[Thanks. Done! --Amp]

Okay, putting on my moderator hat: Ron can reply once to my most recent post addressed to him. Charles can reply once to Ron’s post addressed to Charles.

After that, please go back on topic or take it to an open thread.

1) Drudge is not only right wing, it’s arguably the single most important, influential right wing site.

2)

(#2, about racism and suppressing votes, moved to a thread of its own.)

3) Regarding “denouncing Farrahkhan,” there’s nothing wrong with denouncing Farrahkhan. There is something wrong with the way that only black leaders are pressured to denounce Farrahkhan, no matter how trivial the connection (such as “the minister at your church once praised Farrahkhan”).

There’s also the ’secret muslim’ whispering campaign, which I don’t think anyone would try to deny originates with Republican operatives (no, I don’t know of proof of it, but you’re not going to try to deny it, are you?).

Actually, yes - I’ll be quite ready to deny it. Are there a few people out there who keep harping on the Moslem elements in Sen. Obama’s upbringing as a child? Sure. Is there any reason to suspect that they are involved in the Republican party organization or are acting at it’s behest? Not in the slightest. The Internet is a wonderful thing, but one thing it can do is enable a few disaffected individuals to drum up something like this.

And this is the kind of presumption that calls into question the charges and assertions people are making about Republicans being a souce of racism and sexism and everything else in the campaign. Someone’s trying to get the public to think that Obama is a closet Moslem. “OOOOO, it must be those devil Republicans!” Bogus, just as it would be bogus to say that Democratic operatives planted that rumor about McCain being involved with a lobbyist 8 years ago with the New York Times.

Is it possible that people who are actually involved in the Republican party are responsible for “the whispering campaign” or “denouncing Farrahkhan” (like that’s a bad thing) or any of the other stuff you’re talking about? Sure. When you have some actual evidence, I’ll be glad to listen. Otherwise, it’s a baseless presumption.

Also, the Republicans are apparently currently running a massive focus group and polling test study on exactly how racist their attacks on Obama (and how sexist their attacks on Clinton, just in case) can be without drawing a backlash.

You really believe this, don’t you? Amazing.

I don’t read Drudge. On the radio this morning it was cited as the source of the public revelation of that picture. Is Drudge considered a right-wing blog? Free Republic is definitely a right-wing blog, but interestingly enough most of the respondents to the story said “So what?” - which was my reaction.

McCain’s the party’s candidate, but Presidential candidate != party leader. And so he laughed at a joke that referred to Sen. Clinton as a bitch? Not his finest moment, but that’s only one instance. I’d have to see more to call it a pattern, and it’s not like he was going around telling the joke, he just laughed when he heard it.

If they act as usual, the most important way Republican operatives and activists will politic based on race is through trying to suppress the black and latino vote in the general election.

Well, we’ll see about that, won’t we? And should anything happen, I’d have to evaluate whether the basis of any action is race, or that the people in question are voting Democratic. It seems to me some people are quick to cry “racism” despite the actual motive or basis of an action.

Blameless innocents? I don’t recall making that assertion. But the assertion that both the Democratic candidates are acting on the basis of sexism and racism is being made repeatedly here, so it’s pretty clear what people here think the Democrats are doing. What the Republicans are going to do is the subject of speculation, but speculation doesn’t balance out facts.

Okay, a fourth line, how racist can the smear campaign be, with McCain denouncing it, and still have it do more damage to Obama by activating racist tropes in white voters mind than it does to McCain by activating voters’ disgust at the racist tropes.

The Republicans will run exactly as racist a campaign as their studies tell them they can, and not one iota less.

Note that one of McCain’s higher ranking people intends to resign if Obama is the Democratic candidate, because he doesn’t want to be associated with doing to Obama the shit that the Republicans are going to do.

Given what we’ve seen of the campaigns of Sens. Clinton and Obama, the Republicans would have to consider hiring the KKK and some Mens’ Rights group to go after race and sex more than these two.

Although I certainly agree that both Democratic campaigns have on occasion acted egregiously, I think you’re exaggerating, to say the least.

The main place I’ve seen that photo of Obama in African clothing posted is on right-wing blogs — if you doubt me, I’d be happy to post links. And when someone asked McCain a question referring to Clinton as “bitch,” McCain laughed at the joke — apparently that’s what your party leader finds funny.

If they act as usual, the most important way Republican operatives and activists will politic based on race is through trying to suppress the black and latino vote in the general election. That’s 500 times worse than anything the Clinton or Obama campaigns have done — and can be much more reasonably compared to some of the goals of the KKK, historically.

Anyone who thinks the Republicans are blameless innocents on this front is a very partisan Republican indeed.

I tried to say that the Republicans are waiting for a single opponent to emerge, so that they can focus voters attention to his or her otherness.

When I challenged this, you said:

Because it is a human trait to beware of those who are different. Not everyone in this country will be able to overcome it and give the candidates a fair look. I know that I have been petty enough to give a plain, short man a break that I would refuse to a tall, good looking guy. It would be tempting for those who want the Republican candidate to win to play on similar feelings. Those who have no reputation to lose will. Those who believe that they can ’smugly lie about their intent’ will also. Many will be above such tactics. Some won’t.

Your original statement referenced “the Republicans”. Now, I understand that to mean either the official Republican party or a majority of those people considering themselves Republicans. What you’re doing now is saying that you think some supporters of the Republican candidate who have no reputation to lose might do this. That’s not the Republican party itself and it’s likely quite a small subset of those supporting Sen. McCain (the presumptive nominee at this point). It’s a long way from saying “the Republicans are waiting for a single opponent to emerge, so that they can focus voters attention to his or her otherness.” I’m not surprised you couldn’t support such a statement.

So far it looks as though the campaigns of Sens. Clinton and Obama are doing a far more thorough job of jumping on their opponent’s “otherness” than anything the Republicans would ever even think of getting away with. But then, family fights are always the most vicious.

Perhaps things like the following link?

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/01/legendary_gop_strategist_launc.php

BTW, what exactly happened here? The Drudge report says that an e-mail was circulated by a Clinton staffer. Circulated to who? Internally? NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox and the New York Times? This report is a little short on details.

Will Rogers is going to make a comeback. “I don’t belong to an organized political party. I’m a Democrat!”

(”Suicide squad! Attack!”)

I tried to say that the Republicans are waiting for a single opponent to emerge, so that they can focus voters attention to his or her otherness.

I’m real curious. What leads you to believe that the Republicans are going to make race or sex an issue in the general campaign?

This is a dangerous mistake to make. Just because someone uses a despicable trick does not mean that he is weak, or that he could not win in a fair fight. He may be lazy, may want to save some energy, may enjoy offending people, or may be trying to get his opponent off balance. You can tell a lot about his moral character, but not about his abilities. In reality, these are not as strongly related as in fiction.

I wonder how much trouble my favorite example would get me into… Once upon the time, I nearly got demoted for making it to disprove the same argument.

Of course it is an opinion. I do not claim to be clairvoyant. I would also bet every single cent I have on it. Why?

Because it is a human trait to beware of those who are different. Not everyone in this country will be able to overcome it and give the candidates a fair look. I know that I have been petty enough to give a plain, short man a break that I would refuse to a tall, good looking guy. It would be tempting for those who want the Republican candidate to win to play on similar feelings. Those who have no reputation to lose will. Those who believe that they can ’smugly lie about their intent’ will also. Many will be above such tactics. Some won’t.

And no, I do not think Democrats are above them, either. Every time that a valid disagreement with a candidate’s views is greeted with cries of ’sexism’ and ‘racism’, it is not only an attempt to deflect the criticism and tarnish the critic, but also a way to appeal to those that ’should have been offended’.

And of course, the posters here will disagree on whether the accusation is a valid one or not.

> Second, what do you mean by “otherness”?

For Clinton, it would be the fact she is female. While women are a majority, they are kind of underrepresented among US presidents. For Obama it would be the fact that he is black.

Are either of these phrases something that he has been using regularly in his stump speech, or are they single instances? If they are things he is using regularly then it is clear that he has decided that he does need to engage in subliminal misogyny to win. If they are one off attacks, then I just find them puzzling (offensive, but mostly puzzling).