Racial pretensions

Now more than 36 hours into boycotting TV news, I can always check the pulse of the Obamasphere--these days an extension of the mainstream press--to discern what the air waves have blasted as the latest propaganda spiel. So I'm enjoying music in lieu of hype blaring in the background from tee-vee punditheads. Who needs 'em? I don't.

With that said, onward to race-race-race, a recurring campaign media trope.

Riverdaughter posted terrific commentary this morning on an "annoying theme from yesterday’s sweetie attack... that Kentuckians pretty much admitted that they were racists in exit polls." Garychapelhill followed up with an argument that I also support:

By repeatedly crying wolf on the race issue, Obama lessens the impact of the charge of racism when it really occurs. Despite what the pundits and the Obama campaign say, this exit poll data is of no use when trying to determine the racial attitude of voters. Don’t believe me? Let’s take a look at some numbers.

Gary then examined exit polls from Wisconsin, Georgia, Connecticut, and Florida to demonstrate that building an argument about racism (and sexism) in the primaries--and specifically Hillary's "racist" voters based on exit polls--is not only stupid, but dishonest and destructive in trivializing the real-world problems of post-civil rights era racial injustices.

For further edification, see also Richard Thompson Ford, professor at Stanford and author of the book, The Race Card: How Bluffing About Bias Makes Race Relations Worse.

I left a comment at Riverdaughter's post about the alleged racism of the Kentucky primary, which I'll re-post here with additional remarks, revisions, and panels from the KY exit polls via CNN.

Looking at the exit polls, the Blog Boyz and the media have ignored the nuances. I suspect their motive is to undermine Hillary's huge win in KY in protecting The Precious (h/t Anglachel) and his march to the nomination. Pffft. Pffft. Shield your eyes from the electoral map and how it favors Hillary in the general election. Ignore the argument that Obama isn't as strong in defeating McCain. Instead, they jam the public discourse with race scandal-mongering as a diversion from the issue of Obama's electability.

First, eyeball the vote by race of the exit polls.


African-American voters broke large for Obama, a greater percent than whites who voted for Hillary. But who would be silly enough to criticize AAs for voting for Obama? It's a historical opportunity, a no-brainer.

Next, the specious argument du jour about bluegrass state racism via this exit poll question.

Of the 18% of whites who said race of the candidate was important, 9% of them voted for Obama, 2% voted uncommitted. So that whittles down the argument that one in five bluegrass voters are "white racists." A portion of those 18% whites--9%--voted for Obama because his race was important to them. What's that tell you? Are the alleged racists confused? More sexist than racist? Seriously, wonder about how the question was phrased and whether people say the darnest, dumbest things to end a research survey as quickly as possible.

Additionally, 2% of the 9% of AAs--or 22%--said that the race of the candidate was important.

Of Black Democrats (9%), 91% of them voted for Obama.

Also notice the breakout of party affiliation. Looking at the vote by party and race, the exit poll lumped All Republicans together (6%) and All Other Party (1%) without identifying their race. I suspect these cohorts are white but we don't know because the exit polls didn't provide the data.

What the exit polls didn't analyze is how many of the white group (18%) who said race of the candidate was important came from All Republicans and/or All Other Party. There are no party affiliations attributed to these white voters. None.

Only 7% said that race of the candidate was most important while 14% said that race was one of several factors contributing to their voting decision. What's the race of the 7% and 14% of these respondents? We don't know.


Of the latter 14% group, which said race was one of several factors, 19% of them voted for Obama and 2% for Uncommitted.

Based on this data, to claim that Kentuckians are racists is simplistic and erroneous. I don't fault the overwhelming majority of AAs who voted for Obama. Do the Blog Boyz? Or the media? Hell, no. They're busy shrieking their heads off about Hillary's racist voters.

Is there racism in KY? Probably, just as there is racism and sexism in America. But how deep the racism is--who, what, and where--these exits polls don't probe.

However, it's malignant absurdity to use exit polls to declare "that Kentuckians pretty much admitted that they were racists." What we're seeing mostly, IMO, is racial identity with a candidate. You can see that vividly in how Black Democrats voted--91% for Obama.

Assuming that whites who voted for Clinton aren't voting for Obama because he's African-American dismisses and discounts what Hillary offers to Americans as POTUS.

Violet at The Reclusive Leftist wrote on March 10 about...

...support for Obama from the African-American community, a phenomenon with which I’m deeply sympathetic. Just as millions of women (of all races) see their gender reflected in Hillary, millions of African-Americans (of both sexes) see their race reflected in Obama. You can call it identity politics, but what I call it is the chance to finally feel represented after 200 years in a so-called representative democracy. I begrudge no one that yearning.

Neither do I.

I support Hillary first and foremost because of her policies, her knowledge, her experience, her can-do attitude, and her tenacity. OMG, we need a fighter in the WH when our nation faces crises on so many fronts: the economy, energy, foreign affairs, and national security with two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I also identify with Hillary as a woman, trusting her to represent the interests of half of America better than a man with a sexist attitude who refers to us as sweeties.

So sweetie darthlings, take your racial pretensions about Hillary voters elsewhere. My teevee news programming is dark and Beethoven is playing. Da-da-da-duh.

Obama Talking Points Memo

Bob Somerby of The Daily Howler has written at length about the misleading commentary authored or endorsed by Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo. If you search Somerby's archive, you can find examples of Josh's lackluster performances and blatant wankery over the years. Also, check this archive at TalkLeft, where Armando (Big Tent Democrat), an Obama supporter, demonstrates how to blog fairly about both Clinton and Obama.

Two recent examples via Somerby's passing observation yesterday, when taken together, document TPM's favoritism of Obama and bias toward Clinton deceitfully honed. A caveat: Josh can endorse whomever he wants. What is problematic is how he presents his "reporting" as factually correct, when actually he distorts information to fit his point of view. Such misleading tactics one would expect from the sleazy wingnutosphere. Evidently, the liberal blogosphere has its own share of propagandists.

Monday, Josh tasked the notoriously fallacious Bill Kristol for citing Newsmax in his column that stated Obama had attended Rev. Jeremiah Wright's controversial service:

Bill Kristol forgets that fact-checking is important, even in a hit piece.

Later on Monday, Greg Sargent posted an update to the story:

In his latest column, Bill Kristol falsely claimed -- based on reporting by Newsmax, of all things -- that Obama had attended Trinity Church last July 22nd, when Wright blamed blamed [sic] the “arrogance” of the “United States of White America” for much global suffering.

The Obama campaign responded with an aggressive fact-check last night, saying that, no, in fact Obama was not at the service.

Somerby recalled that last month on the morning of February 25, Marshall used an unsubstantiated allegation from right-wing Matt Drudge as a source to smear the Clinton campaign as if fact-checking isn't important for him, but it is for Bill Kristol. Interesting double standard, no?

He just couldn't help himself in citing the spurious Mr. Drudge. The story was too juicy to hold up, insinuating that the Clinton camp was out to get Obama, reinforcing errant gossip that Barack might be a Muslim. He didn't "want to take Drudge as a fact witness for anything." But, waah! Waah! He just had to do it. Who or what made him post a Matt Drudge allegation?

Why it was those darn Clintons running "a terribly inept" campaign and the pressure of inquiring readers who were to blame. Not Josh. Heaven forbid.

He "pushed and pushed"--Bless his heart!--to get what he needed, a Clinton campaign response before he posted the specious Drudge allegation. When the Clinton camp didn't meet his idea of what he "knows" campaigns should say to unequivocally deny an allegation, to disavow that they had anything to do with the Obama dressed in Muslim garb photo, Josh plunged ahead to spread a Matt Drudge "hit piece" as if he was a victim of circumstance.

Of course, none of TPM's readers have any idea how Josh phrased his inquiry to the Clinton campaign before he posted, That Drudge Headline, because he didn't tell them. He didn't publish his line of questioning for transparency's sake--we're to trust his unfailing integrity--because he knows his readers don't come to TPM "to get insights into our editorial process." Odd, that he mentioned that last point.

Without verifying sources for hard evidence, he linked to the Greg Sargent's 9:50 AM posting of the Obama campaign's "David Plouffe condemning the Hillary campaign and saying it's part of a 'disturbing pattern' from Camp Hillary." Yet, no high-level Obama staffers offered "any evidence or info as to what happened beyond what appeared on Drudge."

Later on February 25 at 2:36 PM, Greg Sargent posted:

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.

Drudge reported this morning that Clinton staffers had "circulated" the photo. He didn't say who circulated it, what level of Clinton staffer had circulated it, or to whom it had been circulated. Drudge is the sole source for this email's existence. Nonetheless, the media has been all over the story today.

Josh couldn't wait to post a Matt Drudge "hit piece" on Clinton but what did Josh say in his afternoon follow-up to his rancid "reporting"?

On a conference call, Howard Wolfson just made pretty much the kind of 'loosely categorical' statement about the Obama picture that I said in the post below that we were surprised not to have heard. Here's our report on the conference call.

Not a hint of how Wolfson "strongly denied any official campaign role"--the type of explanation Josh expected for a campaign to provide when he "pushed and pushed"--and he described the denial as "loosely categorical." He merely offered a link to "our report on the conference call" without correcting his original erroneous "report."

Bob Somerby of The Daily Howler is right:

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.

Fact-checking is important for Bill Kristol, "even in a hit piece." The right-wing, fact-challenged Newsmax isn't a reliable news source as Media Matters have repeatedly documented. The same is true about Matt Drudge.

But it's OK if you're Josh Marshall to use Clinton-hating, right-wing Drudge as a source without checking facts. Josh called his post "reporting." That's a quaint term for sophistry.

When the dubious wingnut Bill Kristol doesn't get his facts straight, using a proven unreliable source, Josh and Greg pounced on the "hit piece." Why? Kristol had linked Obama with the Rev. Wright controversy. Damage control had flung into full throttle.

Does Josh commit to the same level of diligence when the Democratic candidate is Hillary? No. Not as "a generally subtle, practitioner of Clinton Derangement Syndrome." He's been silent on the sexist crap. And that leaves plenty of doubt about his objectivity when his misleading spin and the "slide-toward-propaganda" thoroughly undermines and discredits "Josh Marshall’s once-superlative work."

Tell me why I ought to ever consider TPM a credible blog on news stories in the future?

Shilling for Obama must pay well. Isn't it time for a name change? Obama Talking Points Memo sounds about right.