Fox and Obama

While we're pondering the topic of obnoxious media coverage of the campaign, consider this:

[Fox News Channel] has released a statement saying it should not have referred to Mr. Obama’s wife, Michelle, as "Obama’s Baby Mama," as it did on Wednesday in an on-screen headline commonly called a "chyron." ... The chyron appeared during a discussion between the conservative columnist Michelle Malkin and the Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly about political attacks against Mrs. Obama. It read in full, "Outraged Liberals: Stop picking on Obama’s baby mama!" ...

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the term as one "chiefly in African-American usage" that refers to, "The mother of a man’s child, who is not his wife nor (in most cases) his current or exclusive partner."

Earlier this week, the Fox News anchor E.D. Hill had apologized for raising the possibility that the Obamas affectionate fist bump during the senator’s victory rally in St. Paul on June 3 was "a terrorist fist jab." Two weeks prior, the Fox News analyst Liz Trotta said she regretted making a joke about a possible assassination of Mr. Obama.

< Legal Realism: Roberts Style | Friday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    And yes, that chyron WAS racist (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:47:07 AM EST

    I think it was (5.00 / 11) (#9)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:57:02 AM EST
    racist and sexist.
    it was a toofer

    I think it was more sexist. (none / 0) (#140)
    by Burned on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:27:20 AM EST
    It was 100% repellent used in the way it was.

    The beauty of all this is that (none / 0) (#189)
    by Newt on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:52:38 PM EST
    Faux News is making changes already.

    The people behind Obama, the Yes We Can movement, is grassroots, progressive and enormously powerful.  In spite of the juvenile commenters on the blogs, the rest of us are what will create the change.


    Its part of the GOP's (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:19:32 AM EST
    Gabby Johnson strategy. Pat Buchanan keeps referring to Obama as exotic. When called on it last night, he really didn't have a good answer.  

    I should add I suspect (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:22:23 AM EST
    that was the real agenda behind the birth certificate as well.

    DING DING DING DING (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by madamab on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:24:42 AM EST
    Meanwhile, McCain was born in Panama.



    Actually, that was a big deal (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:44:54 AM EST
    A lot of people claimed that McCain couldn't be President. I didn't follow the Republican primary that closely, but I was aware of the issue. The McCain birth question is "crickets" now, because it has been dealt with. I don't know what they expected to see on Obama's birth certificate. I suspect they were just fishing, hoping to find something negative - don't some birth certificates ask about the parent's religions? Maybe they wanted to show that his father's stated religion was Muslim.

    They are just emphasizing the obvious (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:51:31 AM EST
    Obama is black and the product of a mixed marriage. "Exotic."

    "What he say?"
    "The new sheriff is near."

    My gosh (5.00 / 11) (#3)
    by Steve M on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:51:11 AM EST
    Fox F'in News has more capacity for shame than Keith Olbermann.

    No they don't (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Claw on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:04:02 AM EST
    They have an agenda (as did Olberman).  They're going to keep insinuating Obama might be a terrorist, using coded (or not so coded) racism, etc.  And then apologize for it...after the damage has been done.  We'll hear about it and care, but it will stir up votes for McCain.

    Abso-freaking-lutely. (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by madamab on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:08:50 AM EST
    Fox hates all Dems. They may pretend they don't like McCain, but they do what their corporate masters tell them to do.

    So then (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:09:26 AM EST
    Is it the case that racism will hurt/cost Obama, but sexism benefitted Clinton? Or will racism galvanize people to vote for Obama?

    The Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by madamab on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:16:29 AM EST
    and Independents who watch Fox are the target audience here.

    You tell me - are they going to be more likely to vote for Obama if he is a terrorist, or possibly worse, a scary black Muslim from the church of God D**n America?

    Or are they going to say, "Save America! Safe White Christian Man in 2008!"

    Yeah, that's what I thought.


    So what's the conclusion? (none / 0) (#102)
    by anydemwilldo on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:52:16 AM EST
    We should never vote for a black man because the rest of society is racist?  I mean, sure, that's a practical (if deeply arguable) point.  But it's ... vile.  Sorry, but it is.  I'm not saying your a vile person for making it, just that the argument has deep ethical problems that I'm not sure you've thought through.

    Couldn't the same logic have been used against Clinton?  America "won't vote" for a woman, so we should nominate the dude.  There were several polls out there showing that opposition to a female candidate was actually higher than to a black one, so this (equally vile!) point would seem to have about the same level of empirical support.


    how on earth (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by dws3665 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:54:08 AM EST
    does this comment follow from what that poster said?

    Implication (none / 0) (#113)
    by anydemwilldo on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:59:04 AM EST
    The clear implication of the parent post was that FOX viewers are going to vote for racist reasons.  Combine that with madamb's clear opposition to Obama in her other posts, and I iterpret: "Obama is a bad candidate because racist voters won't elect him."  That point, even if true, is vile.

    If I misinterpreted, then I'm happy to be corrected.


    Fox viewers would vote for Powell in a heartbeat (5.00 / 5) (#122)
    by kempis on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:07:16 AM EST
    Obama's problem is not his race. His problem is that he's made race a huge part of his biography by attending a church that embraced Black Liberation Theology.

    Then be happy (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by santarita on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:09:22 AM EST
    Your interpretation is strange.

    For those of us here who think that Obama (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by tree on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:16:00 AM EST
    is a bad candidate, it has nothing to do with his race. It has everything to do with his lack of experience, his reach out to conservatives instead of the Democratic base, his campaign's slimy tactics during the primary, and myriad other reasons.

    You totally misinterpreted.  


    Considering (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:21:24 AM EST
    the fact that Obama and his campaign have pretty much called anyone who doesn't vote for him racists, they're pretty much conceding the argument.

    You didn't misinterpret (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Nadai on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:05:40 PM EST
    You just made it up out of whole cloth.

    Madamab has made her reasons for opposing Obama perfectly clear in previous posts, and none of those reasons have ever been that "Obama is a bad candidate because racist voters won't elect him."


    Winning Hearts and Minds (5.00 / 3) (#178)
    by blogtopus on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:46:12 PM EST
    Still up to the task, these Obama fans are. /yoda

    I don't know if this was the reason, (none / 0) (#134)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:21:18 AM EST
    but E.D. Hill lost her show and Laura Ingram will be taking over.  

    Hurts (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by Claw on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:19:08 AM EST
    Sexism absolutely hurt Clinton.  She got terribly sexist media coverage.  Racism has, and will, hurt Obama.  I think most of the people who can be galvanized already are.  We all know Fox does this stuff intentionally, right?  Right?

    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:34:20 AM EST
    I was trying to point out that many commenters her make the lame argument that sexism did not hurt Hillary, but actually helped her by galvanizing support. I don't buy it. But I'd sure like them to now make the equivalent argument here for racism helping Obama. Or else STFU, one or the other.

    Obama played the Race Card (none / 0) (#161)
    by Josey on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:50:06 AM EST
    >>>>Racism has, and will, hurt Obama.

    and payback is hell. Oh well...


    both (none / 0) (#31)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:13:32 AM EST
    Hopefully it will be more people galvanized.  

    I think it will (none / 0) (#34)
    by indy in sc on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:15:01 AM EST
    galvanize, but in a slightly different way. The black community is already pretty solidly behind Obama as proven in the exit polls of every primary since SC so it won't switch them to his side. Where it will have an effect is turn out. It's one thing to support the candidate but another to go to the polls and pull the lever (or touch the screen). The more racism becomes overt, the more motivated black community will be to turn out and vote for Obama.

    In theory I agree (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by davnee on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:28:12 AM EST
    but I seriously doubt there is much black turnout left to juice for Obama.  Then again, he may have lost some support in the community over his church, and that support may come back over indignation at racist attacks.

    It will be more interesting to see what happens outside the black community.  How will racism in the campaign motivate white voters, or for that matter Latino or Asian voters?  It could galvanize people to vote for Obama out of indignation, or it very well could cause people to think electing him would be more trouble than it is worth.  Many people prefer to just be left alone.  They may not want a national conversation on race that engages them every single day or entails regular lectures on their human failings from the bully pulpit.


    The media (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:15:20 AM EST
    has framed the general election as being about race. Is America still racist? Will it elect a black man? Etc. I think it's a huge negative for Obama. It implies that everything is going to be about race if he makes it to the WH. Who wants to have that conversation for 4 years?

    You think they can guilt people into voting (5.00 / 6) (#136)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:22:03 AM EST
    for him if they broadcast the truth?

    Is America ready for a more inexperienced, gaffe-prone president than bush? Will we elect someone again who can't say the same thing twice?


    and one shouldn't (5.00 / 9) (#148)
    by ccpup on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:37:00 AM EST
    underestimate those who have been passed over for promotions for someone with a thin resume in the interests of "inclusion" only to have to do the heavy lifting for them while they flashed their charming smile, took the bows and got the bonuses.

    I have friends who have kind of followed this Primary and are genuinely upset that the one with the experience, a handle on policy and the ability to take a punch was kicked in the chops and literally pushed aside for the guy with no resume, questionable experience and an infamously thin skin who hides behind "racism" -- or his female opponent -- when presented with criticism and uncomfortable questions.  

    Perhaps, recognizing yet another charming cad who's skated his way to success on the wispy ethers of something he calls a "resume", there are voters who will in a heartbeat vote for McCain (a man who, it can at least be argued, earned his spot on the ticket) than Obama.

    In fact, I predict they'd NEVER vote for Obama.


    To be honest... (3.50 / 4) (#75)
    by madamab on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:34:50 AM EST
    while I am offended by bigotry in all forms, and by Fox and the entire MCM 99.9% of the time, there is nothing in the world that could get me to vote for Obama right now.

    I think racism will hurt Obama, but I think the anti-patriotic meme will hurt him a lot more.

    Fox will be hammering on both anvils after the Convention.


    I do agree that the patriotism/muslim meme (none / 0) (#114)
    by davnee on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:00:25 AM EST
    will be the one that likely does the most damage to Obama.  Although that will of course interact with racism to make his patriotism/muslim problem worse than it would be for a white candidate.

    I also think the inexperienced meme will be a big problem for Obama.  That too will interact with racism to make it an even bigger problem than it would be for a white candidate. At least in so far as the general election is concerned.  I think race was a compensating factor for inexperience in the primary, but with the broader voting block of a general election, race will likely be a net detriment rather than a net asset, particularly on this meme.


    The decision on habeas corpus (none / 0) (#146)
    by Coral on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:34:46 AM EST
    has convinced me. Along with McCain's criticism of it.

    I've been giving this some thought (none / 0) (#70)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:33:02 AM EST
    what comes to mind is Harold Washington's first run for mayor and Maynard Jackson's first run for mayor. As I recall both races were ugly, but both men were re-elected in calmer re-election campaigns. Jackson went on to run again, after Andrew Young's 8 years, with more opposition from Hosea Williams than the white community.

    that is a great question (none / 0) (#77)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:35:41 AM EST
    and begs further analysis. Does the galvanization occur because one is more likable than the other?  I am not saying Hillary is less likable, again I am a Hillary fan, but when the pendulum swings both ways in the face of similar situations what are the contributing factors to the switch?  

    Apparently their "likability" (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by tree on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:20:24 AM EST
    is about even among voters but not in the MSM. I attribute that to insecure men threatened by a competent woman.

    make that a competent woman (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by ccpup on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:42:44 AM EST
    who isn't afraid to put forth legislation that would actually mean "our" Representatives and Senators might actually have to WORK or make potentially, temporarily unpopular decision.s

    The treatment of Hillary goes straight back to those in the MSM's fear of being emasculated or shown somehow "not as good, smart, whatever as" Hillary Clinton.  

    Best to just destroy her and go with the guy who laughs at your jokes, nods his head in reverential agreement with everything you say and isn't going to demand too much of you when everyone gets back to their Day Job.  He'll just let you collect your check as always.


    a possible answer (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:09:17 PM EST
    I think sexism is far more acceptable to most than racism.

    Okay (5.00 / 6) (#36)
    by Steve M on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:15:39 AM EST
    So then why doesn't KO apologize for it "after the damage has been done"?

    I am not saying that Fox News is some kind of commendable institution.  I am saying that they at least know right from wrong - even though they then make the conscious choice to do wrong.  On the other hand, there's no evidence Olbermann even understands that it's wrong.


    I get you now. (none / 0) (#50)
    by madamab on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:20:27 AM EST
    KO is irrationally evil. Fox is rationally evil.

    Does that work for you?


    Oh man (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Steve M on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:21:29 AM EST
    Any further down this road, and we'll have to bring out the 20-sided dice.

    OT but...hee hee hee! (none / 0) (#55)
    by madamab on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:23:14 AM EST
    Yes, I know what you're referring to there.

    Man, are we geeks.

    And...LOVING IT!

    /Don Adams voice


    Well (none / 0) (#57)
    by Claw on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:24:21 AM EST
    I'm no KO apologist.  I don't he CAN do the right thing here.  Whether that's because he lacks the ability to tell right from wrong, still thinks he's right, or just can't say he's sorry...who knows?

    Olberman (none / 0) (#91)
    by kaleidescope on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:45:26 AM EST
    Gets so puffed up and self-righteously moralistic that he's kind of a hyperbolic, self-executing parody.  Like some former dKos front pagers I can think of.

    Someone commented yesterday (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:22:24 AM EST
    That Hill lost her show.

    I think they all need to be suspended for these stupid comments. Average people would think twice about saying such things unless they knew exactly how those in earshot would take them.

    There was an article yesterday that explained Michelle has referred to Barack as "baby daddy" in public. Doesn't excuse it, I'd just like to see respect used for everyone by the media. No one got punished for the sexism.


    Great idea. (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:24:44 AM EST
    If we fired everyone who said this stuff, we'd be rid of all these stupid pundits.

    Fox will get its ducks in a row (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by davnee on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:10:48 AM EST
    so that when it turns the big guns against Obama in the fall and unleashes a rapid fire assault of images and evidence of Obama as scary (yet incompetent) America-hating, Muslim-sympathizing, angry black man, it will do so in the most serious and gravely measured and respectful tone.  This is all just summer goofing around.  They aren't going to waste time evading responsibility for being bad and getting their wrists rapped by the hypocrites at the other outlets over something like this.  But it is somewhat perversely comforting to know that at least Fox knows the game they are playing.  At least they aren't denying it.

    Those are the memes. (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Fabian on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:39:48 AM EST
    And I don't think they'll be used exclusively by FOX.

    The real question is whether Obama will keep from walking blindly into those frames.


    It won't be limited to Fox (5.00 / 5) (#94)
    by davnee on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:47:25 AM EST
    and Obama has already set the table for them, in the finest china and linens the GOP could have ever asked for might I add, in the primary.  Dinner will be served the moment HRC is no longer a fallback option.  We are just munching the appetizers now.

    this was just the kind of thing (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:54:13 AM EST
    i know its.

    Gosh.   I have a choice here don't I?

    I can either decry this racist crap as the filth that it is.

    Or I can be a completely passive aggressive wimpy immature and divisive idiot and make some totally lame comment about how this isnt obamas fault but its there and its just going to be constant distraction.

    Yes my friend, I know what you are talking about (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:57:00 AM EST
    We know our souls though and we know our hearts and minds, and we won't betray ourselves so you and I will stand up and shout racism.

    just because some people play along (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:03:58 AM EST
    with intolerance doesnt mean everyone has to.

    First, they need to understand it (none / 0) (#66)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:29:59 AM EST
    I didn't know "baby momma" was racist, and it seems there are phrases and words that only black people are allowed to say before they become racist. There have been several things said this primary season I did not know would be considered racist.

    I don't think it's racist at all.... (none / 0) (#92)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:45:28 AM EST
    There is such a thing as a baby's momma, as the dictionary tells us.

    The issue is Michelle Obama isn't one, she is married to the father of her children.


    Racism vs Sexism (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by indy in sc on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:56:35 AM EST
    is what keeps both things going. The more we continue to pit one group against another the harder we make it for one group to the see merits of the other's claims and actively support joining the cause to stop it. The old divide and conquer scheme where there is some competition of "worsts." They're both bad.

    I'm still (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:26:13 AM EST
    Filing some comments in the "would have meant more 6 months ago" bin.  I guess that means I'm not "over it" yet.

    That's (none / 0) (#93)
    by indy in sc on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:45:30 AM EST
    just it. You don't have to be "over it" and you shouldn't be. Both feelings can coexist. That's my point. The feeling that you betray your anger about sexism by being angry about racism is what impedes progrees on either front.

    same file (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:01:37 AM EST
    you want to pretend that the primary didnt force us to make a choice that you are now arguing is a false choice.

    No pretense (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by indy in sc on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:17:19 AM EST
    I'm saying the "forced" choice is exactly what happened (though I still believe it to be false). Supporters of either candidate leveled charges of racism or sexism that were real but didn't stop there. They then went on to compare it to what the other candidate was facing and concluded theirs was "worse" often in terms dismissive of the other candidate's obstacles real or perceived. The comparison--sexism is worse or racism is worse--is part of what made people choose up sides. I continue to argue that the "forced" choice was a false one that had a lot of contributors.

    I don't see it as a problem (5.00 / 5) (#139)
    by tree on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:25:22 AM EST
    of which is worse. The problem during the campaign was that the Obama campaign cried racism at the Clintons when there was no racism. They manufactured an evil where one didn't exist. Its now hard for Clinton supporters to get outraged about alleged racism against Obama when they know that his campaign fed on faux outrage and hate.

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by ccpup on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:48:59 AM EST
    This shield of "perceived racism" Obama has insisted -- and still insists --  on hiding behind when the questions get tough or someone has the audacity to wonder aloud about his experience will prove to be absolutely worthless once we get the the GE.

    I don't think voters are going to go for the guy who whines when the going gets tough when they could choose the man who -- famously -- endured torture when he could have been set free and has decades of experience behind him.

    And cries -- and crying about -- racism ain't gonna be as effective as Axelrove and Barack hope.


    I see it (none / 0) (#172)
    by indy in sc on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:28:54 PM EST
    as not that different. Just substitute racism and sexism with Obama and Clinton. Each side's most ardent supporters do the same thing as with the sexism/racism question. The question shifts to which campaign behaved worse. I know people who are 100% convinced that Clinton's campaign was all negative "low-blow" race-baiting Rovian attacks on Obama while he was a saint and people who are 100% convinced that Obama's campaign was all negative "low-blow" race-baiting, sexist Rovian attacks on Clinton while she ran a perfect campaign. Each thinks the other side's supporters who feel otherwise "just weren't paying attention" or were "snowed by their candidate" or are too sexist or racist to see reason. Please excuse the cliche, but the truth is in the eye of the beholder.

    well (none / 0) (#133)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:20:36 AM EST
    While I don't agree with your equivalencies,  we agree whats done is done.

    Perhaps Fox should (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by suisser on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:02:29 AM EST
    just issue a statement saying, " We're a**holes and we know it. So what?"

    Works for some (5.00 / 5) (#68)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:32:17 AM EST
    Obama never issued an apology to Hillary and all the women of the country for his vulgar hand gestures.

    How ridiculous (2.25 / 4) (#95)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:48:14 AM EST
    So now a hand gesture is sexist?  

    yes (5.00 / 3) (#162)
    by ccpup on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:50:21 AM EST
    brushing something off his shoulder or wiping something off his shoe while talking about Hillary is both sexist and immature.

    But we are talking about Obama here, so ...


    It is easier to ask for forgiveness... (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by goldberry on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:03:06 AM EST
    ...than permission.  
    I expect we'll see a lot of this type of thing from Fox.  They'll say some universally acknowledged stereotypical thing and then a few days later say, "Ooops!  My bad. Sorry about that."
    it's just priming the pump.  They won't pull out the stops on Obama until he is the official nominee.  Then all hell will break loose and they'll be apologizing left and right.  Or better yet, they'll go overtly racist but won't do an apologetic retrospective analysis until after the election and by then, who cares?  

    apologetic retrospectives (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:13:52 AM EST
    we're in the midst of one right now..

    I must confess the title of this post meant something quite different to me than what I'm sure was intended.


    The apology (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:32:23 AM EST
    just lets them continue to put the phrase out there to fester in the ether.

    Which is not to say they shouldn't have apologized, just that they seem to be able to have it both ways.


    Please note the difference in how criticism of FOX (5.00 / 9) (#19)
    by jawbone on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:06:06 AM EST
    treatment of Michelle is greeted as compared with their treatment of Hillary. They actually had a chyron asking: "Does Hillary Shave?" when talking her being too mannish.

    Sexism far more acceptable than actual racism.

    All the rap music about (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:11:00 AM EST
    Baby Momma is racist?

    And if the woman is not my wife but is the baby's mother...that's racist?

    I guess it's one of those things (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by stillife on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:15:33 AM EST
    where if you're AA you can say it, but if you're white, you can't.  

    I'm sorry.  I'm just rolling my eyes at the "outrage".  When the Obama camp played the race card on the Clintons, they cheapened the real issue of racism IMO.  Reap what you sow, Barack.


    It's ironic for me (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:27:15 AM EST
    As I spend time on this blog, I am learning more about racism in our criminal justice system. I've always sort of known about it, but when you see how many of the people who have been wrongly convicted are black males, it really comes home. Meanwhile, in the rest of the world, they're oblivious to this and worried about people using obscure phrases in reference to black people. Our priorities are more than a bit skewed. It's a power thing more than a race thing. Poor black men and women have less power than pretty much anybody, with poor white's not far behind. Obama's supporter's can afford to worry about whether a Fox blurb is racist or not - they aren't facing 20 to life for a crime they didn't commit because some prosecutor decided that they must be guilty because they are black.

    It is ironic, isn't it? (5.00 / 8) (#89)
    by stillife on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:45:04 AM EST
    I always knew about it, from when I was a pot-smoking teenager back in the 70's.  I had a friend, a black guy, who would complain to me about getting hassled by cops in Grant Park (in Chicago), and another friend, a Puerto Rican, who got stopped by cops while driving home from his job, just because of the color of his skin.  

    It angers me that the Obama camp has played the race card in such a cheap and cynical way.  


    I don't know of it is racist (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:20:06 AM EST
    But it is certainly self destructive.  So much commercial rap equals ammos and andy plus overtly disgusting sexual/ sexist images, that are undermining the black community daily.  I was in line at the store and the mag XXL had a rap star with a diamond incrusted belt that said RAPE.  I was disgusted, I wrote a letter, no response.  

    Obama (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:40:43 AM EST
    shouldn't have been playing rap music at his rallies then.

    what's wrong with the rap music obama played? (none / 0) (#196)
    by moe21885 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:50:54 PM EST
    have to interject here (none / 0) (#195)
    by moe21885 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:50:04 PM EST
    but the belt most likely said "BAPE" (a Japanese clothing line). You can see a similar belt here:

    Rap music has its issues but glorification of rape certainly wouldn't make its way into a mainstream rap mag like XXL.


    Thanks I am glad I was wrong (none / 0) (#198)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:28:11 PM EST
    I swear that is what is looked like on the cover :)

    Wait, Fox is just warming up. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by desertswine on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:12:24 AM EST

    This is a nonsense story (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:19:36 AM EST
    "Baby Momman" has become part of the lexicon about celebrity pregnancies. Any time a woman, black or white, who is not married, get's pregnant by a famous man, they refer to her with this inane term. It may have started in the black community, but it has moved beyond that. Heck - there was a movie that expanded the usage to refer to a woman who was carrying a baby as a surrogate.

    This could have been subtle racism, or simply Fox being "cute" in their typical vulgar way, but this is the inane kind of "racism" charges that we're going to be seeing over the next 6 months, and I think that by the end of the campaign American's are going to be so sensitive to charges of racism that they will be afraid to order black coffee.

    Obama could have stopped this, and he still can. All he has to do is to stand up and tell people that while he is concerned about racism, he would prefer to focus on the election and if people want to deal with issues of racism there are many more egregious instances in our criminal justice and social systems. He has to say that this election is not about race, and that he does not want his supporter's parsing everything anybody says to determine if it may have racial implications. Our next President will have a nation to run, and he can't be a victim. He has to control the situation.

    He has said this (none / 0) (#54)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:23:01 AM EST
    Unfortunately, stories of racism and sexism sell. Especially those stories which lead with a complaint, and then tons of counter arguements.  Obama, Hillary, etc., they are powerless to stop these types of stories, as the SELL.  and money is everything for these people

    "Racism" is probably the wrong word. (none / 0) (#56)
    by Pegasus on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:24:03 AM EST
    What it is, is an attempt to racialize Obama's public image.  And that's undeniable; we would not have seen any other candidate's spouse referred to like this.

    This could apply to anybody (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:41:58 AM EST
    It's a current, "sexy" term, and I think that if any candidate had an attractive young wife and young children they would be subject to this kind of language. It's the kind of thing the media do. Silly  Old people try to use current phrases to show that they are "hip" and often mangle them completely. I think we give Fox too much credit when we assume that this is anything other than a tasteless and demeaning reference.

    As for attempts to "racialize" Obama. He is compltely, absolutely "racialized". Since the beginning of this election we have seen story after story about the "historic" race between a "black man" and "a woman". Now, they are changing to "the man who may be the first black President of the United States". Oddly, nobody gets offended when these articles, which clearly "racialize" Obama, are printed.  The language has been so standard that we don't even notice it. Nobody can talk about Obama without reference to his skin shade. "Is America ready fora  black President?". "Will you vote for a black man for President?" "Will other people vote for a black man for President?". Obama is not a Presidential candidate, he is "the many who may be the first black President". People who have absolutely no idea which party Obama is in know that he is black. People who couldn't tell you a single poliitcal position he holds know that he is black. Likewise, they know about Wright, his Muslim father, and the fact that he gave a well-accepted speech on race, although they are vague on all of the details about all of these.


    Wow (3.00 / 2) (#105)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:52:56 AM EST
    So it was merely coincidence that Fox used the term baby mama to refer to Obama and his wife?  They could have used it to refer to any number of other prominent politicians but they just happened to pick Obama?

    While I guess there must be some important difference between "tasteless and demeaning" and racist I have trouble finding it.  

    Why exactly is the term demeaning?  


    It's demeaning because.... (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:11:46 AM EST
    The implication is that Michelle Obama is not a true partner to Obama, but is merely a shell to carry his children. That's what a "baby mama" is. A woman who has no value to a man other than to bear his child, often with implications that she is a gold digger. There is no question that is is demeaning. It certainly want't a conindicence - Michelle Obama is a very attractive, young looking woman. Obama is a wealthy and powerful man. It's insulting to both of them, to their relationship. But it's apalling that people have to turn this into a racist slur to take it seriously. Isn't it enough that it was insulting, demeaning to Michelle Obama enough?

    The "Baby Mama" movie took this phrase mainstream in a non-black way. It is possible that somebody at fox thought "Hey, we can sneak through a racist attack on Obama in a way we can get away with". I doubt it, though. I think they just wanted to be "cute" and ended up being incredibly disrespectful.


    "Pimp" (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 03:27:18 PM EST
    has new meaning among the young, too.  

    There is a T.V. show called "Pimp My Ride."  "Pimping" someone or somebody does not necessarily mean to prostitute or sell for sex--it does often mean to hawk or push an idea or non-sexual product.

    It is still offensive and sexist, though, to say that someone is "pimping out" out someone else, even if it was meant in a non-sexual way, don't you agree?


    A few points (none / 0) (#141)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:28:07 AM EST
    I don't think you understand why some may find this comment bigoted.  

    In itself, you're right, it isn't necessarily a racial comment.  However the fact that Fox News would use such a demeaning term in reference to a Presidential candidate is what bothers people and makes them suspicious.  

    It isn't that the term is a racist slur.  It is that a news organization shouldn't be making such crass comments about a Presidential nominee.

    I agree that the phrase is very demeaning towards Michele Obama and I find many of the attacks at her to be loathsome.  

    FTR, Tina Fey most certainly did make a movie called baby mama.  She also did a SNL skit saying that b**ch is the new black.  Does that mean it would be ok for Fox News to use that term as well?  Fox News isn't Comedy Central.  


    Fox News (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by tree on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:48:03 AM EST
    has been making crass comments about Democratic Presidential nominees for years. Doesn't excuse it, but it does prove that it isn't just something that started with Barack Obama. If it had just started with him, then I think you could make a very sound case for it being racially motivated. But it didn't just start with him. The term isn't a racial slur. Its just  petty and demeaning. Standard Fox demeaning fare for any Democrat. Did you really expect anything different for Obama, and if so, why?

    Of course (none / 0) (#175)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:33:39 PM EST
    Just because they have done crappy things in the past doesn't mean they aren't above breaking out the dog whistle today.

    No dog whistle (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by tree on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:52:06 PM EST
    In itself, you're right, it isn't necessarily a racial comment.  However the fact that Fox News would use such a demeaning term in reference to a Presidential candidate is what bothers people and makes them suspicious.  

    It isn't that the term is a racist slur.  It is that a news organization shouldn't be making such crass comments about a Presidential nominee.

    Your whole argument above was that it was somehow SHOCKING that Fox would be making "crass" and "demeaning" about Democratic candidates. The implication was that because this had happened now with a black Democratic candidate  it must mean that it was racially motivated. But in fact, it is not in the least surprising that Fox would demean a Democrat. They've been doing that for over a decade. This isn't something new that only Obama has faced. If it was your whole argument above might make some sense. But as it is, pretending that this kind of treatment from Fox never happened before is really quite blind.

    As for dog-whistles, I doubt that this hit any frequencies that any dog would hear. They are simply demeaning the Democratic candidate again. Surprise, surprise. Please, I'd love to hear the convoluted logic that makes this now a "dog-whistle".


    Anything used against Obama... (none / 0) (#182)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:52:29 PM EST
    ...can be perceived as bigoted/racist. The very fact that he is a black man means that any attack agaisnt him may be considered racial in nature. There are a lot of people parsing every phrase that is not flattering to the Obama's for racial content. I think we need to be careful that we don't try to turn everyting into a racist attack. It's like crying wolf. People stop taking the idea of racism seriously.  We have to do the same with sexism, of course. I was offended when Obama held Clinton's chair for her at a debate, but I wouldn't put that on a list of major sexist attacks because that's a personal pet peeve, not a true offense.

    Can you please expound (none / 0) (#117)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:02:17 AM EST
    on your question: Why exactly is the term demeaning?

    Are you asking or are you accusing?



    I'm asking (none / 0) (#120)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:04:46 AM EST
    Why is the term demeaning yet not bigoted.

    Note: I don't like the term racist because it has become a clearing house for all sorts of accusations.  It's like the term Nazi.  It once had meaning but now it is just a generic pejorative.  


    You don't seem to understand what I mean. (none / 0) (#119)
    by Pegasus on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:04:33 AM EST
    The fact that Obama is African-American is not what I mean.  Obviously, there's never been any secret there.

    But saying "he is black" and leaving it there is different from saying "he is black" and then employing a negative stereotype about black people.

    When I say they are trying to racialize him, I mean they are trying to associate him with negatively stereotypical "blackness" -- in this case, by referring to his wife with an urban slang term connoting unmarried motherhood.  It's a term (like many that have been co-opted by youth culture) that evokes the ghetto.  It's grossly inappropriate when applied to Michelle Obama.

    I'm somewhat appalled that you're so eager to rationalize it.  Even Fox is admitting it was inappropriate.


    I put even money (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:08:36 AM EST
    on the odds that accusations of laziness will be lofted at Obama before the general election.  

    Only if he goes back to the Caribbean (none / 0) (#183)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:56:44 PM EST
    If "lazy" is used against Obama it will be comparisons to Bush and Kerry (who took time off when he should have been campaigning), not claims that he is some kind of mythical typical lazy black man. Again - you can make these kinds of things into racial charges, but they don't have to be. I haven't heard anybody suggest that Obama's skin shade means that he's lazy. In order to make this kind of thing racist, you have to ignore the criticism that both Kerry and Bush faced over their vacations.

    Did I say it wasn't inappropriate? (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:16:45 AM EST
    Please find a single location where I have been anything other than critical of this. I find it quite offensive. My argument is that this kind of discussion trivilizes racism. The statement in an of itself was deeply offensive, because it dismissed Michelle Obama as something less than what she is: an involved, caring, intelligent partner for a powerful man. Yet, instead of simply recognizing this insult we are spending time debating if this is racist or not. Why isn't it bad enough that Fox simply chose to denigrate the wife of a Presidential candidate? Why isn't it serious enough to be offensive if it was "merely" a sexist attack? My point about the supposed racism is that this phrase has moved out into the mainstream as a non-racial term. Perhaps the Fox producer wasnted to slam Obama using a racial term, but it's more likely that they had just seen the movie "Baby Mama" and had it on their mind and thought the term would be a cool way to imply that Michelle Obama was not ... powerful.

    Sigh. (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Pegasus on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:23:54 AM EST
    The statement in an of itself was deeply offensive, because it dismissed Michelle Obama as something less than what she is: an involved, caring, intelligent partner for a powerful man.

    Yes.  Entirely true.  I still cannot understand why you refuse to acknowledge that there is a racial component as well as a sexist one, as I laid out above.  The two are not in competition.


    If the term has been applied (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by tree on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:36:56 AM EST
    to women regardless of their race, if it could have been used against Michelle even if she were white and still been offensive then it is demeaning and belittling but not racist. Acknowledging that does not make the statement OK. Every insult thrown at Barack or Michelle is not necessarily a racist one just because they are black.

      Fox banners are known for being insulting to Dems. It seems to me that in this case they were probably rif-fing off of Michelle calling Barack "my babies' daddy". It was insulting and belittling but par for the course for Fox against any and every Democrat. (except maybe the favored ones like Lieberman, and Zell Miller in days past.)

    We're not talking about a competition here. The question is, was it racist or not. The question is not about whether racism or sexism is worse.


    I've said there is a racial component (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:04:40 PM EST
    I think that the problem I have is that people seem to be obesssing over the relatively minor racial component and ignoring the blatantly sexist componenet. Why is this phrase offensive, whether it is applied to a black or white woman? Because it reduces the woman to a shell for carrying a man's child. This is a universal insult for women of any skin shade or religion. I actually went on line looking for examples of the terms usage, to see if I was distorting it in my mind. I found a few pictures of sports figures and their pretty black "baby mamas", and I found a ton of images from a movie about a rich white woman and her white trash surrogate mother. This tells me that the movie is the story right now, not the black women.

    I think what is offending me is that it's not enough to just say that this was insulting in a sexist way. People have to throw in "and it's racist, Too", in order to make it seem really important. If it's not a contest, then why isn't it simply enough to focus on the fact that this concept is demeaning to all women, and that Michelle Obama being black does not make it more so?


    Tortured analysis? (none / 0) (#142)
    by byteb on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:30:11 AM EST
    Once upon a time, when Presidents and Presidential candidates were white, their spouses were referred to as 'wives'.

    However, now it suddenly seems,'sexy' and, perhaps, 'hip' to refer to Michelle as Barack's baby mama?
    I don't think so.

    Jon Scalzi did a nice riff on this line of rationalization:


    Oh, yeah, I'm sure (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by tree on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:39:14 AM EST
    that Fox News only ever referred to Hillary as Bill Clinton's "wife" during his Presidency, and only in the most respectful of terms. Please.

    Well... (none / 0) (#169)
    by byteb on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:08:26 PM EST
    I don't think Senator Clinton was ever called "Bill's baby mama" by Fox. I don't think ANY wife of an ex-President, Presidential nominee or current President was ever referred to a ".....'s Baby Mama."
    And that was the point of my post..not that Hillary hasn't been unjustly disparaged by not only Fox but other media outlets, merely that it's telling that the wife of the first AA Presidential candidate is characterized in a disrespectful, street slang phrase. Is it okay to speak about the wife of an AA Presidential candidate in street language b/c the couple is AA?
    I think it's sexist and racist.

    When major motion pictures get made... (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:29:04 PM EST
    ...about a phrase, it is no longer simply "street slang". You can pretend that Fox was just taking some phrase from the ghetto and using it to refer to Michelle Obama, but that requires ignoring that the phrase is the title (and subject) of a major box office movie which is in current release and has brought in nearly $60 Million. A movie about white women, not black ghetto's.

    Ah, (none / 0) (#192)
    by byteb on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:04:05 PM EST
    then can the same argument be made about the word "pimp"? Afterall, a very popular TV show is called "Pimp My Ride" (not about street pimping). There are web pages such as scriptpimp.com; pimpmysnack.com to name just two that have nothing to do with the street slang use of 'pimp'. There are even articles such as "Twelve Ways to Pimp Your Office (again not about street meaning of Pimp). So if I use your comment and remove the word "Fox" and replace it with "David Schuster" and remove the words "Michelle Obama" and replace it with Chelsea Clinton, that makes the word pimp or pimping her out OK because the word has become mainstreamed? If your answer is it's okay to use baby mama for Michelle but not okay to use the term pimping for Chelsea, then I think your candidate preference is coloring your opinion.
    I think both 'baby mama' and 'pimping' or pimping out' are demeaning and disrespectful. To use 'baby mama' for Michelle is also racist.

    I doubt the term was around in the 90's (none / 0) (#176)
    by tree on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:34:29 PM EST
    for one thing, but that didn't stop Fox from using other demeaning terms for Clinton. And as far as I know, Hillary didn't just refer to Bill as "my baby's daddy" as Michelle did to Barack.

    And again, nobody here is saying its OK. Some of us are just saying that it wasn't racist. Just because something isn't racist doesn't mean that ipso facto its OK. Frankly I think we run the risk of diluting what racism is if we conclude that every insult thrown at the Obamas must be a racial one. My take is that Fox used the term "baby momma" because they saw it as a take off on how she referred to Obama and as a denigration of the "hip", "cool", "youth" thing. Note the "stop picking on" part of the banner. It was a snide reference comparing liberals  to the distraught Britney Spears fan.

      I get that you think of the term as exclusively a black reference. I hope you can understand that there are those of us who think of the term as more a part of mainstream youth culture, regardless of race. Therefore we don't see the term as racist. It doesn't mean the banner wasn't demeaning, or meant to be demeaning. It was. And that's wrong. My point is only that it wasn't racist. We disagree on this.


    we disagree on this. (none / 0) (#193)
    by byteb on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:14:56 PM EST
    If I had seen that term used before to describe the wife of a prominent white politician (imagine: "John McCain's baby mama appeared .."or "George W. Bush's baby mama made a statement to the press.."  It sounds unthinkable and ludicrous)I would agree with you that it was demeaning but not racist. I never have.
    With all the bile and hatred Fox has heaped on Hillary Clinton over the years, Fox has never described her as Bill Clinton's baby mama. They saved that gem for the wife of the first AA candidate.

    terrorist fist jab (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by eric on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:20:07 AM EST
    Do these people not know how ridiculous they sound?  Bumping your fist is even something that I do and I am a white 35 year old boring lawyer.

    Ever watch baseball, people?!?!


    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:28:50 AM EST
    That;s what I was thinking.... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:29:15 AM EST
    "terrorist fist jab"...can anyone be so out of touch?  It's called a pound, as in "gimme a pound dawg!", and it's the 21st century version of the handshake.

    I must be Osama Bin Ladin with all my "terrorist fist jabbing":)


    Ahh the fist bump (none / 0) (#74)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:34:21 AM EST
    Makes you wonder how the world would react if they did the NBA chest thump or the NFL flying chest bump. The fist bump is actually more of a "white" thing (to keep with the racial tone of this thread)

    Interesting though... In reading some of the comments on this thread, I think many Clinton supporters (and I am a three time Clinton primary and two time Clinton presidential voter) need to do some self reflection if they are going to start defending Fox. It's scary at times to see self described Clinton Dems defending the work of the fair and balanced faux news station.


    Who the heck is defending Fox? n/t (none / 0) (#87)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:43:41 AM EST
    Valhalla (none / 0) (#111)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:58:22 AM EST
    Not referring to you at all. Read back over all the comments. and if you can't see any then perhaps we see things differently at times. (although I tend to like all your comments)

    Personally I'm with Eric on this one. Obviously the purveyors of the terrorist jab (and those that would put stock in it) spend no time watching baseball.


    Sorry (none / 0) (#166)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:03:38 PM EST
    I didn't think you were referring to me.  When I posted my comment all the comments were anti-Fox.  It was a more general question.  I was surprised at your comment because most of the Fox-related comments on this site are very negative.

    The funny thing (none / 0) (#109)
    by indy in sc on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:57:57 AM EST
    about the flying chest bump is that President Bush did it with a graduate of the Air Force Acadamy recently. It got a little bit of press, but I can only imagine how it would be covered by Fox if Obama did that--it would be the chest bump of mass destruction.

    Heh (none / 0) (#121)
    by Steve M on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:06:39 AM EST
    Every white thing was once a black thing.  I was once a suburban white kid myself, and it was clear where all the "cool" behaviors were derived from.

    Knuckle up (none / 0) (#83)
    by davnee on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:40:27 AM EST
    That's what we call it in my family and we do that with my little nephews all the time.  I didn't get the terrorist fist jab thing at first, because it was so out in left field as a characterization it didn't even occur to me.

    I thought it was Power Rangers (none / 0) (#99)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:51:16 AM EST
    My daughter and her husband do this the same way my generation did high 5's.

    I thought it was kind of immature where most couples hug at such a moment, but when the suggestion it was a terrorist jab was made the only suitable reaction was to laugh at the ridiculousness of such a thing.

    This country needs to set some realistic parameters for what's acceptable. This politically correct expectation has gotten way too sensitive.

    There were some really vulgar and blatant words and hand gestures used during this primary and they got lost among all the overly sensitive criticisms.


    Apologies on Fox? (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:38:15 AM EST
    What a double standard for the stations now?... Hill had to apologize for comments on Fox, but when she was caught making some nasty comment on MSNBC about Clinton when she thought she was off-mic, it was quite the chuckle.  I don't remember an apology.  If there was, I would love to see a link.

    Hey, at least (5.00 / 4) (#100)
    by dk on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:51:38 AM EST
    specific individuals on Fox take personal responsibility for saying that racist garbage.  Where are the people on the left and/or the MSM who take personal responsibility for anything to do with Hillary?

    No place for any of it (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Rashomon66 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:58:36 AM EST
    There is no excuse for the racist remarks that FOX used just as there is no excuse for the sexist remarks the media used against Clinton. To suggest - as some have - that Obama deserves this because Clinton got her share is destructive and self serving. It should not happen to any candidate of any party. Period.

    Meanwhile (5.00 / 9) (#156)
    by janarchy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:46:56 AM EST
    not one but 3 talking heads on two other 24/7 news channels (two of them African American) have said that if Hillary Clinton gets the VP, Obama will need "a food taster" and no one has said a word about it. Where is the outraget over that?


    Oh, right, it's Clinton. No one ever apologises for what they say about her. In fact, it's a national pasttime.

    That's a lot more apologies (5.00 / 4) (#158)
    by Foxx on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:47:46 AM EST
    than Hillary ever got.

    Flip-flop (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by fctchekr on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:52:00 PM EST
    First Obama said "Don't attack my wife," than he put up a web site to deal with attacks and now CNN reports that Obama says "Michelle can take the heat."

    These are all reversals in position to counter what could be perceived/real comebacks from the opposition and from the public.

    Obama recently said he will not focus on sexism. Will this ingratitate himself to women voters? Is this a double standard? Obama recently said his campaign will not make any extra effort to address sexism against women, his surrogates saying his platfrom inculcates discrimination.  

    So, it started out that Obama was going to go to any lengths to protect Michelle while refusing to address the blatant sexism in the media which was directed at his primary opponent, Clinton.

    BTW, Dean says he had no knowledge of the sexism directed at Clinton and the Obama campaign has only issued the statement as stated above.

    If this is an example of change, of getting rid of the old Washington style politics, of having a President who presents himself as the morally stalwart and fair representative of the people, who runs on that premise, but acts contrary to it, than we're in for a rough ride as Democrats.

    See now Obama supporter THIS (4.42 / 14) (#2)
    by rooge04 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:49:19 AM EST
    is what REAL racism is.  Calling a vote a fairy tale and being ready on a national security level? Not so  much.

    No, this is not REAL racism (4.40 / 5) (#98)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:50:33 AM EST
    REAL racism is putting somebody behind bars, or even in the death chamber, because the prosecutor is convinced that, even though the evidence doesn't stand up, the guy must be guilty of something because he's black and poor.

    Real racism is not worrying about educating black children in inner city neighborhoods because you know that they're just going to end up crack dealers anyway.

    Real racism is assuming that black people are inherently less intelligent than white people because they don't do as well on standardized IQ tests designed for middle class white people.

    This story is ridiculous. The middle class in this nation is so insulated from the rest of the nation that we have no idea what is going on out there. We can afford to worry about petty, ridiculous insults, because the real racism isn't going to touch us.  


    They are both real racism (4.80 / 5) (#145)
    by Coral on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:32:18 AM EST
    Insulting images and words help to dehumanize the "other", which makes it easier for society in general to accept legal injustice and physical abuse--even murder--of that dehumanized other.

    It happened in Nazi Germany. It happened in U.S. with many groups, most obviously Native Americans and African Americans. And it is happening now, both here and abroad, with Muslims and Arabs.

    I have been appalled by what I considered false accusations of racism against the Clintons, because they tend to confuse the issue of real racism, of which this Fox News story is an example.


    Those things are undoubtedly real racism (none / 0) (#143)
    by sj on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:30:17 AM EST
    But so this.  Matter of degree shouldn't be considered -- ALL of it should be called out.

    To be fair (3.80 / 5) (#90)
    by anydemwilldo on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:45:23 AM EST
    Those weren't the incidents that Obama supporters felt were racist.  It was stuff like the dismissal of South Carolina because "even Jesse Jackson won there", or the unfortunate "hard-working white voters" construction that caused the most damage.  If you're curious, this site has a fairly complete catalog of all the perceived racial attacks from the Clinton campaign or Clinton supporters.

    Do I agree with all of it?  No.  But some of it is at least questionable.  The point here being that everyone plays hardball and cross innapropriate lines, including Barack, Hillary, McCain and FOX.  What matters is that we cast our final votes on the issues, not the spin from one side or another.


    What an amazing site (5.00 / 7) (#108)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:57:26 AM EST
    I clicked on one at random, and it told me everything i need to know:

    (Comment from Bill Clinton) "I can't make her younger, talller...

    Context Speaking to Hillary supporters in NH before the primary?
    Racialiciousness Low. This one's more silly than anything, but it seems clear Clinton was on the edge of saying "I can't make her blacker."

    This is the kind of stuff that was feeding Obama supporter's. There are a half a dozen big stories which were generally pretty badly overblown, but dozens of little things like this - presuming that Bill was about to say "blacker".  He may have been planning on saying "sexier" and thought better of it, but they had to spin it as racist and that wouldn't fit.


    My God... here's the first one I hit at random (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by BoGardiner on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:21:22 PM EST
    After losing in Iowa Jan. 3, Sen. Clinton said of Sen. Obama, "Everybody needs to be vetted." Chief Clinton strategist Mark Penn, on the way to New Hampshire, said of his candidate, "She's fully vetted ... and I don't think that process has occurred with Barack Obama." Clinton then told a rally, "Of all the people running for president, I've been the most vetted, the most investigated and -- my goodness -- the most innocent."

    This frequent use of "vetted" caught the attention of the Democratic community. "Vetted," with a meaning distinct from "experienced," connotes investigating nominees for vice president, the Cabinet and the federal judiciary to uncover anything disqualifying. Its introduction in the presidential campaign by Clinton is tied to reminders -- overtly and by insinuation -- of Obama's teen-age use of illegal drugs that he confessed in his first book.

    The unintended byproduct, to the dismay of Democratic loyalists, disturbs the party's racial chemistry.

    You'd have to be INSANE to think this way!  We are truly seeing some horrifying kind of mass hysteria.


    Hysteria... (none / 0) (#187)
    by BoGardiner on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:23:10 PM EST
    ... or the most polarizing campaign seen in decades.

    And Bill didn't say that. (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by rooge04 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:04:04 AM EST
    And what he said wasn't actually racist. You made my point for me. Thanks!

    "hard working white Americans" (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Josey on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:47:06 AM EST
    didn't vote for Obama according to exit polling data. But Obamabots and Obamedia declared it was a racist statement. The AP wasn't considered racist for compiling and publishing the data.
    But Hillary is a "racist" for citing it.

    I shuddered at "Hard working white" (none / 0) (#184)
    by Knocienz on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:02:28 PM EST
    I believe Hillary acknowledged it was a horrible way to express herself.

    Try talking about "Good moral Christians" voters and many non-Christians, used to the accusations of being less moral, will infer a repetition of that message.

    Likewise, referring to "Hard working white Americans" is not unexpectedly inferred as repetition of the common, and very racist, "Lazy Black/Mexican/Immigrant" statement.

    Is that what Hillary meant to say? I really doubt it. I expect she used "Hard working" instead of the more accurate and dramatically less objectionable "Blue Collar" description to help build/maintain her lower middle-class connection. In reality, she was just dissing all the workers who make over a certain amount of money (we don't work hard).


    that wasn't my interpretation at all (none / 0) (#201)
    by Josey on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 07:45:55 AM EST
    but that twisted explanation was used by the Obama camp to perpetuate more "Hillary is a racist" and to defocus from Obama's explanation that Democrats weren't voting for him because they're "racists".
    And then he has the audacity to wonder why some Dems weren't supporting him.
    "Hard working Black Americans" are included in the 95% of Blacks that support Obama. But that's not considered a racist statement.
    Obama based his campaign on Race - race-baiting and accusing the Clintons of racism - rather than issues and solutions.

    to be fair, anydemwilldo (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by DFLer on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:31:41 PM EST
    Your quote:
    "even Jesse Jackson won there" [in South Carolina],

    is incorrect. What Pres. Clinton said was:

    "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88," Clinton said at a rally in Columbia. "Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here."

    I could never figure out why a comparison to Jesse Jackson would be considered SO insulting. That in itself is a denigration of Jackson and in its own way, racist. I voted for Jackson in that primary year in CA. Hearing from the Obama camp how horrible that comparison was, was an insult to my vote for Jackson as well.


    BTD Covered It (none / 0) (#190)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 03:22:49 PM EST
    I could never figure out why a comparison to Jesse Jackson would be considered SO insulting.

    Here and explained the problem very clearly. Perhaps you missed or disagree. What he wrote made a lot of sense to me.


    I think BTD was wrong (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by dws3665 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:53:15 PM EST
    An attempt to treat Obama as "the black candidate." The problem here is with the article: "The" black candidate, instead of "a" black candidate.

    Barack Obama is a black candidate. Black candidates do well in the South in Democratic Primaries (or at least in South Carolina historically). That was Bill's point. This comment was delivered respectfully, not in a roll-your-eyes, "you know how 'they' vote" kind of way.

    BTD was mind-reading Bubba here, and doing so remarkably unfairly, much like the Clinton Hating Media he was also so righteously calling out.


    Exactly!! (none / 0) (#202)
    by Josey on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 07:48:16 AM EST
    but Obama's campaign was focused on race-baiting, rather than issues and solutions as Jackson was.

    You make stuff up (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by ineedalife on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:42:39 PM EST
    You put in quotes "even Jesse Jackson won there". Now that may be racist if anybody had ever said that, but nobody did. That was the distortion that Obama's camp made out of Bill Clinton's remarks, not his actual remarks. That is what outraged so many Hillary supporters. You want to see racism where none exists so you fall for it.

    there is a snowball (4.33 / 6) (#97)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:49:31 AM EST
    somewhere down below waiting for me to click on that site.

    click when you need a laugh (3.66 / 3) (#104)
    by dws3665 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:52:51 AM EST
    I did, and it's the most ridiculous spin and red herring narrative I've ever seen. It's truly shameful.

    just not in the mood for (3.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:00:33 AM EST
    that kind of laugh today.
    nope.  not in the mood at all.  maybe in 10 or 12 years I will be able to laugh at it.

    ridiculous (4.33 / 6) (#101)
    by dws3665 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:52:00 AM EST
    You now speak for all Obama supporters? Just the other night someone here referred to the "fairy tale" comment as an example of racism. And "even Jesse Jackson won there" is not anyone's actual quote and your putting in in quote marks reveals where you're coming from on this.

    Nonesense (none / 0) (#152)
    by Foxx on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:42:19 AM EST
    The phony accusations of racism started way before either of those incidents you mention. And both of those were misconstrued. Bill was asked about Jackson, and Hillary had to say white voters because blacks weren't supporting her. The Obama campaign started feeding the media accusations of racism almost from the beginning.

    Jesse Jackson Junior (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by tree on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:53:26 AM EST
    Obama's campaign manager, started it all with his outrageous comment that Clinton didn't cry over the Katrina victims. That was after Obama lost in NH.

    that is correct sir(or madam) (3.66 / 3) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:57:49 AM EST
    I would wholeheartedly concur. (none / 0) (#46)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:20:03 AM EST
    Word n/t (none / 0) (#82)
    by kaleidescope on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:40:24 AM EST
    Well, after the MSM (4.20 / 5) (#76)
    by Mrwirez on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:35:26 AM EST
    helped get the weaker democratic candidate nominated, they will attack him.

    Remember, the top brass at all the MSM outlets are  NOT bleeding heart liberals.....Are they? They will now pound on Obama and court McCain with flowers and candy.  

    I think Michelle Obama (none / 0) (#5)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:55:25 AM EST
    had already referred to her husband as "my baby daddy" in a public forum so Fox news must have felt free to refer to her as such.

    If she has actually done that (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:58:11 AM EST
    Then she is opening the door for others to use her own terminology.

    She did say "my baby's daddy," (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by madamab on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:11:01 AM EST
    but that's different from "baby mama." I think she was just being a bit playful there.

    "Baby mama" implies that Michelle is not married to Barack. It's definitely a term that should not be used about a presidential candidate's wife.

    Of course, "b1tch" should never be used about a presidential candidate, but that never stopped Fox, now, did it?


    I dunno (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by stillife on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:20:12 AM EST
    I think both "baby daddy" and "baby momma" are used to refer to non-relationships (i.e., you're not with the guy or girl anymore) that produced a kid.  Michelle, in using that term, was s*cking up to the black vote.  To me, it's the same kind of thing as "hoodwinked" and "bamboozled" - dogwhistles to AA voters, but when it's used against them, they scream racist.

    you can say "sucking" (none / 0) (#67)
    by Y Knot on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:31:08 AM EST
    It's not actually a bad word or anything.  Especially when followed with "up."

    I see (none / 0) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:14:59 AM EST
    I'm not familiar with the terminology and how it's used and what its connotations are.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Y Knot on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:29:08 AM EST
    "my baby's daddy"  is just plain old english.  The father of an infant.  Used exactly the way a normal, Fox-viewing white American would, when describing their husband in relation to their child.

    "Baby daddy"  or "baby mama" -- note the lack of the possessive apostrophe "s" -- is slang, indicating that is no closer relationship with the person referred to (i.e. wife, girlfriend, fiance or even ex-wife).  This is very specifically a person with whom you have created a child with, period.

    Clear enough?


    In context, (none / 0) (#179)
    by stxabuela on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:46:14 PM EST
    it looks like she was saying "my babies' daddy."  Plural.  I am no fan of Obama, but Michelle was  nowhere close to saying "baby daddy."  

    That's cool... (none / 0) (#40)
    by madamab on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:18:28 AM EST
    a lot of people aren't. That's why Fox was able to get away with it for a little while. ;-)

    I disagree (none / 0) (#29)
    by Claw on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:11:41 AM EST
    I think she jokingly called Obama her "baby's daddy."  But she gets to do that.  It's sort of like how some black friends of mine use the N-word.  Being a white male, I do not.  They get to use it, I don't. Nor do I wish to.

    So should we start waiting for Michelle (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Dan the Man on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:18:02 AM EST
    to call Obama the N-word next, and then we should dismiss it as just being a joke?

    She had better not be careless enough (none / 0) (#41)
    by madamab on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:19:05 AM EST
    to open THAT door.

    So (none / 0) (#72)
    by Claw on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:33:49 AM EST
    You don't have any terms of endearment for your significant-other you wouldn't like others using?  I doubt either MO or BO uses the N-Word.  I think they, as do I, find it offensive.  I was making the point the MO has privilege while FOX does not.  Does that clear things up?  

    The N-word is comparable to a term of endearment? (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Dan the Man on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:41:35 AM EST
    Personally I find the N-word as offensive as "baby's mama" or "baby's daddy".

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Claw on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:48:31 AM EST
    Some people do use it as such.  As in "You my N-word." And you really think calling someone your baby's momma is the same?  Can you imagine if Fox had called BO or MO a N-word?  I think you're alone in your sensibilities there.

    If Michelle had called Obama the N-word (none / 0) (#185)
    by Dan the Man on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:05:32 PM EST
    just like she called him baby's daddy, Fox would've gotten away with it also.

    Depends on the context.... (none / 0) (#103)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:52:45 AM EST
    as always.

    For example, one of my best friends has packed on a few pounds lately, and I've taken to calling him "fatty" as a term of endearment.  Used in a different context, it could be offensive.

    Or how about the "Curb Your Enthusiasm" episode where Crazy Eyes Killa keeps calling Larry David "my n*gga".  That's a term of endearment.  Larry isn't comfortable using the term, so he calls Crazy Eyes "my caucasian".  Funny freakin' episode, btw.


    There you go (none / 0) (#107)
    by Claw on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:56:22 AM EST
    Any links? T/U (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by jawbone on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:04:17 AM EST
    Here's a (none / 0) (#45)
    by Dan the Man on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:19:36 AM EST
    There is a difference... (none / 0) (#23)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:08:52 AM EST
    ...between "my baby's Daddy" and "baby moma"

    'The Oxford English Dictionary defines the term as one "chiefly in African-American usage" that refers to, "The mother of a man's child, who is not his wife nor (in most cases) his current or exclusive partner."'

    As far as I can determine, Michelle is very much married to Obama.


    Heh. Mind meld. :-) (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by madamab on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:11:36 AM EST
    dianem is right, though (none / 0) (#79)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:39:21 AM EST
    this has become a common term for the celebrity pregnancies. I didn't realize they were only the unwed ones, but it will be interesting to see if the Hollywood tabloid programs continue using it to describe Angelina Jolie, and all the other single celebs having babies these days.

    And going on Fox was (none / 0) (#6)
    by scribe on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:55:25 AM EST
    a good idea, why, exactly?

    I don't think she was on Fox (none / 0) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:08:14 AM EST
    It sounds like Malkin was commenting on Michelle Obama when the "baby mama" was used.  Even if Michelle Obama did go on Fox though and they used such a thing I would still have cry racism if Michelle hadn't used the terminology publicly herself to describe herself in a positive light.  As a woman I expect to be able to have the freedom in this country to go places that others go without the shadow of sexism falling upon me.  That's a tall order and isn't going to happen anytime soon, but I will point the sexism out again and again and again when I come upon it.  I can expect nothing different from those who must deal with racism in this country.

    No, he was on Fox (none / 0) (#38)
    by scribe on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:18:02 AM EST
    breaking the Democratic boycott of the Republican propaganda channel earlier in the primary process.


    I think it only appropriate for the Dems to (asa minimum):
    (a) eliminate Fox from the campaign
    (b) develop and undertake to pass legislation to demolish Fox and its business model.

    I've had enough of their crap.


    But not the crap (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by stillife on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:26:03 AM EST
    of MSNBC?  Or CNN?  They're all despicable!

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:38:28 AM EST
    Fox is bad but so is CNN and MSNBC. Just because they're "our guys" doesn't make it better and in fact makes it worse. You can't really complain too much about Fox when you have MSNBC doing the same thing.

    I agree (none / 0) (#71)
    by Y Knot on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:33:42 AM EST
    No Democrats should ever go on Fox.  It doesn't help us at all and just legitimizes the propaganda machine.

    I don't agree with that. (3.00 / 2) (#86)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:43:16 AM EST
    They can be treated fairly. There are lots of democratic guests on the shows and they aren't talked over with the fury that Dan Abrams, Tucker Carlson, Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, and so many MSNBC people do to drown out opposing viewpoints.

    Actually (none / 0) (#110)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:58:21 AM EST
    he was on the Fox Network.  You know one of the 5 main networks in the country?

    Hillary was the one who went on Fox News.


    and the show was broadcaston Fox News too (none / 0) (#188)
    by DFLer on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:29:33 PM EST
    Some of us find MSNBC (none / 0) (#123)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:08:35 AM EST
    just as bad.  Easily just as bad.

    I find MSNBC worse (none / 0) (#131)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:19:06 AM EST
    No cable network has the amount of screaming over each other that MSNBC does.

    I had never, ever watched FOX until the past couple of weeks. I find I'm nowhere near as tense as I used to be with MSNBC. Even O'Reilly. He doesn't share my views, but he isn't as constant with his over-the-top emotional presentation as KO is.

    Many of the anchors actually LISTEN to the people they bring on for opinions. That does NOT happen at MSNBC.


    Cable Gossip Non News (none / 0) (#12)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:01:36 AM EST
    Just one more reason to add to the stack for why I quit watching cable news. The shows aren't news at all, but rather poor attempts at creating news entertainment whereby the cable outlets go out of their way to forge self hyped news in an attempt to boost ratings.

    It's almost like cable news has become a 24 hour version of Nancy Grace for the intellectually challenged.

    They are talk shows (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:04:28 AM EST
    But talk shows shouldn't get away with racism either.

    Or sexism. (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by jawbone on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:06:40 AM EST
    Good (none / 0) (#80)
    by kaleidescope on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:39:25 AM EST
    Nice to see that someone here "wont be shut up about" the racist and sexist Fox coverage.  Thanks for "calling Fox out".

    A Shuster Moment for Fox? (none / 0) (#144)
    by santarita on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:31:49 AM EST
    I didn't know the connotation of "Baby Mamma" so my only reaction to the Fox chyron was that it seemed to be the kind of jargon or slang that makes sense to my nephew's generation and  not terribly useful in political discourse.

    But now that I see its meaning, it's offensive in the same way that Shuster's comment about pimping out Chelsea was offensive.  In the right setting (e.g. a sports bar or hip hop concert) it would be ok but on a national news network it was racist like Shuster's comment was sexist.

    Fortunately, it will not become part of my lexicon.

    Its a matter of respect (none / 0) (#155)
    by pluege on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:44:35 AM EST
    or more precisely ensuring that at every little opportunity to enforce the notion that Obama, a major party presidential candidate - the Democratic Party candidate - doesn't deserve respect. You sure as hell wouldn't see any kind of this nonsense directed at mccain.

    And to be sure the apology means absolutely nothing. The whole point is to get the disrespect out there so its planted in the psyche of people not sensitive to what fux nuz is up to. That they issue an apology means nothing, their deed is done. It will keep on happening.

    To be clear (none / 0) (#164)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:53:19 AM EST
    I believe that there choice to use that term was racially motivated but that the term itself isn't necessarily racist.

    Then again I don't really play the Outrage! game.  

    Yup - as predicted (none / 0) (#194)
    by Lora on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:42:15 PM EST
    The beginning of the end of Obama's Media Darling status.  It served its purpose.

    It's no different than what msnbc (none / 0) (#199)
    by WillBFair on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:05:30 PM EST
    and the rest are still doing to Hillary. The media's social scientists know that open contempt is convincing to a large segment of the population. The far left are just as ignorant as the far right, and both respond well to childish insults.
    I never thought that democrats would fall for such idiocy, and I was startled when the media went to that level at the start of the primary. Turns out they knew what they were doing.
    In a way, it was funny watching Obama's young worshippers fall for his shallow rhetoric and the media's disgusting sneers.
    Again, these are democrats?

    Baby Mama (none / 0) (#200)
    by Amiss on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 01:01:32 AM EST
    Early in the campaign I could have sworn that either she referred to him as her "baby daddy" or he referred to her as his "baby mama". I have not had time to go through all of the you tube clips and do not have a parsing program but I am fairly sure it is there. If either of them did, in fact, as I believe they did, use the term, then they have absolutely no beef if someone else uses the term.