal blog "Hotline on Call," and even on a motorcycle blog called "The Sportbike Network," under the headline "Billary's preacher is now a convicted pedophile."
On My.BarackObama.com, the Obama campaign's official blog, Shemora Singletary of Columbus, Ohio, posted an item April 25, 2008, that was headlined "Clinton's former pastor convicted of child molestation."
Singletary, a volunteer blogger on the site with the nickname "Knowledge Seeker," groused that the media hasn't paid enough attention to the episode involving the Clinton pastor. "Will this story get the press that Rev. Wright is getting?? And will the Clinton's have to answer for the character of this man??" she wrote.
She posted an article from the Utica paper and this postscript: "Now that Obama's lynching has gone off as planned, think the MSM (mainstream media) will run this story about Clinton's former pastor? Or would that upset the planned election of either Israeli-firster Hillary vs. Israeli-firster McCain?"
Singletary's posting drew two comments that said she was wrong. She acknowledged one of those comments but did nothing to correct or retract the inaccurate posting.
Singletary could not be reached for comment.
Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, said that the posting was not authorized by the campaign and that it was removed Wednesday morning after PolitiFact inquired about it. But it had been on the Obama site for nearly three weeks.
“This is one of more than 800,000 user-generated pages. It’s like a comment on your blog," Vietor said. "And it’s been taken down."
The posting was on a campaign blog created by volunteers who support Obama, but it's not always clear where an official Web site ends and the blog begins. The Obama blog has the same logo, candidate photo and quotation ("I'm asking you to believe . . .") as the regular campaign site. The only thing to distinguish it from the rest of the site is a headline that says "Community Blogs."
It has no disclaimer to indicate the messages may not be authorized by the campaign. To the contrary, at the bottom of the page it says "PAID FOR BY OBAMA FOR AMERICA."
