Glenn(s) Greenwald, notorious Internet sock-puppeteer, comments on a brochure posted to the web by Greg Sargent. The brochure, which Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign is distributing in South Carolina, seems to include “religious appeals at least as overt and explicit as anything Huckabee has done.” (Emphasis in original.)ÂÂ
Thomas Ellers continues:
Sargent speculates that the brochure is an attempt to counter the false whispering campaign increasingly being circulated in South Carolina (by whom, we should find out) that Obama is a Muslim. That very well may be, but the brochure seems designed with a far broader purpose: namely, to signify to South Carolina’s many Christian voters that Obama is one of them and therefore should have their vote for President, much the way that Huckabee sought to court the evangelical vote that was so critical to the GOP Iowa caucus.
This left ol’ Wilson sputtering through two updates in an effort to assuage his unhinged commenters that he was not accusing Obama of being an evil Christianist.
Nevertheless, Rick Ellensburg sees the appeals of Huckabee and Obama as “a mild, natural extension of the direction in which we’ve been headed for some time.” Atrios declares faith-based identity politics in-bounds as well.
Neither of them (nor Sargent) realizes that this type of tactic by the Obama campaign may help quash the Muslim whispering campaign against him, but is also likely to raise more high-profile questions about his membership in an “Afrocentric†church that bestows awards on Louis Farrakhan and practically defines itself through race-baiting. Macsmind is the only blogger to note it so far, but I imagine that Mickey Kaus and Tom Maguire will cover it. And after last night’s testy Democratic debate, it is hard to imagine that the Clinton camp won’t be doing some plausibly deniable whispering of their own to the establishment media.
Update: Link to the brochure fixed; sorry ’bout that.
I find the term “Christianist” highly offensive.
Atrios: “Like any identity-based tribal politics, as a strategy it runs the risk of being exclusionary.”
Sharp as a tack, this one.
the “brochure” link isn’t a link?
Anyone else notice that both The Messiah and the Virgin Hillary grabbed themselves some time at a Christianist pulpit over the weekend?
“…the Virgin Hillary…”
You know that probably isn’t too far from the truth.
Pablo
but it was at the melanin-enriched Christianist pulpit, so it makes it practically mandatory (pulpits of pallor, on the other hand, are signs of the coming Theocracy)
BTW… don’t ya just love how when HRC and Barry get before black audiences they speechify with “black” accents?
I didn’t hear ’em faking spanish accents infront of the Latino audiences. Hmmm?
Pablo – It is entirely appropriate for a Dem to speak in a Church, even from the pulpit. However, should a Republican do it, it is a sign of the impending theocracy.
D. All of the above.
Atrios causes me to suspect that Brown Ph.Ds aren’t all that hard to obtain.
It is even more acceptable for a Dem to preach a religion (ie. AGW, liberalism) from a pulpit, because it is for the greater good. The fact that they squeal about the impending theocracy while pandering to the godbotherers in election season is completely lost on them.
Link to the brochure fixed; sorry ’bout that.
Try listening to Sean Hannity for one afternoon. He can’t go three minutes without being up this tangential canard.
I find ironic when the race baiters accuse someone of race baiting. It’d be cute if it weren’t so ridiculous.
STFU – timmah. Who is race baiting? Obama. And his Church. Identity politics suck, no? Even worse when it is your own. Enjoy.
IJS,
Thanks for checking in to demonstrate you don’t know what the word “canard” is.
As for tangential, Obama is making it an issue with that brochure.
Adding to JD’s point, both GG and Atrios are admitting Obama is playing identity politics with religion.
Karl – Always being all fact-y, and nice, you are. Just tell it to STFU. It saves time and energy.
Those comments were not for his benefit, but for those of the new visitor. Especially those who might mistakenly think they know what a “canard” is.
I find ironic when the race baiters accuse someone of race baiting. It’d be cute if it weren’t so ridiculous.
Funny that IJS can agree with the premise of Karl’s argument without realizing it. It’d be cute if it weren’t so ridiculous.
BTW, IJS: this is the second time in as many days that I’ve seen you misuse the term “canard.” It doesn’t mean “documented story that makes a friend look bad.” You may want to double-check your dictionary.
Bloody hell.
Wow. Knew IJS was ignorant, did not know it was willful.
From Wikipedia: “Canard is French for duck, and is often used in English to refer to a deliberately false story”
From Dictionary.com: a false or baseless, usually derogatory story, report, or rumor.
Gee, seems to fit with Hannity’s/RNC accusation that Obama’s church is some black supremacist church.
Saying one supports one’s race does not make one a supremacist. Blathering about it in an attempt to drive a wedge between nice white Christians and nice black Christians is called race baiting. Hannity does it everyday and the Republican Party has been doing it for years….or is the term Southern Strategy and Ken Mehlman’s apology for it too antiquated for you sophisticates?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-GOP-racial-politics_x.htm
Squid, you may want to use a dictionary. Once that contains an accurate definition of synonyms of lie. Then again, perhaps being wrong is a hobby of yours?
As for thee, Mr. Karl, one does enjoy your breaking down the numbers, until you mention some political “truth” that is not true. For instance, that Obama’s church is race-baiting. How dare folks show pride in their culture or be forcused on improving their black neighborhoods! Mentioning their interest in their ethnic group is verboten! Unless, we’re on PW criticizing Democrats from being at a church. Then, it’s okay.
Oh, and Karl, maybe you and Squid can purchase a dictionary together? Or, and this is crazy, you could stop parsing every post for a synonym of “lie” you don’t like and address the substance?
Willful ignorance, or just pure mendacity ? You make the call.
I wonder if Sen. McCain’s church was giving awards to David Duke, if it would be describe as pride in one’s culture, or improving neighborhoods, or met with a shrug of the shoulders?
Obama’s church is not race-baiting, idiot. The Dems are. That you do not recognize that shows that you either refuse to admit it, or are just so accustomed to doing so that it has become second nature.
And, Karl, I checked, I did not comment yesterday. Wrong on canard and wrong on posting…perhaps this gig is too much for you?
Karl didn’t say you did, IJS.
…so, perhaps this commenting gig is a bit too much for you, eh?
JD, I address you cautiously, for you seem to think I am someone else. Combined with your ambivalence and the violence of your commentary, I can never decide if you are delusional or just angry. But, and if you check you demons for a moment, Karl’s post contains this sentence:”…but is also likely to raise more high-profile questions about his membership in an “Afrocentric†church that bestows awards on Louis Farrakhan and practically defines itself through race-baiting.”
You will note is an explicit accusation of “race-baiting” by Obama’s church. It is the sentence I took issue with (I read the Greenwald column yesterday and was appalled at Obama’s religious pandering, as I am whenever any politician panders to religious folks). I pointed out that Hannity speaks of it everyday. One could conclude that within the race-bating side of the GOP (a side decreasing as we speak, I think), Obama’s church is well-known and is being used against him.
You might want to read what people write before going off all half-cocked, since Karl’s post stands in direct, expressed contradiction to what you just typed.
Slart, the hive mind confuses the heretic sometimes. Karl, my apologies.
I don’t think there’s anything resembling a hive mind, here, IJS. Does Squid have posting privileges?
One could conclude that within the race-bating side of the GOP (a side decreasing as we speak, I think), Obama’s church is well-known and is being used against him.
IJS – Is your definition of the race-baiting side of the GOP that which points out the race baiting, race-pimping, race-pandering, etc., which goes on regularly on the left? Just trying to understand your frame of reference.
Try sticking your head in a bucket of glue, Slart. That may be as close as you’re gonna get.
They are Progg of Borg. Every last one of them comments anonymously in the same tone and with the same fragmented IQ, and then acts all offended when we can’t keep track of their many avatars.
Saying one supports one’s race does not make one a supremacist. Blathering about it in an attempt to drive a wedge between nice white Christians and nice black Christians is called race baiting. Hannity does it everyday and the Republican Party has been doing it for years….or is the term Southern Strategy and Ken Mehlman’s apology for it too antiquated for you sophisticates?
I’d be interested to know how Hannity does this. EVERY DAY. And how the Republican party has been doing it -oh – in the last 20 years?
I know for the 2000 election, I got an anti-Bush postcard from the NAACP that would definitely fall under the “race baiting” strategy. Black women, being chased by police and dogs – probably taken in the 60’s – suggesting that a Bush presidency would bring that back. Everyone in the city of Detroit got one.
And, testing the waters here – I support the WHITE race. I am interested in supporting the interests of white businesses and try to shop in white business and employee white people whenever I can.
Not racist, right? Just being supportive.
IJS – When Rev. Dr. Calvin Butts, Pastor of the Abyssinian Baptist Church, and at the time President of SUNY Old Westbrook, now prominent endorser of Hillary for President, responded to appeals for calm after the Diallo verdict in 2000:
“You want us to remain the status quo. Go to hell, white man.”
You claim Hannity is race-baiting for pointing that out? Is that your position?
IJS,
Pointing out that someone else is race-baiting is itself race-baiting?
Yet if you are correct, you have also accused me of race-baiting aand thus are a race-baiter.
I think you are mistaken on all counts.
I also support white bloggers and commenters. So, if you all don’t mind, I’d like you to self-report your pigmentation. Cause, you all kinda look alike to me.
You all do know that IJS isn’t actually interested in the truth, right?
In his first post, he states that Hannity uses a race baiting tactic, without offering any proof, and then uses that first statement to prove that this means anyone who is on the right (with Hannity) is also a race baiter. In addition, he seems to believe that because of this outstanding logic, it means that the complaint is invalid and not worthy of any actual response.
So, is IJS terminally stupid or just dishonest?
Violence? Good Allah, you are tedious. Are you really trying to assert that I am a violent person? Insouciant. Yup. Just ask happyfeet …
Approach me cautiously? No need to do that. Just do not be bone-jarringly stupid. Caution is not required.
I will grant you a minor concession. Not only does the church in question race-bait, but the Dem politicians, and party as a whole, do so as well. As a matter of routine. As a matter of practice.
If you are not timmah, you rank right up there with him. Not very distinguished company.
My daughter says I’m brown, but she might be mistaking hirsuteness for skintone.
If you’d asked for race, I would have said 100 breaststroke (SCY).
I’d like to return to Darleen’s comment:
Education Guy – Can I select one from column A and one from column B?
IJS – Wetback is also a term for a duck. Yet, I dont see any mexican restaurantes named after them.
“I’d like you to self-report your pigmentation. Cause, you all kinda look alike to me.”
Pretty white right now, haven’t been outside much this winter. In the summer I have been told I could pass for Puerto Rican.
If you’d asked for race, I would have said 100 breaststroke (SCY)
See how slick I am? I was going to take IJS to task for using the term “race” at all, but figured since he/she isn’t really responding anyway there was little point.
B Moe – I suppose I can interact with you during the winter months.
Carin – I would be amongst the “Irish white”, though I tan and not burn. In the winter I am fairly pasty, but in the summer I tend to get quite the golfer’s tan.
My better half and my little angelic daughter are quite brown, and bear no resemblence to me.
My pigmentation is matter of record on the internet. Anyone here could check it pretty easily.
BTW, Jeff sorta made the New York Times today. I have a post up about it.
Fuck you, Timmah! Unless you’re his clone, and I can’t imagine that anyone smart enough to clone someone would be dumb enough to make it you. How many times do you need to be told to take a hike?
JD, I address you cautiously, for you seem to think I am someone else.
I ask, with the sincere interest in finding out if I am such a horrific person that it would be reasonable for such a fucking imbecile to think that I am a violent person, in both word and deed?
Or, is IJS just an idiot? Or both? Or, should I interpret the lack of response as confirmation of IJS’s observation?
IJS blew it with the stalking. That the tone is entirely the same as our asshat friend Timmah! is worthy of curiosity, but the stalking bit is a dead giveaway.
yeah, i thought it had been established at some point via IP address that they were one and the same. but I’ve slept a lot since then…. if it happened. the tone is dead on.
As your founder has indicated, my name is Chris and I have posted here under both my name and “I’m Just Saying”. In the end, I found I liked the latter more than the former.
“Like”…the word is evocative of the intense feelings anyone would feel when dealing with Pablo. He’s a gentleman and a scholar. He reminds me of JD, in that he fulminates. It’s why I generally avoid him, although when he was bullying some troll and gave me pause for laughter, I commented it on it. Pablo responded with touching details of his life story and I resolved to leave him alone, both for good taste’s sake and because his story made me feel bad for mocking him.
I don’t know why you call it stalking, Pablo, but I do appreciate all the love your rebuttals evince. You and JD, as scholars of the ad hominem, truly possess wonderful minds.
Cheers to you both.
As to the other “rebuttals”, since all of them are reductio ad absurdums, none seems necessary to discuss, except to note that Karl did not deny calling Obama’s church “race-baiting”, but defended it on the grounds, apparently, that race baiting is int he eye of the beholder. I use a slightly more objective definition, but that’s me.
PS. Daleyrocks, I listen to Hannity and Rush almost daily and I frequent many blog sites, including the newshounds site which hates Hannity. You gents and ladies should check it out. They’re a bit shrill for my tastes; I imagine for you it will be like fingernails on the chalkboards of your soul. But, interesting enough, their commenters also like to use guilt by association, reductio ad absurdum, ad hominem, and “kill the messenger” as vehicles of rebuttal.
So, you might disagree with tactics, but the strategy’s the same. At least it’s harder to banned here, than it is there.
http://www.newshounds.us
You should especially go, JD. Your RHETORICAL violence and ability to manifest hurt feelings will fit right in.
IJS – You have still deftly managed to avoid answering the question of whether pointing out race baiting by others constitutes race baiting. Hannity’s playing of the Butt’s clip or Sharton excrescences. Do those constitute race baiting? He is certainly one host who gives time for opposing viewpoints or rebuttals, a very sharp contrast to the way Rush generally runs his program.
We’ve been over this before, daley. Replaying somebody’s embarrassing words is a slanderous attack; far worse than uttering such statements in the first place.
Squid – I keep forgetting. That’s called swiftboating, right?
I call it stalking, Chris, because it involves collecting some awfully mundane details of my life, and presuming to create a psychoanalysis from them. It’s really sort of creepy, but hey, as long as you’re at it, I’ve got a driver’s license. What do you make of that
FraudFreud?Forunately, since your psychoanalytical acumen is as strong as your political acumen, I feel approximately as compelled to rebut it as I am to rebut, oh….Rosie O’Donnell.
Your pity is wasted on me. Bring it, bitch. I enjoy the sport.
I didn’t pity you any more than I usually do, Pablo. I felt like I had been an ass. Unlike you, I don’t like that feeling, so I ran away from it. I will return to ignoring you.
Daleyrocks, Hannity uses selective editing and silly gotchas whenever he discusses anything with an “opponent.” On his radio show, he enjoys going two on one on “liberals” with a conservative doing the dirty work and Sean sagely intoning: What about that? Do you still beat your wife?”
As far as playing Mr. Butts’s words, he played exactly one second of them, he played them out of context, and he provides no context for the listener/viewer. It’s pretty obvious that Pastor Butts (pause while I imagine being 8 in that church and calling the Pastor “Butts”) is telling a story. Turns out that is the case, as anyone who knew how to use google could confirm. Pastor Butts is describing the patronizing attempts of a Caucasian gentlemen to appeal to the Pastor’s reputation as conciliator during the Diallo fiasco. After repeating referring to the African-Americans as “your people”, the Pastor says he will not do as asked and tells the patronizing guy off.
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/trends/columns/cityside/2325/
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/9917,noel,5174,1.html
Implying, as Hannity is doing to the already suggestible, that the Reverend who endorsed Ross Perot, Michael Bloomberg, and, in particular, Hillary Clinton over Obama is a black racist is stupid. The fact that you accept it without question is the reason Sean Hannity makes 8 million dollars a year; he knows how to scare folks.
IJS, please enlighten us with your definition. In particular, explain how it does not apply to this. BTW, Obama’s church has airbrushed their website, but you can’t fool the Wayback Machine.
IJS – You still haven’t answered the question. Why do you keep avoiding it? Is pointing out the race-baiting behavior of others race-baiting in your opinion?
And I did not take Hannity’s broadcast at face value. I took the time to find out what the quote was about as you can see from when I first mentioned it. Your interpretation of the situation certainly differs from mine, but perhaps your familiarily with NY city’s race pimps is also different. I grew up and lived in the area for the first half of my life and am accustomed to seeing incendiary and racially charged comments coming out of black leaders in the New York area. I also see no problem with pointing that out. Do you?
Right, IJS. That is why Barack’s church is handing out awards to Minister Farrakhan. You can try to explain and deny it away, but that is the baggage that the wonderboy brings to the table.
daleyrocks – Anecdotal evidence does not count coming from a conservative, dontcha know?
Holy shit! You finally got one right!
Congratulations, Chris. Recognizing that you have a problem is the first step toward solving it.
This is the trouble with race baiting/racial politics. One minute you’re calling Rudy Giuliani a racist, next thing you know Al Sharpton is calling you Uncle Remus.
You lie down with dogs, you get fleas. Hannity is irrelevant to that fact.
No, they don’t. Even if you agree for the sake of argument that they’re cheap shots, they’re not race baiting. Race pimp baiting, perhaps. But not race baiting.
Better yet, let’s look at a dictionary:
Or, if you want something more webby, the Wikipedia:
Then there is Obama’s church:
And then this explanation:
And if you don’t know the “talented tenth” reference, you can Google it yourself. This isn’t remedial US history class.
Correct Pablo.
I think the bigger issue is that of leading democrats pandering to race pimps and race baiters on a continual basis, prolonging divisions in the country. To the extent people point that out and it creates embarrassment, I think it is a good thing. Sharpton should be held to the same standards to which he held Imus. Jane Hampster’s blackface portrayal of Joe Lieberman while she was tied at the hip to the Ned Lament campaign was beyond the pale. Steve Gilliard’s Sambo presentation of Michael Steele was another nice tolerant progressive spin on race issues.
IJS – The plantation is alive and well and the left is the one that is attempting to keep its fences up. Do you know how much money Jetstream Jesse Jackson took in from his shakedown racket last year? Probably nobody knows because his foundations seem to have a very hard time staying current on their financial filings.
[…] how he thinks about the issues of our time.” Indeed, by January 2008, Obama was making overt religious appeals to South Carolina voters — with the approval of lefty bloggers like Rick Ellensburg and […]