Cheney impeachment fantasy

*Sigh* It's only a mock-up of a fictional non-fiction book that 63% of Democrats, 39% of Independents, and 21% of Republicans (poll) would like to read, and in a just reality, in a democracy abused by one Richard Bruce Cheney, it should be on the table. But alas. 'Tis a pixel fantasy to lighten the weight of fleeting hope now seemingly crashed. The Impeachment of Cheney is on my wish list but color me cynical that any of us will ever thumb its pages. And thus, Cheney smirks.

For Rep. Robert Wexler (D, FL-19)--who's leading the charge in the House to initiate impeachment hearings--his efforts, while just and right-minded, may have simply bolstered his reelection chances in finding favor amongst us DFHs of the 'sphere and perhaps his constituents. Were we played? Who knows? At least he and his colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee stood up and spoke out. That counts.

I'm resigned to what George said in the film adaptation of Edward Albee's, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

You take the trouble to construct a civilization, to build a society based on the principles of... of principle. You make government and art and realize that they are, must be, both the same. You bring things to the saddest of all points, to the point where there is something to lose. Then, all at once, through all the music, through all the sensible sounds of men building, attempting, comes the Dies Irae. And what is it? What does the trumpet sound? Up yours.

I suspect the opportunity of Cheney's day of reckoning will pass on Jan. 20, 2009, with a resounding, "Up yours."

Anyone think impeaching Cheney will happen? I gauge the odds as likely as winged wombats from Tasmania flying out my derriere. I would love for Congress to prove me wrong and wipe the gloat off Cheney's face.

A dose of reality

Maybe Rembrandt didn't have this in mind

Housekeeping note -- The Night Watch will take the weekend off and become a weekday thang. I've got some sprucing up to do here at The RealSpiel, other topics to research and explore in-depth. So I'll keep tonight's edition brief.

DNC stupid and mean -- Has the DNC devolved into a total cock-up? Howard Dean can really piss people off. A discrimination lawsuit filed by Donald Hitchcock, the party's former LGBT outreach director, alleges retaliation and harassment by Chairman Dean and Chief of Staff Leah Daughtry. That's bad enough. But intimidation of the Washington Blade's editor and publisher for its coverage of the civil action... just... well, read Pam Spaulding. Michigan, Florida, and now this! I'm frothed.

Jamison Foser -- "Media ignore McCain's finances after obsessing over Dems" at Media Matters.

Twisty's back! With a sexploitation rip on Eliot Spitzer and the untold story, the ignored tragedy of the sex trade, the subverted narrative--"in a patriarchy, all women belong to the sex class, and are defined in terms of men. Men, on the other hand, belong to the default human class, and get to define themselves (and everything else)"--and the "jovial nonchalance with which the subject of prostitution is bandied about — and prostitution, I say again, is a human rights violation." Meanwhile, young liberal male dudes don't think twice about a weekend lap dance at a titty bar. Where's my labrys?

Time's up! Hecate is soooo right about Iraq: "I was driving around Bethesda today, running a bunch of errands, and, as I sat in traffic, I couldn't help but notice a number of completely bleached-out 'Support the Troops' ribbon-shaped magnets on the backs of SUVs.... ...If your war lasts longer than the dye on the cheap Chinese pieces of shit that are sold to promote it, you lose. That's it. War over. Bring the troops home." Go read what she has to say about immigration. Goosebump scale: 10. (H/t to Avedon for referring to Hecate.)

For a dose of immigration reality, Dave Neiwert served up a giant spoonful of facts at Orcinus. You hear teevee rants about how "illegal aliens" are taking American jobs and lowering wages, right? Go read Dave. I wish Lou Dobbs would but he's got a schtick and he's sticking to it.

It's 3 a.m. in America's economic meltdown to paraphrase Tom Watson. "In New York, you can feel the nerves - the big Wall Street failures, and the looming threat... ...There's a slow panic out there, and it's going to hurt the little guy in every corner of the country.... ...[T]he red phone is ringing. Who will answer?"

M'yeah, Digby, Cafferty is a big honking idiot. Greedy bastards, a-holes, egobots, tools, and idiots. That's our media reinforced by the raving wingnut brigade.

BlehPo: I started to skim Saturday WashPo op/eds but why bother? SSDD. One lumped Geraldine Ferraro and Eliot Spitzer together under the headline, "Two Errant New Yorkers," and I thought, besides the Empire State, what do these two have in common? A dumb op/ed. That was enough. I don't have the patience to pick it apart at this late hour. If this is what passes as Serious Punditry at WashPo, then in comparison, Bob Somerby is an off-the-chart editorial genius. Maybe he is. And funny!

With Josh Marshall's latest Clinton blame game, The Stepfordization continues. OFB moolah must be good, no?

I heart Ellen DeGeneres and so does Kevin Naff.

13 essays on Christian mythology and taboos

As another Easter approaches, I'm breaking from tradition and addressing taboos. Isn't that unsurprising! I've never been one for orthodox thought. Politically, I advocate the separation of church and state, for government that's impartial, neutral, that doesn't favor one belief over another, and fully respects those who don't believe in a Creator at all.

Spiritually, I find inspiration in nature, in people, in art, in music, in the expanding universe, and in a diversity of sacred texts. But I won't deny the influence of Christianity in the world--good and bad--or its patriarchal roots. So I tend to delve into its mythology. At the risk of getting flamed, I'll venture to crash some taboos with this post.

From The RealSpiel archives, 13 essays on Christian mythology and its impact on politics and culture.

The Passion of Christ for today
Why glorify the death and suffering of Jesus? If we explore the reasons for Christ's crucifixion and chose to change the "systems of oppression that brought about his demise, violence against marginalized people would cease to exist."

Did Jesus live the down low?
It's entirely possible that Jesus was a married, closeted gay man. But the bigger issue is homophobia in today's Church, the false socialization of who we are as male and female, and ultimately the challenge is to peel away a false spiritualization.

Biblical sexism and vagina resentment
The role of women was liberated by Christ's egalitarian teachings but the Bible has been edited and used as a patriarchal tool to oppress the feminine.

Armageddon: Bible literalists got it wrong
A majority of Americans believe in The Rapture based on a Bible that's fraught with errors. A footnote to copyists in the Book of Revelations has been interpreted to heed the texts as if they were the literal word of God.

The Bible is not the source
A woman's responsibility is to listen to her Inner Source--not to the Bible, not to the alleged "headship" of men, not to a patriarchal church with an ax to grind. Women have equal access to the Creator, the Source of All Life, for divine guidance. Looking to men for women's roles in life, church, and family, is asking the wrong source.

Angelic lesbian, one of RealSpiel's most popular
Why don't angels have genitals? Who stripped them of sexuality? I suppose Christian orthodoxy, which divides sexuality from spirituality and promotes the idea of a celibate Christ, offers the main reason for the absence of angelic sexuality. In my belief system, there's a guardian angel for everybody--gays, lesbians, bisexuals, asexuals, transsexuals, transgendered people, hermaphrodites--everyone and every creature.

The Bible as fountainhead of sexism: money, lesbian power and visions
Guest columnist Genet offers a lesbian feminist viewpoint into gaining success, money, and power. "It is something every lesbian spiritually alive needs to address -- dollars are a spiritual issue!"

In support of Kittredge Cherry
When Kitt Cherry, author of Jesus In Love, Art That Dares, and At The Cross, was attacked by the conservative Institute on Religion and Democracy for her beliefs in a queer Christ, the right to freedom of religion needed to be defended. Included are factors destroying marriage in America. And it's not the perceived threat of gay marriage.

The crucifixion of Madonna
The Material Girl's mock crucifixion received the scorn of Christian critics. Those who defended free speech of the Danish cartoons that set the Muslim world on fire suddenly went mute. Are western liberal values to be shared or hoarded by the religious right? Of course not.

Mel Gibson, hate speech, and media
"Lately this Republican political era of 'compassionate conservatism' has brought forward an unabashed no-holds-barred attitude when it comes to passionate invective hurled at queers, African-Americans, and Jews." Features The Stoning of the Drag Queen.

The Vatican v. Creationism
Vatican astronomer Guy Consolmagno denounced creationism but Biblical literalist Ken Ham chooses the Genesis story over science.

Richest nation on earth and the most Christian but...
Could have supporting the Iraq War offered a method of penance for American Christians who felt guilty and feared retribution for being so well off when so many people in the world languish in poverty? It's an odd concept but fear and guilt have spawned the most atrocious events in history.

Fateful faithful: "American Theocracy"
On Easter Sunday 2006, a lament for the demise of the separation of church and state and the dangerous influence of Christian evangelical extremists on American politics.

Coming soon to celebrate the spring solstice: The Second Coming: The Return of the Goddess. [Update: Essay is here.] The link to the oil painting available at my artist website is here.

UPDATE: I meant spring equinox. I'm already looking forward to summer, but better to be here now.

The late, late edition

Maybe Rembrandt didn't have this in mind



Oh, my Goddess! Townhall hosted an loony professor's anti-feminist rant about what appears to be his deep-seeded fear of castration. His obsession? Feminists' objections to the word, "mankind." My personal opinion: How dumb is he to write a derisive column when he's been "named as a defendant in a lawsuit alleging first amendment retaliation"? This guy is a professor?! Wow.

At Hoyden About Town, tigtog wrote about women keeping their maiden names when they marry. She cited a thesis by Lisa Cuprio, who, seemingly confused by discombobulated brain synapses, failed to see the feminism link in the trend. Crikey.

Oxymorons -- The principled, honest House Republicans and their machinations on the FISA bill by Glenn Greenwald.

Debate hate -- Clinton and Obama agreed to debate in PA and NC. But the groaning and loathing over yet more debates perked up at one of the Boy Blogz. As Lambert noted, "Mistah Kurtz, he whine." After scanning the comments at Greg Sargent's "no-rest-for-the-weary-of-debates department," two words for TPM whiners: Don't watch.

Merchant of death -- That's how Paul Krugman described the core competency of the Carlyle Group. However, since the corp plunged into investment banking as Carlyle Capital, "...the bond fund affiliated with private equity firm The Carlyle Group, is on the verge of collapse after failing to agree a new financing deal with lenders... The fund said late Wednesday that it expects lenders will soon take possession of 'substantially all' its remaining assets after it was unable to meet surging margin calls on its portfolio of residential-mortgage-backed securities." Details.

The cobra hand motion: You're fired! John Gibson's Faux News show gets the boot. Logan Murphy can escort you through Gibson's "memory lane of shame."

GOP media mogul impact -- "Republican billionaires set about buying up our entire mass media. They succeeded. The result has been catastrophic for America, creating people like these, who bask self-righteously in their own gross ignorance and narrow-minded bigotry," said Howie Klein. Now we have to contend with McCain myth-making and revisionist history. Go read Howie and then roll up your sleeves, bloggers. Lots of work ahead.

Liberal media's reading habits from Atrios: What's the No. 1 blog they read? Sully's Daily Dish. Ugh, no wonder. View the whole list and media definitions at the No. 7 blog, Eschaton (No. 10 for media elites).

The Daily Howler -- Bob Somerby weighs in on Tweety (the "cosmic fraud"), the Geraldine Ferraro kerfuffle, Barack Obama, and Keith Olbermann with his incomparable fair-minded and eye-opening style. From my POV: Yes, Obama is a "brilliant person" and I personally don't think he is a "bad" candidate. He's just not my preferred candidate nor was he my second or third choice when the campaign kicked off. I nod in agreement with Somerby's assessment: "[O]n balance, we don’t think it’s a great idea to nominate someone so new." And finally, speaking of the Clinton-Obama race, Somerby articulated the Democratic nomination dilemma, "It’s a shame that one has to lose."

Rev. Jeremiah Wright can espouse whatever beliefs and opinions he wishes according to his First Amendment rights. Our dubious press corps, however, associated Obama with Wright's controversial 9/11 statements by using selective, sleight-of-hand reporting, neglecting to mention Obama's disavowal. Those rascals! But wait a minute... There's just one teensy-weensy problem: "Wright is a member of Obama's African American Religious Leadership Committee." Uh-oh. Any news on Wright's resignation from the Obama campaign? CNN has been running and re-running the video of Rev. Wright's tirade. Can't you see it used in a McCain October attack ad? Advice to Obama: Jump on this ASAP.

Now for a non-political, personal message -- Wishing you the best, Twisty.

UPDATE: At this time, Clinton has yet to agree to the CBS debate April 19 in NC.

UPDATE II: Rev. Wright's controversial video.

Florida and Michigan delegate alert

From Riverdaughter, an email (and more at the link):

“Word is filtering out from the campaign that we should contact people we know at the DNC ASAP. The FL and MI decision will be going down soon. The person we should really pressure is Phil McNamara. Phil will not be making decisions but he is the staffer who runs all affairs for the Rules and Bylaws Committee. Also if he receives a flood of messages it will get back to Dean.

Obama is pushing for a 50-50 split of the delegates. That doesn’t [reflect] the will of the people. It reflects the wishful thinking of the Obama campaign.”

Phil McNamara
delegates@dnc.org

And I agree with Riverdaughter's call to action:

Now’s your chance, guys. Make your voice heard, especially if you are in a state that went decisively for Clinton. Without FL and MI, our votes are meaningless as well. Let them know that there are millions of us out here who know what’s going on and the jig is up. Make it polite, of course. But if you must, tell them, “Don’t make me come to Denver and cause a scene.”

Now I must fire up my email engine.

UPDATE: I changed the above email address for Phil McNamara by request from the DNC. since his email account has been inundated by the response. I've been assured that he will still get the emails and "they'll be on a folder that's accessible to the rest of us and constituent services dept can read."

Firestorm edition

Maybe Rembrandt didn't have this in mind



Teh best -- James Wolcott believes that Republicans fear running against Clinton more than Obama. "And now along comes Wayne Barrett in The Village Voice, persuasively arguing and methodically documenting that the original Obama infatuation emanating from such untrustworthies as Robert Novak, Rush Limbaugh, William Bennett, George Will, and others was indeed a hydra-headed head fake. . . With their lipless smiles and lidless eyes, conservative connivers don't even bother to disguise their duplicity, so proud and gleeful are they of their little tricks. And why shouldn't they be, when so many liberal bloggers and pundits are ready to fall for them?"

Finally! One of the A-List bloggers wised up and "noticed how the Obama campaign is manipulating the toxic charge of racism." Lambert quoted Kevin Drum, "[T]he current attempts to tar Hillary as a racist have gone way, way over the top. They’re revolting. . ." and then asked some follow-up questions. For example: "3. Now that we’ve talked about racism, when can we talk about misogyny?" Hmmmm?

What Big Tent Democrat said: "If Ferraro was trying to do some dog whistling ['to white voters who resent affirmative action'], she sure picked an unusually ineffective forum for it. It's way more likely that she just blurted out something dumb to a local reporter, and then got her dander up when people started piling on about it. That's no excuse for saying something dumb . . . but it's pretty unlikely that Ferraro had any serious dog whistling agenda here." (Talk Left)

Geraldine Ferraro says the Obama camp owes her an apology. Watch the video.

How dare Avedon tell the truth! Responding to Ferraro's remarks about Obama, Josh Marshall asked: "Can anyone seriously claim that it's an asset to be an African-American in a US presidential race?" M'yeah. As Avedon astutely observed: "No, of course not, because there is no excitement whatsoever about the idea of a black candidate who has a credible shot at the presidency, and there is not one single person in the world who has ever hoped someday to see a black president sworn into office, and not the faintest hint that anyone, anywhere, would have felt the least bit more interested in a less-than one-term Senator with an undistinguished record in the Senate because he was black. . . So far be it from me to suggest that in this moment, with this man, yes, being black just might be an advantage for Obama in winning the Democratic nomination." Wheeee-ooo! Good on ya, Avedon.

Rudov rundown -- Like blogger CLD and me, Melissa McEwan took issue with Professional Douchebag Marc Rudov and his answers to O'Reilly's question, "What is the downside of having a woman become the president of the United States?" Somehow, we women missed the memo about the "female agenda," and with Melissa, we "eagerly await O'Reilly and Mark Rudov exploring the downside of having a man become the president of the United States, and whether the men currently in the running, especially John McCain, have a male agenda."

On the Hill -- Can it be true? Congressional Democrats are growing spines? "The House on Monday filed a civil lawsuit against former White House counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten in an effort to get them to comply with a congressional subpoena to testify about the firings of nine U.S. attorneys." Then came news that "House Democratic leaders are readying a proposal that would reject giving legal protection to the phone companies that helped in the National Security Agency’s program of wiretapping without warrants." We'll see if their spines stiffen.

Gay panic in Oklahoma -- Remember the totally unhinged Sally Kern, the lawmaker who likened gays and lesbians to a threat worse than terrorism? Queerty reported that Kern may have a gay son. Their "digital detective work dug up numerous postings naming Jesse as the outcast offspring" when he attended OBU and was "expelled for making inappropriate advances in the library toilets." Whoa. Now let me get this straight, er, correct. Sally is a Christian married to a Baptist preacher? Lawd, lawd. Save us from your people. (Via)

Shooting at church -- "Congregants consider homophobia as a possible reason behind a shooting at the Metropolitan Community Church in Shaw on Friday evening, WJLA reports. MCC serves a predominantly LGBT congregation, and this marks the second time in recent history that the church was the victim of gunfire." The DCist

10 tips to aid the prevention of school bullying: One example: "If it's sexual harassment, call it sexual harassment; if it's homophobia, call it homophobia; and so forth. To lump disparate behaviors under the generic "bullying" is to efface real differences that affect young people's lives."

Who is John Hagee? Eric Alterman asked rhetorically. Answers.

A spring popped out of Keith's head -- And Taylor Marsh promptly snipped it off: "...Keith Olbermann is going to do something no other anchor could dare try. He's going to go on the air to single out Hillary Clinton's campaign, which is being hailed as the first ever special comment to target a Democrat. If Mr. Olbermann really was trying to live up to his sign off, which steals from Edward R. Murrow, he would also include in his special comment a word about Obama's camp and their continual sexism, starting with Jesse Jackson Jr. way back in New Hampshire, or Obama's 'hoodwink - okey-doke' talking points, which I assure you Mr. Obama will not drag out for Pennsylvania, as well as the threats and robo-calls against African American congressmen who were threatened and called 'uncle Tom' for supporting Clinton." Ouch!

Crooks and Liars posted the video and the transcript of Olbermann's special comment on Sen. Clinton. What's there to say to Keith? How 'bout, "Good night, and f**k off!"

Florida re-vote plan released -- Courtesy Jeralyn, the Jan. 29 results, maps, and commentary. Gee, I wonder what my friend CLD thinks about it?

Shhhhhhhhhh!: "The Pentagon on Wednesday canceled plans for broad public release of a study that found no pre-Iraq war link between late Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the al Qaida terrorist network." Reporters will have to request copies to read the findings and the study will not be available on the Internet. "But the study, based on more than 600,000 captured documents, including audio and video files, found that while Saddam sponsored terrorism, particularly against opponents of his regime and against Israel, there was no evidence of an al Qaida link." McClatchy

Lest we forget the war in Iraq -- "While civilian deaths hit an low of 20 per day in January," March totals are "up to 39 daily.” TP

James Moore, nutjob of the day

James Moore, Color-coded Hillary Alerts, at Huffington Post, March 11, 2008, 07:12 PM EST. Opening graf:

If anyone has paid acutely painful attention to the political ministrations of Karl Rove over the past two and a half decades, it's me. And if there is anyone qualified to make comparisons between democracy's Darth Vader and Hillary Clinton, I stand at the head of that line, as well. And sadly, the similarities are so brutally obvious as to be disturbing.

And it gets worse.

I won't dignify this nutjob with a link so if you want to read the entire nutcase, go visit Huffpost and look the column up. Sorry, but Google works well with the info I've provided above.

Moore quoted Harvard professor Orlando Patterson's flight of fancy in the NYTimes, whose disturbed mind unbelievably imagined a racist subtext in Hillary's "3:00 A.M." ad. Bob Somerby of The Daily Howler completely decimated Patterson's contention.

Love this from Somerby: "How big a dumb-ass is Patterson?"

My guess: As big as James Moore.

Marc Rudov's sexist problem

Maybe Rembrandt didn't have this in mind

On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the highest, how sexist is Marc Rudov? With emphasis in bold:

During the March 10 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly hosted Marc Rudov, author of Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables, to discuss "What is the downside of having a woman become the president of the United States?" Rudov's initial response to the question was, "You mean besides the PMS and the mood swings, right?" O'Reilly responded: "But guys have mood swings, Marc. And you know they have other control issues, as we just heard with [New York] Governor [Eliot] Spitzer and we saw with various presidents. So come on now, let's be fair." Rudov then asserted: "Well, you know, I'm joking. Of course, the main problem I have is if a woman has a female agenda. If she doesn't have a female agenda, if she just wants to be an executive for all the people, then all I care about is if she's qualified. And I have no qualms about having a female president. But if we take [Sen.] Hillary Clinton, she specifically does have a female agenda." Rudov later added: "But Hillary embodies the female agenda. She wants to be the feminist in chief. She represents women. It says so on her website. And a lot of women are voting for her because she's a woman." O'Reilly hosted Rudov and Republican strategist Margaret Hoover as part of a new segment called "He Said, She Said," in which O'Reilly and his guests will "deal with issues from a gender-based point of view."

Also during the segment, O'Reilly asked Hoover: "So it would be OK with you if a woman was elected president and then tilted her policies toward women? It would be all right with you?" Hoover replied, "Absolutely not, because you're gonna be president of the United States. You're president of women and men, African-Americans, Hispanics, everybody. So you don't run with identity politics. You don't run as a woman only representing a -- women." O'Reilly then stated, "But she -- but Hillary Clinton is."

As Media Matters for America has documented, on the January 4 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto, Rudov stated: "When Barack Obama speaks, men hear, 'Take off for the future.' And when Hillary Clinton speaks, men hear, 'Take out the garbage.' " Rudov also described Clinton during that program as "nagging" and "shrill."

First, women are half of the population so any president--female or male--should address women's issues.

Does Rudov oppose Sen. Hillary Clinton's policies on women's issues or is he too incurious to know what they are?

Does he think that to "strengthen equal pay laws and end pay disparities between men and women" is a bad thing? And if so, why?

Does he advocate pay discrimination against women?

Shouldn't women have access to family planning services, especially low income women? Is he pro-choice or does he want to rescind Roe v. Wade? How about the "morning-after" pill?

Hillary proposes "microfinance programs that enable women to start their own businesses." What's wrong with championing job creation via women-owned enterprises?

Does Rudov support or oppose sex trafficking?

I could go on with questions that obviously Marc hasn't pondered, that is, if he's capable of considering issues that impact half of Americans. His characterization of a "female agenda" demonstrates his ignorance and his disparaging remarks aimed at Hillary make him sound like Archie Bunker.

Watch the video but I advise removing sharp objects away from your 'puter screen:

I give Rudov a 10 on the sexist scale. Or maybe he's just plain stupid. M'yeah, probably both.

What's just as dumb was Obama's sexist dog whistle alluding to Hillary's problem periodically.

What say you?

Looking for Judith?

I've noticed a lot of people coming to The RealSpiel from Google Image searches of my drawing of Judith.

You can find the drawing, the oil painting, and Artemisia Gentileschi's Naples version of Judith Slaying Holofernes in my February archive.

For your convenience, click this hyperlinked title -- Tribute to Artemisia's Judith -- to go there straightaway.

Enjoy!

Tuesday cat blogging

I know it's not Friday, the traditional day for cat blogging, but it's nice to take a break from politics and all the blah, blah to lighten up this Tuesday morning.

What inspired me was reading a post at Alarming Female, where I saw one of my favorite illustrations by Graeme Base, “Lazy Lions Lounging In The Local Library,” from his book, Animalia.

I don't have a cat but I like 'em so here's my digital kitty cat inspired by Graeme.


In addition to his appetite for books, Leo also likes "dandelions." Yuk, yuk.

Sally Kern totally unhinged

Maybe Rembrandt didn't have this in mind



State Rep. Sally Kern (R-OK), an ignorant zealot competing with Fred Phelps for fringe nutcase, launched into a hate speech fraught with errors that vilified gays and lesbians. Such attitudes taken literally as if they're the gospel truth promote a hostile environment that gets people killed.

Watch it.



Wow! Gays and lesbians are a bigger threat to America than terrorism. Anyone read an NIE to that effect? Nah, I didn't think so.

Read more from the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, which produced the video.

For a discussion, check SoulForce. For further details, a defiant response from Sally Kern, letters, and contact info, visit Pam's House Blend.

Smearing Clinton again over Obama's religion

The mischaracterization of Sen. Hillary Clinton remarks over Obama's religion enters the realm of malignant absurdity. As previously documented at length here at The RealSpiel, Hillary never said Barack was a Muslim and left no doubt about it. But again today:

A March 10 editorial in the New York Post characterized as "cheap shots and low blows" Sen. Hillary Clinton's recent comments made in response to a question about Sen. Barack Obama's religion and asserted that "Clinton hedged on whether Obama is a Muslim." The Post then quoted only a portion of Clinton's response to 60 Minutes correspondent Steve Kroft's question -- "You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?" In fact, during an interview on the March 2 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes, Clinton repeatedly made clear that she believes Obama is not a Muslim and likened the false rumors about Obama's religion to false rumors about her, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented.

From the Post:

Beyond that, there are the cheap shots and the low blows -- as, for example, when Clinton hedged on whether Obama is a Muslim, acknowledging that he isn't one "as far as I know."

Let's face it: The Hill-and-Bill machine has a record of scandal and sneakiness that runs all the way back to Arkansas. And the potential for dirty tricks is huge.

In fact, Clinton's first comment in response to Kroft's initial question on the subject -- "You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?" -- was: "Of course not. I mean, that's -- you know, there is no basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that." Kroft then said, "And you said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim." Clinton answered, "Right. Right." Only after Kroft again asked, "You don't believe that he's a Muslim ... or implying, right?" did Clinton respond, "No. No. Why would I? There's no ... No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know."

Additionally, the Post did not mention that during the exchange, Clinton equated the false rumors about Obama's religion to false rumors about her: "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."

You've got to laugh at a gutter tabloid that regularly delivers "cheap shots and low blows." Consider the source, folks.

However, a few rubes--perhaps prodded by political operatives--continue to obsess over five words from Hillary--as far as I know--reading dubious scripts into the phrase, inferring that it was a calculated ploy, a qualifier that perhaps, just maybe, Obama is a Muslim. What utter nonsense. As far as I know means based on what I know. . .according to what I know. . .as much as I know. . .from what I know.

Most likely, based on Clinton's own words, as far as she knows, there's nothing to the rumor because, as she further elaborated, she has been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. To take those five words--as far as I know--out of its context edits Clinton's full response for mendacious purposes.

Hillary-haters will infuse their own biased and specious fallacies as to what Clinton meant. They claim she hedged.

Saying, Of course not, is not a hedge.

Saying, there is no basis for that, is not a hedge.

Saying, I take him on the basis of what [Obama] says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that, is not a hedge.

Saying, No. No. . . is not a hedge.

To perpetuate the questioning of Hillary's words is not only intellectually dishonest, but the tactic is also an obsessively-driven attempt to demean and destroy Hillary Clinton.

But there's another exercise to misrepresenting Hillary's words: By doing so, the press casts doubt on whether Obama is a Christian by repetitiously haranguing Clinton and indirectly maligning Obama. This is how the game is played--dissembling words out of the mouth of another to concoct a smear attacking the ultimate target. It's a two-fer, a combination shot, and a sneaky dirty trick of our fetid press corps. Over and over the public hears maybe Obama is a Muslim. See how this ruse works?

Let's face it: The New York Post isn't esteemed for its journalistic integrity, the same Rupert Murdoch fishwrapper that falsely declared, AL GORE, LIAR is the same birdcage liner that compared Howard Dean to--quoting the Boston Globe’s Cathy Young--“Hitler, Goebbels, Lenin, Trotsky, and Brezhnev. It’s a wonder that Mao and Saddam Hussein didn’t make the cut.”

Two other examples of Post lies readily available from The Daily Howler:

Deborah Orin, The New York Post, 3/18/99: A few years ago, Gore boasted that he and his wife, Tipper, had been the inspiration for the tear-jerker Harvard romance, “Love Story”—he ate his words when the author said no way.

New York Post editorial, 3/19/99: Gore, recall, claimed that he and wife Tipper were the inspiration for the 1970s best selling novel “Love Story”—which came as news to the book’s author, Erich Segal.

And the truth:

In November 1997, Gore made a fleeting remark that turned out to be accurate; he said that he had once seen a newspaper story in which Eric Segal was quoted saying that the main characters in Love Story had been based on Gore and his wife. (The three had been friends when Gore was in college.) As it turned out, Segal had been slightly misquoted in the news report Gore had seen—the male character in the book was partly based on Gore, but wife Tipper had been no role model. . .

. . .Key point: Segal defended every word Gore had said. There had been a report like the one Gore described—and the male character in his book had been based on Gore.

I laugh at anyone who takes the New York Post seriously and I reject slimebags who truncate quotes to exploit political advantage.

This crap needs to stop. And now.

The late edition

Maybe Rembrandt didn't have this in mind



Wheeee-oooo! MSNBC fired Tucker Carlson! Pardon me while I quote Alex Blaze with exclamation points. "Hallelujah!!!"

The sublimely witty James Wolcott always entertains my intellect and Sunday--OMG!--he delivered a humdinger of a knock-out punch that made all my synapses light afire. If you're as weary as I am of the food fight in the Obamasphere, read The Sorrow and the Pity Party. Teh best.

Obama and the Muslims -- Republican Rep. Steven King of Iowa seems to think that "if [Obama] is elected president, then the radical Islamists, the al-Qaida, the radical Islamists and their supporters, will be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on September 11 because they will declare victory in this War on Terror." ' Juan Cole aptly disputed King's nonsense.

In Spain -- Via Atrios, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero's PSOE wins the election, "likely increasing their majority."

Jeralyn offers answers -- Why Did Obama Withdraw From the Michigan Primary? And I agree with her recommendation: "I think the DNC should remove the penalty from Michigan and Florida and seat the delegates. In Michigan's case, Hillary should get the delegates according to her vote total. The other delegates should remain 'uncommitted' and vote how they want when they get to the convention."

Clinton bloggers -- Tom Watson provides a summary of those who have braved the slings and arrows of the "vast armadas of angry commenters." Many of my favorite bloggers are on his list. Thanks, Tom. Count me in.

Listen up! -- Joe Conason offers advice to Obama: ". . .he should stop seeking to divert attention to [Hillary's] supposed ethical problems, and concentrate instead on responding to every serious question that is raised about his finances and his associations. He will have to address them all sooner or later. Sooner would be better for him, the party and the country." Salon Premium

Chelsea won't talk and CNN whines -- Olvlzl at Echidne of the Snakes puts it bluntly: "Anyone who is stupid enough to wonder why [Chelsea] doesn't choose to talk to the media, having grown up watching them trying to destroy her family with lies and distortions, is too stupid even for the cabloids." But if you must engage the media, tips from Rahm Emanuel.

Yippee! -- I would be remiss by not mentioning Democrat Bill Foster's victory in Illinois’ 14th U.S. House District. "Foster’s win marked the first time since 2004 that a political party won control of a U.S. House district from the opposite party in a special election. Upon Foster’s swearing in, he will become the 232nd Democrat in the U.S. House, which has 198 Republicans and five vacancies — three in districts where the Republicans are the defending party." CQ Politics

Wexler rocks -- Nicole at Crooks and Liars supplied video and email of Wexler's rebuttal to AG Mukasey's "refusal to enforce" congressional contempt citations. That's our nation's top law enforcement officer ignoring his duties. More at the C&L link.

Oh, Lambert! -- You made me swoon! Just kidding. . .but check Invisible Women for some brilliant blogging. An insight into the media's coverage of Obama perked up for me via this comment: "Could it be that the media oligarchs covet the youth demographic, and so pander to it in their coverage?" Aha! Now it makes sense. Duh.

International Women's Day

Women rallied [emphasis added]:

PARIS (AFP) — Calls to end forced marriage, domestic abuse and job discrimination marked International Women's Day on Saturday as demonstrators took to the streets worldwide.

The issues highlighted crossed a wide spectrum, including abortion rights in Italy, violence against women in Iraq and women hostages in Colombia.

Nearly 100 years old, the day marks the worldwide struggle for equal rights for half the globe's population.

Scores of women rallied outside a Baghdad hotel demanding an end to violence and equal social status with men.

"Stop neglecting women. Stop killing women. Stop creating widows," read a large banner that the women, from various ethnic and religious backgrounds, held at the Babylon Hotel in Baghdad's central Karrada neighbourhood.

In Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai spoke out against forced marriages and said threats from a Taliban-led insurgency were keeping girls out of school.

"I call on religious leaders, tribal elders and particularly men: stop forcing your under-aged girls to marry, stop marrying them to old men," he said.

Up to 80 percent of Afghan women face forced marriage, and nearly two-thirds are married before the legal age of 16, according to the United Nations.

Events were also planned in neighbouring Pakistan, where "honour killings" of women and punishment gang-rapes have been widely reported.

Gatherings took place in India, Indonesia and China as activists pressed for an end to discrimination ranging from abortion of female foetuses to workplace bias.

Australian women's minister Tanya Plibersek said the occasion was a chance to acknowledge issues such as women's lack of financial independence.

"From the moment a woman enters the workforce she is likely to earn less than her male colleagues, regardless of her career, industry or level," she said.

Communist North Korea marked International Women's Day in its own way by urging its women to reject Western fashions and to "set good examples" in their clothes and hairstyles.

In Europe, job inequality, domestic abuse and abortion rights were highlighted.

Tens of thousands demonstrated in several Italian cities in favour of the right to abortion -- legalised in that country 30 years ago, but unexpectedly a hot topic ahead of April elections.

Nearly 2,000 people gathered in Warsaw over abortion rights. Poland, like Italy a heavily Roman Catholic nation, has one of Europe's most restrictive abortion laws.

A demonstration in France drew attention to French-Colombian hostage Ingrid Betancourt, seized by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) in February 2002 as she campaigned for the Colombian presidency.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy called for an end to pay inequality between men and women, and pledged to institute financial sanctions to address the problem.

There were also reminders of persistent difficulties facing women on Saturday.

Two women were attacked in the northern South African province of Limpopo because they were wearing mini-skirts, public radio reported. A group of people surrounded them, pushed them and yelled for them to undress before the women took refuge in a nearby hair salon.

In eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, thousands of women protested to demand punishment for those who commit sexual violence, including rape.

"The law on sexual violence is not applied," said Esperance Katungu. "Women are often not informed of their rights."

In Canada:

Thousands in cities across the country are expected to mark the 100th anniversary of International Women's Day with parades, rallies and other events.

While some are celebrating the achievements of women over the past century, many say gender equality in Canada is still a long way off.

Helen Chilas, co-ordinator for the Canadian Voice of Women For Peace, says violence against women is still rife across the country.

And childcare worker Rochelle Dobas says women still make about 30 cents per dollar less than their male counterparts.

Where are the rallies in America?

On a sour note, Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum spread her toxic opinion by condemning "the U.S. Government's endorsement of the worldwide feminist event, International Women's Day."

"The United States Government has no business supporting IWD," said Eagle Forum President Phyllis Schlafly. "The radical feminists know that they can't complain about American women because we are the most fortunate class of people who ever lived, so they search the globe for oppression in other countries using taxpayer dollars."

"The U.S. is joined by a crowd of sponsoring feminist groups who hide behind the guise of being the 'voice of women,' but instead promote such policies and ideals decried by the vast majority of American women, such as taxpayer-funded abortions," Schlafly said.

"These supporting organizations are the very ones who lobby for ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, or CEDAW, which is basically a UN-imposed version of the Equal Rights Amendment," Schlafly said. "The U.S. Senate has yet to ratify this disastrous treaty ever since Jimmy Carter signed it in 1980, and rightly so."

"Today's feminists and CEDAW advocates view 'progress' as government-run day care, greater access to abortion, the elimination of 'Mother's Day' because it promotes an 'negative cultural stereotype,' decriminalization of prostitution in China, and government-mandated workplace benefits that men do not enjoy, just to name a few," said Schlafly. "Their goal is not equality, but preferential treatment."

"The radical feminists want to remake our laws in order to eradicate everything that is masculine from our culture and create a gender-neutral society," concluded Schlafly. "The United States should seriously reconsider lending its stamp of approval to future IWDs."

Can Schlafly be more out of touch with reality? The nutty stuff she spews just shows that misogyny springs from both sexes--men and women. What's the best response to Schlafly and her kind? Laugh! Laugh at her inanity. She's a joke and a dinosaur destined for extinction.

So let's celebrate while at the same time acknowledging the serious challenges women around the globe face. And most of all, let's stand strong for women's rights and work to end the violence and bigotry against them.

IMAGE: Through the Flower by Judy Chicago, acrylic on canvas, 1972.

Gays, sexism, bad news, and dumb bloggers

Fact-challenged Allen -- Media Matters eviscerates Charlotte Allen's sexist diatribe point by point with facts. Are facts out of fashion at WashPo's Outlook?

Gay Governor -- Is Florida Gov. Charlie Crist gay? Well, hello! M'yeah. Howie Klein at DownWithTyranny! said he's in the closet but at least he "isn't an anti-gay homophobe like so many Republicans in the closet."

Dumb numbers -- Ed Gilgore points to an estimate by Markos Moulitsas of "of how superdelegates would, roughly, break if they vote according to the primary or caucus winner of the state to which they are assigned." And Ed asks, "But is that the right measurement of the 'popular will'?" First problem: Caucuses don't reflect the will of the people since they disenfranchise those who can't vote by appointment or who are intimidated by group dynamics. Or as Larry Johnson noted, "By its very structure it is an undemocratic process." Second problem: The race is far from over. Third problem: It's Kos. His talk about "civil war" if Hillary convinces superdelegates to break her way is, well. . .look who's divisive now.

Back up! He's gonna blow! John McCain had a meltdown over a report of discussions in 2004 about being John Kerry's veep but St. John losing his temper is SOP. No wonder he finds it "harder and harder trying to do the Lord's work in the city of Satan" when he's prone to one of the seven deadly sins: wrath. See also Jamison Foser's, The media's hero, for the press' love affair with McCain.

Death in Baghdad: "The death toll early Friday morning had mounted to 55, with 131 wounded, but the deaths were expected to mount during the night." More from Juan Cole.

The end of racism, sexism? Really? Check The Black, the Female and the Invisible by Samhita Mukhopadhyay, blogger of Feministing. A nugget: "What is depressing is when women espouse anti-feminist, anti-woman tendencies and confirm the sexism at the root of people's fear in the potential for a woman to become president. There is nothing post-feminist about that, that is old-fashioned sexism." Samhita got an idiotic comment to her thoughtful piece: "...she'll find out that racism and sexism have indeed vanished." Bwahahaha!

Out damn spot! In Justice, a new book by former U.S. attorney David Iglesias could help end Rep. Heather Wilson's political career. We can only hope.

Blog Boyz gone wild! -- A must read via Lambert, eRiposte summarized a development that has caused me to doubt most of what I read in the Blogosphere. Simply put: "There used to be a time when sites like Daily Kos were the ones debunking this kind of garbage against Democrats - so it is nothing short of disappointing to see Markos himself becoming a proponent of unsubstantiated garbage and badly reducing the credibility of Daily Kos to that of sites like Free Republic." Furthermore, "The media that went breathless trying to paint the Clintons as racist earlier in this primary is....um, racist? Well, well. Why read Free Republic and NRO and TNR or watch MSNBC or Fox News...we can get all the 'news' that is 'fit to print blog' in these great 'progressive' blogs (like Daily Kos, AmericaBlog and others) now! On the other hand, it is a sad day when FactCheck.org actually debunks the unsubstantiated crap on allegedly 'progressive" blogs.' " Head over to The Left Coaster for a bookmark-worthy post. Props to eRiposte.

Recession alert: Paul Krugman writes that "payrolls [are] down 22,000 in January, 63,000 in February. Hard to see things improving any time soon, thanks to dramatically worsening conditions in the credit markets." When did the recession begin? December 2007 or January 2008. Heckuva job, Bush.

Read it and weep: Saturday's WashPo on the "frazzled lending markets" and "unexpected job losses" just goes to show that the economy is--glub, glub, glub!--in the drink. And this isn't good: ". . .a particularly worrisome sign, temporary help services cut 27,600 jobs. Often, companies cut temporary workers before shedding permanent jobs, making that category a leading indicator for what is to come." Have a stiff drink before clicking the link. And say a prayer if you're so inclined.

Don Imus strikes again

Channeling Chris Matthews:

On the March 7 edition of Imus in the Morning, host Don Imus asserted that Sen. Hillary Clinton won her campaign for a U.S. Senate seat due to "a sympathy vote," adding, "She came here, everybody felt sorry for her 'cause her fat ..." At that point, guest and Fox News host Alan Colmes interjected, asking, "[W]hy did she get re-elected?" Imus continued: "'Cause her fat, stupid husband was getting BJs from the poor little intern there in the Oval Office."

What? No refrain of the I-Man's infamous Hillary-bashing, The Lady is a Tramp? People will say Imus has lost his touch. Or he's out of touch. Or touched in the head. How about all of the above.

Perhaps Serious People--NBC's Tim Russert, CBS anchor Bob Scheiffer, and Congressional Quarterly's Craig Crawford--should stop validating a rotting cadaver's career of fouling up the air waves with hate-filled invectives and fatuous gossip. Oh, I suppose they feel sympathy for Imus' condition. Must be terrible for Don to be continually mistaken for a litter box.

RELATED LINKS:
The pillory of Hillary
The Imus media disconnect on sexism

Clinton and Obama, who's bad? Who's good?

In criticizing E.J. Dionne and David Brooks, Bob Somerby articulates the problem of imagining which candidate--Clinton or Obama--is good or bad. First of all, our fetid press corps doesn't tell the truth about our Democratic contenders. They invent story lines to fit their own prejudices. Yes, that's right--they are biased and paid handsomely for their opinions.

Sadly, the same can be said for the present bias in the Left Blogosphere that's fractured into separate camps--Clinton versus Obama. I daresay that some of the A-List loudmouths in the 'sphere have jumped on their respective campaign gravy trains in part for the sake of their PayPal accounts and advertising cha-ching. Don't be so naivé to think that money and peeps aren't a driving a factor. It's not true for all but the transformation of once rational bloggers into mainstream media parrots--validating Matt Drudge, Ann Kornblut, and other Villagers, for gawd's sake--gives one pause.

From The Daily Howler [emphasis added in bold]:

BROOKS AND DIONNE, TOGETHER AT LAST: In today’s Post and Times columns, E. J. Dionne and David Brooks express a similar view of the Democratic campaign. “Clinton has shown she is willing to say anything about Obama to bring him down,” Dionne mournfully writes. But then, Brooks is on a similar wave length. Speaking of Obama, he says this: “When he was under assault in South Carolina, he rose above the barrage and made the Clintons look sleazy.” A bit later, he presents the boo-hooing, goo-goo view of recent events: In Texas and Ohio, “Clinton attacked [Obama], and the attacks worked.” Rachel Maddow couldn’t sob it out better.

We’ll probably examine this view of the race in more detail next week. But please note: Almost surely, this is not the way the Clinton campaign would describe these matters. Did Obama “rise above” in South Carolina? The Clinton campaign would most likely say that Obama, his campaign and his surrogates played the race card during that period, making a string of claims (some of which, to be honest, were completely absurd) which painted the Clintons as slobbering racists. Sean Wilentz doesn’t speak for the Clinton campaign, but his recent piece in The New Republic probably captures the Clinton camp’s general view of these matters. [Link]

Which campaign’s view of these matters is right? It’s always hard to sort out such matters. But quite commonly, the “press corps” adopts one view or another during the course of our White House campaigns. During the primary race in Campaign 2000, for example, the mainstream press corps’ brilliant savants widely adopted the story-lines being pushed by Bradley and McCain, their widely-beloved twin authentics. Result? Al Gore now holds the Nobel Peace Prize—but at the time, Dionne’s brilliant colleagues were reciting a mantra: Al Gore is willing to do and say anything! Dionne was too gutless to speak at the time—and this morning, he recites the same line, this time aimed at Clinton. “Clinton has shown she is willing to say anything about Obama,” the sage instructs. Alas! He kept his trap shut during Campaign 2000, speaks up unwisely today.

For ourselves, we’ll stick with prior assessments. When we watched the South Carolina debate, we thought this: We’ve never seen a three-person debate with three candidates this good. When we watched the two-person debate from LA, we thought this: It’s a shame that one of these two has to lose. The human brain is deeply (and dumbly) wired to trick us into “us and them” thinking; if we surrender to what it directs, we end up thinking that one candidate in a race is The Very Good Person, and the other is Very Bad Indeed. This is often a silly appraisal; we think that’s basically true in this case. But understand: In Campaign 2000, Dionne’s tribe cast Gore as The Very Bad Person—and Dionne never voiced a word of complaint. Today, Gore holds the Nobel Peace Prize—and the man this cohort helped put into office has made a vast wreck of the world.

How do you like the kind of judgment these savants have displayed in the past?

Al Gore is willing to say and do anything! And not only that: He’ll lick the bathroom floor to be president! They repeated it over and over again, presenting utterly ludicrous “proofs.” When people like Dionne failed to dissent, many liberals and centrists came to believe that it must be basically accurate. So it was that E. J. Dionne displayed his destructive cowardice.

Dionne hid from service back then, refusing to challenge his cohort’s behavior. Today, he himself recites their old line, this time about Vile Clinton II. It’s great to see Brooks and Dionne together at last, but we’ll stick with our previous views: We’ve never seen three candidates that good. It’s a real shame that two have to lose.

It's time to stop demonizing either candidate. One can have preferences--I know I do 'cause I only have one vote--and we should hold Hillary and Barack accountable for her and his words and deeds. But to repeat the nonsense and the characterizations--The Clintons are racists!--that the press corp has infused into Campaign 2008 is just plain stupid.

I wish Hillary would send Mark Penn packing and denounce and reject the idiotic, specious claims some of her surrogates have said. I also wish Obama would banish Jesse Jackson Jr., from his campaign for his unforgivable sexist diatribe against Hillary's "tears" and threatening African-American superdelegates for supporting Clinton. Furthermore, Obama himself should apologize for his own sexist dog whistle and for associating with homophobes.

I could go on and on, but the truth is neither campaign has been perfect. People say the dumbest things.

But nothing--nothing!--is dumber than carrying water for the Village.

Now let's get to kicking GOP butts and their sycophants in our rancid press corps.

Obama spokesman denounces Hillary is a monster

TalkLeft's Jeralyn:

As a follow-up to my earlier post about Samantha Power and surrogates gone wild, Drudge reports Barack Obama has renounced and rejected his senior foreign policy advisor's remark to a Scottish newspaper that Hillary Clinton is a monster.

Matt Drudge published a headline from Obama's campaign spokesman Bill Burton that states the senator "decries such characterizations which have no place in this campaign." Jeralyn reports that the only place the denunication appears is on the Drudge Report.

How is it that Matt Drudge got the scoop from the Obama camp before anyone else?

UPDATE: Via Salon, Samantha Power has resigned. The Obama campaign released her resignation letter:

With deep regret, I am resigning from my role as an advisor in the Obama campaign effective today. Last Monday, I made inexcusable remarks that are at marked variance from my oft-stated admiration for Senator Clinton and from the spirit, tenor, and purpose of the Obama campaign. And I extend my deepest apologies to Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, and the remarkable team I have worked with over these long 14 months.

Hillary Clinton never said Obama was a Muslim

A moo-cow edition for all you night owls


I've wanted to previously address this matter but the issue keeps resurrecting like a nocturnal vampire baring its fangs with new bites to add.

Did Sen. Hillary Clinton hedge about whether Barack Obama is a Muslim? No, she didn't. But our notoriously-biased mainstream punditheads continue to raise the issue as if she did. The venerable Media Matters of America provided the heavy-lifting by checking the facts. So follow along from the latest outbreak of misleading smears to the initial hit job [emphasis added in bold]:

Matthews again accused Clinton of fostering doubt about Obama's religion

During the March 5 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews claimed that the question -- "Is he, in fact, the religion he says he is?" -- is part of a "tough trio of attacks" Sen. Hillary Clinton is using against Sen. Barack Obama in the Democratic presidential race. As Media Matters for America has noted, Matthews has repeatedly mischaracterized Clinton's response during a CBS 60 Minutes interview to the question of whether she "believe[d] that Senator Obama is a Muslim." Contrary to Matthews' March 5 claim, her first three words in response to the question were, "Of course not." [3/6/08]

Wash. Post's Meyerson asserted Clinton "hemm[ed] and haw[ed]" over Obama's religion
In his March 6 Washington Post column, Harold Meyerson characterized Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's remarks about Sen. Barack Obama's religion during the March 2 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes as "hemming and hawing." Meyerson wrote: "[P]arty leaders must make clear to the candidates that some attacks and innuendos should be out of bounds -- such as Clinton's hemming and hawing on '60 Minutes' over whether Obama really is Christian." In fact, CBS correspondent Steve Kroft asked Clinton whether she believes Obama is a Muslim, and contrary to Meyerson's characterization, during the interview, Clinton repeatedly made clear that she believes Obama is not a Muslim. Meyerson did not note that Clinton's first three words in response to Kroft's question -- "You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?" -- were, "Of course not. "Nor did his column mention that during the exchange, Clinton equated the false rumors about Obama's religion to false rumors about her: "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."

Meyerson has previously, and falsely, accused Clinton of "play[ing] the race card." As Media Matters for America documented, in a February blog post on the American Prospect website Meyerson described a phone call that a friend of his in Los Angeles received from what Meyerson described as "a high-decibel gentleman with a very exaggerated, old style -- Amos 'n Andy, in fact -- black pattern of speech, singing the praises of Barack Obama." Without any evidence to support his accusation or any indication that he had attempted to contact the Clinton campaign -- which subsequently "called the allegation "outrageous and baseless" and "completely false" -- Meyerson pronounced the phone call "a Clinton ploy against Obama."

Although the original Meyerson post was taken down, Meyerson posted a second item on the phone call, headlined "The Race Card in L.A., Part 2." Meyerson wrote:

My post occasioned some indignation when I surmised the call came from operatives working for some organization that supported Hillary Clinton. I'm sure it didn't come from the Clinton campaign itself, and I have no reason to think the campaign knew about it.

In asserting he had "surmised the call came from operatives working for some organization that supported" Clinton, Meyerson completely misrepresented his accusation in the previous post, in which he blamed Clinton herself in the headline and referred to the call as a "Clinton ploy" and a "Clinton Dirty Trick." [3/6/08]

Fineman called Clinton's comments on Obama's religion "positively Nixonian"

During MSNBC's coverage of the Texas, Ohio, Vermont, and Rhode Island primaries on March 4, Hardball host Chris Matthews stated that when asked on the March 2 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes whether she believed Sen. Barack Obama is a Muslim, "Hillary Clinton took the longest time to answer Steve Kroft's question the other night. I don't know whether to read too much into it, but everybody has, that she played a bit of a game here." Newsweek editor Howard Fineman later said that Clinton's answer was "positively Nixonian in its pauses and innuendos." He added, "Look at it and look at it carefully. There was nothing accidental about it." Fineman also said, "Hillary was brilliantly Machiavellian in sounding indignant while at the same time raising doubts about Obama."

In fact, Clinton's first three words in response to Kroft's question -- "You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?" -- were, "Of course not." Additionally, Clinton made clear at the end of the exchange with Kroft that she was likening the rumors about Obama's religion to false rumors about her: "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."

During the March 3 edition of Hardball, Matthews asserted that Clinton's campaign is "[g]oing after" Obama "in this Muslim issue" and claimed that she "g[ave] up a clear chance to dismiss these bad stories being pushed by bad people, that he's not the religion he is, clearly to try to disturb people." Matthews added: "She had a clear opportunity on 60 Minutes to clear that up, and she didn't take it." Later in the program, he played a clip of Clinton's 60 Minutes interview in which the end of Clinton's answer was cropped so it did not include a remark in which she clearly stated that she did not believe that Obama was a Muslim and added that she too had been "the target of so many ridiculous rumors." Matthews then repeatedly highlighted only part of Clinton's comments to suggest that she had left Obama's religious beliefs in doubt. [3/5/08]

Vieira falsely suggested Clinton didn't say Obama is not a Muslim

During an interview with Sen. Hillary Clinton on the March 5 edition of NBC's Today, co-host Meredith Vieira asked Clinton: "On 60 Minutes over the weekend, you were asked about Senator Obama and whether you believed he was a Muslim, and you said, and I'm quoting now, 'I take him on the basis of what he says. There isn't any reason to doubt that, as far as I know.' Why not just say simply, 'No'?"

In fact, Clinton's first three words in response to CBS correspondent Steve Kroft's question -- "You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?" -- were, "Of course not." Additionally, when Kroft again asked, "You don't believe that he's a Muslim?" Clinton said: "No. No. Why would I?" Further, Clinton made clear at the end of the exchange with Kroft that she was likening the rumors about Obama's religion to false rumors about her: "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."

Responding to Vieira's question on Today, Clinton said: "Well, I went on to say that I've been the subject of a lot of rumors that, you know, have been totally made up, and, you know, this is a scurrilous rumor and it should be, you know, obviously rejected out of hand. I don't know what more Senator Obama or his campaign or any of us can say. You know, it shouldn't be believed." [3/5/08]

On Hardball and in Politico, Roger Simon misrepresented Clinton's comments on Obama's religion

On the March 3 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, Politico chief political columnist Roger Simon falsely suggested that "the last thing [Sen. Hillary Clinton] said" on the March 2 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes when asked whether she believed Sen. Barack Obama is a Muslim was: "No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know." But that was not the "last thing" she said on the question. Clinton went on to say, "I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets ... smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time." Additionally, during the same Hardball discussion, Bloomberg News columnist Margaret Carlson claimed that Clinton "doesn't have enough sympathy to say: Of course he's [Obama] not a Muslim." In fact, Clinton's initial response to CBS News correspondent Steve Kroft's first question on 60 Minutes -- "You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?" -- was: "Of course not. ... [T]here is no basis for that" [emphasis added].

The next day, in his March 4 Politico column, headlined "Clinton plays victim and victimizer," Simon highlighted the phrase, "as far as I know," from Clinton's 60 Minutes interview and asked: "Doesn't that just continue a smear?" [3/4/08]

Matthews truncated Clinton's comments, ignored others to repeatedly suggest she gave up "chance to dismiss" Obama rumors

During the March 3 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews asserted that Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign is "[g]oing after" Sen. Barack Obama "in this Muslim issue" and claimed that she "g[ave] up a clear chance to dismiss these bad stories being pushed by bad people, that he's not the religion he is, clearly to try to disturb people." Matthews added: "She had a clear opportunity on 60 Minutes to clear that up, and she didn't take it." Later in the program, Matthews played a clip of Clinton's 60 Minutes interview with Steve Kroft in which the end of Clinton's answer was cropped such that it did not include a remark in which she clearly stated that she did not believe that Obama was a Muslim and added that she too had been "the target of ridiculous rumors." Matthews then repeatedly highlighted only part of Clinton's comments to suggest that she had left Obama's religious beliefs in doubt.

While discussing Clinton's comments with MSNBC's Joe Scarborough and Norah O'Donnell, Matthews aired a clip of the 60 Minutes interview in which Clinton responded to three questions about whether she believed Obama was a Muslim. In response to Kroft's first question -- "You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?" -- Clinton replied: "Of course not. I mean, that's -- you know, there is no basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that." Matthews ignored the fact that Clinton said, "Of course not," instead choosing to highlight an answer from Clinton that was truncated in the clip he played. In Kroft's third question, he again asked: "You don't believe that he's a Muslim -- or implying, right?" Clinton's full answer was: "No. No. Why would I? There's no -- [n]o, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know. ... Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time." However, on Hardball, the clip ended after Clinton said "as far as I know," which Matthews then used to suggest that Clinton was leaving Obama's faith in doubt. [3/4/08]

Drudge headline distorted Clinton comments to suggest she said "Obama Not Muslim 'As Far As I Know' ... "

On March 3, the Drudge Report linked to online news portal Breitbart.tv video footage from the March 2 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes under the headline "Hillary: Obama Not Muslim 'As Far As I Know'...," falsely suggesting that Sen. Hillary Clinton characterized the issue of Sen. Barack Obama's religion as unresolved. In fact, she did the opposite. Correspondent Steve Kroft first asked Clinton, "You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?" to which Clinton replied, "Of course not. I mean, that's -- you know, there is no basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that." Kroft then asked, "And you said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim," to which Clinton replied, "Right. Right." Only after Kroft went on to ask, "You don't believe that he's a Muslim or implying, right?," did Clinton respond, "No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know" [emphasis added].

Following Clinton's response to Kroft's third query on the subject, Kroft said, "It's just scurrilous --" to which Clinton responded, "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time." [3/3/08]

Thank goodness, we have A-List bloggers disputing the nonsense spread by the Hillary-hating mainstream press, right? Wrong. Not when moo-cows like Josh Marshall rely on GOP operative Matt Drudge for his sourcing. As Bob Somerby explained on Feb. 26, 2008, a response to the accusation that the Clinton camp circulated a photo of Obama in Muslim garb:

WE’RE ALL MATT DRUDGE NOW: We began planning this site in late 1997, for reasons we can no longer clearly recall. At the time, the noxious and inane Matt Drudge was king of the political web—an entity which barely existed.

Ten years later, a vast “liberal web” has come into being. But, by now, we’re all Matt Drudge, as Josh Marshall and Kevin Drum made quite clear in yesterday’s posts. Drudge says it—and our “intellectual leaders” repeat it. Life thus becomes very easy.

But then, as Grover Norquist once said: “Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are very unpleasant. But when they've been ‘fixed,’ then they are happy and sedate. They are contented and cheerful.”

The issue, of course, involves Drudge’s pronouncement about that photograph of Obama [in Muslim garb]. Mooing contentedly, Drum observed that Drudge’s post was “ambiguous—who distributed the photo—who did it go to?” Indeed, Drum’s caveat put matters mildly; as any advanced fifth grader could see, Drudge didn’t say that “Clinton staffers” had sent the photo in question to him; he simply said that unnamed Clinton staffers had “circulated” the photo (where, he didn’t say), and he quoted an accompanying e-mail message—without saying who the e-mail had gone to. Do you mind if we draw two simple conclusions—conclusions so simple a child could reach them? First: In all likelihood, no Clinton staffer sent the photo to Drudge, or the brilliant fellow would have said that they had. Second: For all anyone knows, some Clinton staffer sent the photo to a friend in Obama’s campaign, and the photo and e-mail proceeded from there. Is that what happened? We have no idea. But then, no one but Drudge has the slightest idea what facts (if any) lay behind his report—which didn’t keep a pair of moo-cows from mooing the Drudge story forward.

It would be hard to find words low enough to capture the work of these two cheerful bovines. Even as of this morning, Drum still hadn’t updated his post to include Howard Wolfson’s conference call, in which (quoting Greg Sargent at TPM ), Wolfson “strongly denied any official campaign role in pushing the photo of Obama.” Having mooed his affirmation of Drudge, Moo-cow Kevin withdrew from the scene, failing to comment on Wolfson’s statement. And if anything, Moo-cow Marshall played things even dumber—as he often does in these latter days. As he so often does now, Marshall rushed into print with a premature judgment (the Clinton camp surely did it!), then back-pedaled in a rambling, barely-coherent “update” (same link)—a non-clarification clarification of a type he has come to master. Incredibly, Marshall eventually linked to Sargent’s story—while pretending that Wolfson’s statement didn’t go beyond what had already been said. Not being stable-boys ourselves, we won’t bother to scoop Josh’s piles; you can limn his posts for yourself. But go ahead: Read his original post, then his update, then read his link to Sargent’s report. There’s nothing new here, the moo-cow said, as he linked to a report which opened like this:

“On a conference call with reporters just now, Hillary spokesperson Howard Wolfson strongly denied any official campaign role in pushing the photo of Obama in a turban and Somali garb.”

If you didn’t click on Josh’s link, you wouldn’t know how absurd his characterization was. But certain types have long played this game. The assumption: You rubes won’t bother to click on that link! Therefore, you won’t see that what has been said is pure, Grade A, moo-cow nonsense.

It would be hard to find words sad enough to capture these posts by these two cheerful cows. In 2002 and 2003, these “very serious” fellows were giving assent to an oncoming war with Iraq. (Each of the pipe-puffers flipped, or semi-flipped, in early March 2003.) But as of today, they’re even more content. Today, they just wait for Drudge to declaim. Then, they type this: What Drudge said!

Readers, are you happy? We’re all Matt Drudge now! Drudge says it—and we agree to believe it! Meanwhile, Keith goes on the air to complain about what those *ss-holes at SNL said. We’re all cheerful moo-cows now, given this level of leadership.

And what did moo-cow Josh Marshall have to say about Hillary's denial on 60 Minutes that Obama was a Muslim? He insinuated that "there is some iffy hedging" and bellowed, "For me it's on the edge. And I find it surprising she would leave it on the edge. Why the 'as far as I know' line? On the other hand, at other points, she seems pretty unequivocal. But mainly I'm curious to hear what you think."

Well, I've thought about it, researched it, and so has Media Matters: It's ridiculous to conclude that Clinton was "iffy" about her denial that Obama is a Muslim.

I purposely left in the redundancy of Hillary's quotes supplied by Media Matters so others reading the snips won't suddenly feel the urge to morph into "cheerful bovines" happy to repeat the nonsense of Josh, Matt Drudge, Tweety, and the other Village Idiots.

UPDATE: Add another via Media Matters:

NY Times' Herbert misrepresented Clinton's comments about Obama's religion, asserted they were "one of the sleaziest moments of the campaign"

In his March 8 New York Times column, Bob Herbert misrepresented recent remarks Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton made in response to a question about Sen. Barack Obama's religion and asserted that they represented "one of the sleaziest moments of the campaign to date." Herbert wrote, "[60 Minutes correspondent Steve] Kroft asked Senator Clinton if she believed that Senator Obama is a Muslim. In one of the sleaziest moments of the campaign to date, Senator Clinton replied: 'No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know.' " But as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, during the interview on the March 2 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes, Clinton repeatedly made clear that she believes Obama is not a Muslim. Indeed, Clinton's first comment in response to Kroft's initial question on the subject -- "You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?" -- was, "Of course not."

Our fetid press corps writes the sleaziest things on a daily basis but the rubes fall for their tripe all the time. People will read what they wish to fit their biases in defiance of evidence. Too many suffer from Clinton Derangment Syndrome, bless their hearts.