So crazy liberals at Obama-Biden events occasionally make fun of Sarah Palin in crude terms, and at times, a more than a few folks have yelled that McCain is a warmonger and a liar. Obama-Biden campaign rallies can be quite toxic to the POV that McCain's a decent guy.
And yet the media, complains the McCain campaign, doesn't cover this....it only covers Republicans -- isolated occasional "nut jobs" -- who call Obama an "Arab" ... and a "terrorist." The media never reports that Obama or Biden encourage their crowd to believe that McCain is a liar, or that Sarah Palin is a dilettante.
And -- yet yet -- Democrats claim that there is no equivalence; calling Obama a "terrorist" and or saying he pals around with them has subcutaneous coding that's much more dangerous for society -- and for Obama -- than what McCain hears at his rally.
Is this an example of a double standard?
Your comments, please.
« Gallup's Two Likely Voter Models: Obama + 4, + 7 | Main | Fear An Economic Collapse...Or So Says $95 Million In Television Advertising » Warmonger and Palin-Mocker v. Terrorist14 Oct 2008 10:33 am Comments (133)
calling Obama a terrorist is slander and creates a mob mentality among mccain supporters so I have to side with the Democrats on this one 
No, they are not the same, start using your brain instead of this on the one hand/on the other hand style of reporting whereby reporters forfeit their ability to tell their readers true from false.
Calling politicians liars and dilettantes is old hat. They've probably been doing it here since 1800. Implying that a politician has sympathies with those who do violence against our country is rather new to me, at least for a major political candidate. It nearly condones a coup or overthrow if said politician were to be elected.
It's a false equivalency, Marc. Accusing anyone, much less a sitting US Senator, of being a terrorist or traitor is serious business, and if the accusations were true, that individual would be subject to extensive prosecution and incarceration. These are not charges to be leveled lightly. On the other hand, calling Palin and McCain insulting names are garden variety offenses with no legal ramifications, and should be treated as such. That is to say nothing of the ridiculous identity-based smears (e.g. "Arab""Muslim") tossed Obama's way that have nothing other than his name and appearance to stand upon. The taunts tossed McCain and Palin's way are based upon actions they have taken, not the fact that they were simply born and named.
No one leaves a democratic rally believing that John McCain and Sarah Palin are Manchurian candidates bent on the destruction of the United States and intent on recreating the caliphate. John McCain and Sarah Palin, by contrast, deliberately echo the smears of viral emails against Barack Obama and question his very identity, his American roots, and assert that he is friends with terrorists. That Barack Obama is a traitor, a terrorist, and should be killed for the good of the country are logical leaps forward given the speeches and the ads running against the campaign. To even attempt to compare the two are false equivalents and that you would ask the question in the guise of being fair minded is very weak IMO. What it does call to mind is that Frum clip from the Maddow show that is being passed around on the blogs. Barack Obama's very life was being put in danger by the chosen rhetoric of the McCain campaign; many likened it to the rhetoric against Rabin before his assassination and I think that is the fair analogy. Nothing compares on the democratic side IMO. The MSM should stop attempting to shill for the McCain camp by saying it's in any way similar.
This is very much a false equivalency. McCain has unequivocally lied, is committed to starting a cold (if not more) war with Russia, is committed to "bomb, bomb, bomb[ing]" Iran. Merely pointing out these facts is completely above-board. As is pointing out the fact that Obama served on a non-profit board with William Ayers. That's valid, and the McCain campaign can use that to question his "judgment" in not speaking out against Ayers's presence. Granted, in order to do that, the campaign has to ignore the fact that the organization was actually conservative, its patron as well as several of its board members are supporters of McCain, but it's the media's job to point these things out (not that they are). Calling or implying that Obama is a terrorist or that he supports "terrorists" (note the plural) is what is beyond the pale, and that is demonstrated by the responses the stump speeches have engendered. These aren't people shouting out completely irrelevant things borne of their own bigotry — they're responding to the blatantly obvious dog whistle the McCain campaign is (was?) communicating.
Endangering someone's life is worse than laughing at someone. Democrats don't go around yelling for Sarah's head, empty as it is.
I'm not going to defend the media because they overcover everything (I don't think "Obama bin Lyin'" signs are all that dangerous and are mildly amusing). But there are lines and when the week starts by saying that Obama is "palling around with terrorists" and ominous (and non-too-subtle) questions like "Who is the real Barack Obama?" and that starts members in the crowd screaming truly scary stuff such as "Kill him", "Off with his head", etc. then I think we have a legitimate story. McCain did the right thing on Friday, it was just several days too late. However, I don't think the counternarrative you're priming, Marc, is anything but journalists trying to seem evenhanded. Obama and McCain can call each other liars which is fine. Please note nobody got to worked up about the crowds yelling about liberals and lack of patriotism, etc. McCain tried to subtlely play the race card with his "Who is Barack Obama?" and found out that it is not at all subtle.
Marc, there is a bit of a bias, but that's because in many respects the Dem take on this is correct. Most political candidates will implicate their opponent as less than completely honest, as less than trustworthy, as less than capable. This is normal. It's politics. But few will (till now, in this country), implicate that their opponent as a threat to sovereignty, to life and limb, and feed an undercurrent of fear and xenophobia which is understandable in the current climate but still startling. And that sensationalism, that shock of the extreme, is what gets coverage. This doesn't condone either path, but the one McCain and Palin have taken these last few weeks is one which is inherently more dangerous. Calling your opponent a liar echoes the days of perhaps Nixon; allowing your supporters to call for your opponent's imminent demise and labeling them enemy of the state echoes early 1930's Italy. Personally, I'd prefer to see our country avoid even the hint of suggesting a path like that.
the lengths you will go to in order to remain "neutral" are staggering (and immoral). On the one hand we have the worse administration in modern history, a failure so monumental that 92% of the country agrees & we have an unqualified proven liar & her 72 yr cancer survivor mate who are both committed to continuing the policies of the worse administration ever. On the other hand we have two honest brilliant/bright ... See, the same.
No, there is no equivalence. It's called "The Sin of Symmetry" and I brought it up earlier in the campaign here: http://www.dailyshocker.com/265/ The Republicans have always relied on the media trying to equivocate in order to mitigate their nastiness. It's part of their gameplan and it's why they're so good at it. The Republicans want a world of moralistic relativity, where the worst they say is equivalent to the worst the Democrats say, knowing the Dems will never go as far as them. They aren't getting it, so their heinous attacks are being looked at absolutely. Marc, seriously, you are better than this. It's beginning to feel like you're trying to fill a post quota here. I don't think you are a biased reporter to either side, but it feels like you have a bias to politicians in general, and that betrays your trust as a journalist. Stop rationalizing for these people. Take them to task. Be better than a panderer.
It's a false equivalence for several reasons. A terrorist is somebody we hunt down and execute. A liar is just a standard politician. Plus Obama is not a terrorist while McCain is in fact a liar.
This is beyond me how people can compare, hell not even apples and oranges, but apples and skateboards. Two completely different things. I would even cut the McCain camp some slack about socialist stuff, because hell who really cares about socialists- only those who have money who already in the McCain camp squarely. What concerns me is at the height (post 9-11) day we live in, where people still think the Iraq war was a task from God, 9-11 and Iraq are correlated, all muslims are bad, torture techniques that have us floating torture ships around europe and people not caring so much about abu gharib after its initial outrage- that is what scares me. The fact that the Obama must either be a terrorist or a terrorist symphatizer, in this day and age, is beyond me. I think it speaks volumes for obama not to bring up Iran Contra deal, Liddy,and all those other associations mccain has had- sure he brought up keating- but no ads were made or barely even discussed. I think that they are playing with fire here, it is only fueled by the rumors on the internet. They know that this kind of stuff would not hold water if it were Hillary or Edwards. I think McCain needs to make a decison. Lose Honorably or just lose.
Well, let's look at this from the position of an elementary school administrator.
I'm going to have to agree with most of the commenters here: this is a false equivalency. Also, I've never heard either Obama or Biden "encourage their crowd to believe that... Sarah Palin is a dilettante". If you have proof of this, feel free to post it.
I was embarassed for the GOP when at the Clearwater,FL Palin rally attendees said that Obama was a terrorist and that media were communist. This is MY Home area. It makes me very afraid that the speech Palin (and to a lesser degree) McCain use in these gathers will incite violence. There is a hugh difference between Liar and Terrorist. McCain's camp also called Obama a liar earlier in the campaign, but upped the language now. While I think it only helps Obama, it is nonetheless dangerous for the country...and if there is violence, those of us in the middle will put the blame clearly on the shoulders of the women from Alaska: Palin.
I have yet to hear of anyone at an Obama or Biden campaign event yelling "kill him!" about McCain. There is a world of difference between mockery and criticism on the one hand, and lynch-mob, KKK, brown shirt, paranoid exhortations on the other. I consider it very likely that one of this illiterate right-wing mob is going to try to kill Barack Obama. And it will be the Republican Party's fault -- every last one of them -- because they supported this kind of thing on the grounds that it "wins elections."
They're not equivalent. Calling someone a liar is an expression that their words don't match the realities. That's traditionally been fair political game, hasn't it? The equivalent of McCain supporters calling Obama a "terrorist" would be Obama supporters calling McCain a "pedophile." Or a "murderer."
No, because the Republican Party this year is again overwhelming white, almost necessarily making such attacks on Obama appear to be racist, even when they're not. Any Chicago politician would have been associated with the same characters, but Obama has skillfully navigated around these attacks by claiming, accurately in this case, that they have racial overtones. Now, if McCain has stuck to his guns on immigration reform, and was attracting large numbers of Latinos to his ticket, he might be able to insulate himself against these charges to some degree. But, McCain's own record on civil rights (fairly poor) and his inability to thread the needle in his own party to get both his white base and minorities on board, makes it difficult for him to make these attacks. In addition, the McCain campaign is playing this the wrong way. They should be targeting racist (or race-sensitive) voters on the ground level, much like Obama is targeting black voters, and using campaign events to project a more inclusive image. By using his base-targeted rallies to push this message, he pushes away more voters than he attracts and undermines the charges he makes. A smarter campaign would have spent the summer defining Obama as a typical Chicago politician, relying on his weaker connections to the machine system to make the case, and then unveiled Ayers, Wright and others as part of a closing argument that Obama, like any other big-city politician, can't be trusted with the presidency. Fortunately for Obama, he's running once again against a poorly organized, bumbling campaign that is barely able to keep on message with the attack of the day, let alone the week or the month.
Terrorism is a crime for which people are imprisoned and killed--which is exactly what some audience members at the McCain rallies are calling for. Lying is something you do about your weight. Self-evidently in different leagues, and I'm kind of stunned that the question even had to be asked.
No, it is obviously not equivalent. Equivalent to calling McCain a warmonger would be calling Obama a "peacenik" or saying he wants to surrender. Equivalent to calling McCain a liar would be calling Obama a "liar." Eqivalent to calling Palin a dilettante would be calling Obama a dilettante or celebrity. These are all commonplace accusations from the McCain campaign itself, not just angry crowds at his rallies; the media has, for some reason, deemed accusing Obama of serious crimes & calls to "kill him" as not QUITE equivalent. By the way, it's not even equivalent to call Obama a "terrorist" and George W. Bush a "war criminal." There is credible evidence that Bush has authorized grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, in violation of the War Crimes Act. There is absolutely no credible evidence that Obama has participated in the crime of terrorism. I know that objective "truth" being more important than "balance" is a foreign concept to you though. Let me try with some more examples: stating that Barack Obama is a Muslim is not equivalent to stating that Keith Ellison is a Muslim. Or, to quote another blogger, charging that Bill Clinton is guilty of cheating on his wife is not equivalent to charging that George W. Bush is guilty of robbing convenience stores. This , rather, an example # 1900 or so of your slavish devotion to "balance" over accuracy & how it makes calling this a "reported blog" an insult to Atlantic readers.
Your headline says about all that needs to be said, Marc. And yet the great Ambinder-McCain mancrush train continueth apace.
Any assumtption of moral equivalency between lying and treason is simply, well, stupid. Just plain, inelegant, tunnel-visioned stupid. The 'whys' have been well enough stated above so there's no reason for me to repeat them.
You're kidding, right? Calling Sarah Palin a dilettante because she has looked like, well, a dilettante in the vice presidential debate and the few press interviews she has given is morally equivalent to incitement of hatred and (borderline) incitement of violence against Sen. Obama? Saying, falsely, that he is "paling around" (note present tense) with "terrorists" (note plural)? Sometimes the press needs to set aside its obsession with "balance" and report the actual truth.
I do think there's a double standard here. A family puts up a McCain sign in their yard in Portland and Molotov cocktails start flying. I'm not excusing the folks at McCain rallies who think Obama's an Arab. But I do wonder where all the outrage against sexism against Hillary went. Obama supporters are calling Sarah Palin incredibly derisive names (rhymes with punt), publishing them on Obama's website, and we get silence. When the lady said Obama was an Arab, McCain took the mic away from her and told her that she was wrong. I haven't heard Obama denounce the destruction of property or the sexist bile coming from his supporters. And I've read numerous reports where people have said that if Obama loses, there will be race riots in our cities. That is an actual threat of violence. Yet we aren't treated to breathless stories about how Democrats are full of "rage." Double standard.
I can't tell if this is a sarcastic post or not. John McCain is a liar. It has been demonstrated repeatedly by people like Sullivan, Josh Marshall and others. Maybe it's not polite to call it out in public, but it is true. Calling McCain a liar is bad for his "decent, honest guy" image. Calling Obama a terrorist sympathizer is bad for his "man who should be allowed to live" image.
It is absolutely not a double-standard. When people start shouting death threats against McCain/Palin at Obama rallies, give me a call. So far that has NEVER been reported or recorded. I also think it is willfully, deliberately obtuse to pretend the first African-American candidate from a major political party does not already have increased odds of being assassinated. No one wants to say that because it's a harsh and ugly thing, and for most of us too horrifying to contemplate. But don't kid yourself. It only takes one nutcase with a gun and good aim. Given that, for McCain/Palin to accuse Obama of the capital offenses terrorism and treason is a heinous moral wrong that goes well beyond the usual fistfight politics leading up to an election. To level these accusations, and then to do little to tamp down on the mob's angry reaction, silently conveys legitimacy to some of their supporters. And this "equivalency" journalism is utterly nauseating. I swear to god, if McCain and Palin brought out newborn puppies on stage and skinned them alive, some idiot reporter concerned with being "fair and balanced" would equivocate that with Obama getting caught jaywalking or Biden not paying a parking ticket. You know, sometimes REALITY favors one side over the other.
I think a case can be made that McCain does in fact lie. Some would then extend that to claim that he is a liar. I had to look up dilettante. Webster says 'a person having a superficial interest in an art or a branch of knowledge'. That seems pretty accurate from what I have seen, and would be interested in hearing cogent arguments that Palin does not meet this definition. While both of the above sadden me, they do not scare me to the point of wanting to see them jailed, deported, or killed. So is your question, "Is there a difference between electing a liar/dilettante and a terrorist/sympathizer?"
McCain and Palin have been heating up the red meat before serving it to the hungry crowds. No campaign is responsible for the spontaneous utterances of a handful of nut jobs, unless of course members of the ticket gin up these comments by suggesting he's "hanging out with terrorists" or similar sentiments. That's the difference: The McCain campaign is directly involved in the promotion of violence inducing rhetoric. The Obama campaign is directly involved in the critical evaluation of statements made by his opponents. Its the difference between someone insulting you to your face, and someone shooting you in the face.
agreed with lots of the above. There is a substantive and material difference between claiming someone running for the highest office in the land is a terrorist, a traitor, and deserving of death and....calling McCain a liar and Palin stupid. The former are demonstrably untrue, the later are at the least up for debate, and in a stronger sense, factually accurate. I can't believe this is even something you need arguments for.
Do you even have to ask the question? I will believe the equivalency argument only if I hear Obama or Bidel directly say that McCain has the blood of 1 million Iraqi children on his hands. He has the blood of the thousands of young American men and women on his hands who sent to fight in Iraq for NO REASON. That is the definition of a warmonger. War is what gets this man excited. He will forget about earmarks and tax cuts and go straight to war with Iran, who knows even Russia. But to get back to the point, I know Biden nor Obama would never say anything like that. But saying it would be the EQUIVALENT of syaing that Obama wants to kill babies and he pals around with terrorists. Obama and Biden are not inciting the cround to have violent thoughts against McCain.
Calling someone a liar in a political context is hardly outside the norm. It's happened reliably for 200 years, and McCain is as quick to pull the liar trigger as Obama is. We can call both out for that tactic or we can ignore it for both as simply being part of politics. (I lean toward the latter, personally. Investing time in pointing out charges of lying would mean that nothing else gets covered.) But McCain's campaign (Palin and his staff moreso than McCain himself) is suggesting three things: 1) That Obama is unpatriotic or unamerican. Now, historically in politics that's a line that you don't cross without strong evidence, and no strong evidence has been offered - certainly nothing that couldn't be reflected right back on McCain. McCain's associations with Gordon Liddy, for example, should be equally disqualifying yet nobody is raising that except when pointing out that the media really aren't doing their job on this one. But asserting that someone disagrees with the principles on which the nation was founded is a very tall charge. 2) That Obama is an active threat to both U.S. That's the 'terrorist' charge more directly. It doesn't attack Obama's position on the principles on which the U.S. exists, but suggests that he's a threat to the nation at a more concrete level - that people would be harmed or property destroyed. That's an equally dangerous line to cross. That's why 'Daisy' is a famous ad, because that's what it asserted. Again, strong evidence is needed and none offered. Obama does attack McCain somewhat along this line with his 'erratic' charge. Nothing specific, but the hint is there that McCain might do something rash. 3) That certain types of people (Arabs, Muslims, etc.) are fundamentally disqualified from high public office. This is the most onerous one, because it's not a smear against Obama who is neither Arab or Muslim, but against the millions of American citizens that are, that are patriotic and that love this country as much as Mayflower descendants. This isn't a direct charge by McCain or Palin, but the woman who asked McCain about Obama being an Arab is, according to an interview afterward, a McCain volunteer and got that information from a McCain field office. That's why she was confused. She thought that was an official talking point. Now, nobody is naive enough to think that there aren't liberties taken at Obama field offices here and there, but she isn't an isolated case, and Obama hasn't tolerated any foundational misconceptions about McCain being aired that I can see. The left could have let loose with all kinds of wild crap about McCain and his POW time, about whether he served honorably, and so on, and some has trickled out, but Obama has gone out of his way to consistently tamp that down and remind his supporters that McCain served honorably. McCain has not worked nearly so hard to keep his supporters civil, and has at times encouraged that behavior. I don't see how the two campaigns can be compared when you break down the nature and goal of the discourse.
> And -- yet yet -- Democrats claim that there is Marc, when I started reading this piece I thought you were just sarcastic about McCain inappropriately comparing the environment at his and Obama rallies. But when I read the last portion I realized that you were serious. Are you kidding me? Marc, you are saying that people calling Obama a "terrorists", "kill him" is same as people calling McCain "liar". You are saying that 'spewing hatred' is same as calling a lie a lie? Do you understand that McCain clearly heard it when someone shouted "a terrorist" when McCain asked "who is Obama?". If you do not know then just check the youtube clip and McCain's expressions. So we have a presidential candidate who approves of his opponent being called a terrorist and that is same as someone shouting a liar? Give us one example of how the atomosphere at Obama rally is similar to the hateful and mob mentality like atmosphere at McCain-Palin rallies. This is a challenge for you. C'mon Marc, you are better than carrying water for McCain. For this piece atleast you have lost your journalistic integrity.
Let's not be incredibly stupid here. Does anyone think that if people at McCain rallies just called Obama a liar it would be news. If people for McCain's camp called Obama a socialist it would not be covered. Obama is kind of sort of a socialist and McCain is kind of sort of a warmonger and kind of sort of a liar. Or calling Palin stupid (she certainly seems stupid when she isn't reading from a prompter). These sorts of charges are really typical of charges leveled against candidates all the time so they aren't news worthy. It is not normal to call a candidate for president a terrorist or to shout kill him. It is not normal to use racist invectives. Additionally there was/is a sort of misogynistic undercurrent to certain crowd reactions at Obama rallies with regard to Palin (and Clinton) and this has been covered to a certain degree (Though for better or worse we as a culture are more comfortable with overt misogyny than overt racism) so the disparity of coverage seems sort of fitting (You can say bitch on television pretty cavalierly but not the n-word). So to sum my point up, of course McCain is being a cry baby. What a whiner.
I'm an Obama supporter and I agree that the media hasn't covered the Obama wacko supporters to the same extent as McCain's. However, there is a big difference between being called a terrorist and a liar. Also America has a history of black leaders and black people who are considered 'uppity' being KILLED. This history does make a difference. There has always been a very real fear that some one may try to kill Obama because 'he has gotten out of his place' or that he is such a danger to the American way. While that fear has been moved to the back burner by the positive reception Obama has gotten, the last 2 weeks has resurfaced some of that fear for me and obviously many others. Hopefully, once this election is over we can put this fear behind us as one more relict of the past. But right now, I'm a hostage to this historical fear.
btw, someone calling MCCain a "traitor" for saying all those thing to Vietcong could be compared with Obama being called a "terrorist". But no one has called McCain a traitor at rallies.
I do think there's a double standard here. A family puts up a McCain sign in their yard in Portland and Molotov cocktails start flying.Do you realize how ridiculously stupid you sound when you post? Or is there cheering in your head?
You opened a comments thread for this? I guess the votes are in, dude!
We hang traitors and terrorists who attack America. Liars, not so much. Grasping the difference now?
I hope this post is sarcastic, but the fact that so many people took it seriously and responded to it shows that we can't distinguish between a joke and political journalism, because much of American political journalism is a joke.
In case you didn't notice, John McCain has been doing quite a bit of lying lately. Palin even more. She has lied about everything-from bridges to nowhere, to investing in Darfur, to abusing her office.
They are not even in the same universe, never mind the same ball park.
This post is a joke, right?
To respond to Joe: Sexism is unacceptable in any campaign. I certainly deplore many of the sexist Palin remarks online. Nevertheless, Palin herself is an affront to most women as a clearly political token choice. Palin is shrewd and obviously a natural politician. She is NOT however ready to be VP. It is not her lack of experience so much as her lack of interest in foreign affairs and even mundane matters like Supreme Court decisions. If she puts her mind to it and develops some background in foreign policy, history, and the inner workings of national government, she may well be a formidable candidate in 5-7 years. Why not Sen. Snowe?? It was clearly a pander to the extremists in the GOP base and NOTHING else mattered. If there is a lot of derision directed at Palin, you can thank McCain. "I haven't heard Obama denounce the destruction of property or the sexist bile coming from his supporters." I agree with all the posters: there is no comparison between being called a liar vs. a terrorist.
Is this an example of a double standard? Yes. Democrats claim that there is no equivalence; calling Obama a "terrorist" and or saying he pals around with them has subcutaneous coding that's much more dangerous for society -- and for Obama obama is a climber. If he wanted to go anywhere in chi-town politics he had to befriend ayers, rezko, and the rest of Chicago's ugly political bosses. obama chose that path. If his past choices hurt him now then so be it. Some would say the horrible misogynist attitudes of some loud mouthed “liberals” has terrorized women and will continue to into the future. The “liberal media” not only not noticing the horrible misogynist attitudes of some “liberals” but also some high profile members of the media participating themselves has caused change no human would ‘hope for’ or want.
What a facile comment, Ambinder. The truth hurts. John McCain IS a liar. And Sarah Palin IS a dilettante. Obama is NOT a terrorist. Nor is there any evidence that he "pals around" with terrorists. There is no double standard in calling a liar a liar, and a dilettante a dilettante -- while at the same time defending aggressively against absurd insinuations of being a "terrorist." What IS a double standard? It's shallow commentary like yours, Marc Ambinder -- and your trying to equate the vicious, incendiary, racist attacks being launched by the Republicans and their minions, vs. the justified political charges being launched by the Democrats.
Here are dozens of McCain supporters spewing hatred: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itEucdhf4Us Find me the equivalent with Obama supporters and I'll pay you $100. Trying to equate them does a disservice to everyone. Marc, I'd really like to hear your argument for how they ARE equal. Why does the audience have to prove a false equivalence. Shouldn't the journalist be making the case for why they are equivalent? Also what's wrong with reporting the facts WITHOUT trying to equalize them. "we report, you decide". McCain supporters called Obama a terrorist and wanted him to die, Obama supporters called McCain an old warmonger and Palin a bimbo. We can draw our own conclusions.
I'm pretty sure you were just raising this as a discussion topic, not arguing that the McCain camp is right about the existence of a double standard... correct? You must have known that their claim is ludicrous, and that your readers would say as much. So maybe now you can tell us: what was the point of this exercise?
Do you realize how ridiculously stupid you sound when you post? Or is there cheering in your head? Actually, that did happen. A couple of guys torched a McCain billboard in Portland. (It wasn't a yard sign but a 4x8 billboard in front of their house). It's deplorable that it happened and thankfully the guys who did it were arrested. Nobody was hurt, nor were they arrested on any charges that suggested they intended to hurt people. Of course, conservatives can't seem to acknowledge that the head of the Arkansas Democratic party was gunned down, or that a man upset about all the things Hannity has told him liberals were going to do decided to shoot up a U/U church. But, you know, those things are exactly the same...
MARC, WHY ARE YOU PLAYING DUMB? WHY WONT I BELIEVE MCCAIN IS A WARMONGER?... HE SINGS BOMB BOMB IRAN, HE WANTS TO OBLITERATE N. KOREA... HE EVEN WANTED TO GO TO WAR WITH IRAQ BEFORE BUSH HIS CAMPAIGN SAYS OBAMA PALS WITH TERRORIST... AND NOW THE PPL THAT ARE COMING TO THE RALLYS ARE SAYING THEY ARE SCARED OF OBAMA....CALLING HIM A TERRORIST AND CALLING FOR HIS MURDER... YOU DONT NEED TO BE EINSTEIN TO FIGURE OUT THAT ROVIAN TACTICS ARE IN FULL EFFECT
I believe that Axelrod is the master at using racism in any campaign. He has masterminded this faux GOP crowds in rages. It is not real - it is created. The filth that has come from obama supporters against Hillary and now Sarah are horrible and disgusting. But, the MSM ignores and condones that. Who cries out against that??? I don't buy that Palin and McCain are invoking these crowds. What I do buy is that people don't like Obama for his KNOWN associations with criminals and terrorists. Sometimes I believe that America has dumbed down. Anyone that cannot see that Obama invokes these feelings is unbelievably naive or just dishonest.
If Palin has been referred to with the C word, it's despicable. I haven't personally heard that word in reference to her, and if it was a dominant meme, I would have. Did you hear Obama when his rally supporters were booing McCain? He said, we don't need that. What we need it to vote. Obama has made it clear what he supports.
Lying and terrorism are two different things.
Not for nothing, but McCain actually is a warmonger and a liar. Those are pretty factual claims. Perhaps warMONGER sounds a bit harsh. Let's say, war enthusiast. War supporter. War fan. Whatever. But he's definitely pro-war. As far as lying, you can go to the videotape too many times to count. And Sarah Palin, my god, the baldfaced denial of reality is a wonder to behold. On the other hand, Obama is not a terrorist. So, in what way can it be equivalent to say that Obama supporters say things that are true, while McCain supporters say things that are lies?
McCain and Palin's incessant implications are permeating, no longer unconscious, and profoundly destructive. Obama and Biden are merely telling the truth: McCain continues to promote war, obfuscates facts so severely truth becomes false; and, Palin personifies a sociopathic liar - beyond all hope, reason, and ethical integrity.
I'll have to second Idaho Nick on the votes being in. The trolls haven't showed up yet, but I must admit that I was surprised to see about 40 comments strongly say "no equivalence" and 1 meager comment of "there's a double standard". The votes are in. Marc, you asked for these comments, so I hope you ponder them respectfully.
The McCain campaign has been calling Obama a dilletante celebrity from day one (irony). Nobody said he was engaging in the politics of fear at that time. Today, he's calling Obama a terrorist. Now, we are saying he's engaging in the politics of fear. The constant in these scenarios is McCain. The variable in these scenarios is the type of politics. McCain is not the issue--his politics are. Any questions? McCain needs to get over his persecution complex. It makes him look pathetic and angry.
One word: "Racism!" It's a better narrative for the press and a more destructive association for Obama's campaign. Plus, it's new. Cynics expect our politicians to be warmongering, liars or just plain stupid. I doubt many Americans (before this campaign) believed in the possibility of a sleeper terrorist agent infiltrating the Senate or Presidency. Thus, it's got wheels.
No, it is not a double standard, and it is an unfair proxy question to a very complicated situation. First, the McCain reports came out because they could be SEEN ON CAMERA DURING MCCAIN AND PALIN'S ATTACKS. You have a cause-effect relationship there, even if it is a weak one. I have not heard anything like "Kill him!" or "Terrorist!" or "Traitor!" or "Off with their heads!" captured on live camera at an Obama event. The mad-as-hell-hooligans guy in Wisconsin, the he's-arab lady in Minnesota - they were captured on camera in the same frame as McCain. The story is driven by this footage. Where is this footage with Obama? If it existed, we would see it, yes? If it existed and it was being hidden by MSM, then yes, bias! Second, there are at least three substantial YouTube videos of McCain supporters in Ohio and Pennsylvania shouting vile things, saying they think Obama is a terrorist, and holding up a monkey doll w/ a sticker on it. Where are the videos of Obama crowds doing ANYTHING along those lines? Again, the footage fuels the story. Third, can reporters tell if there is a difference in tone between two rallies? Isn't this tone part of the story? The McCain-Palin rallies last week had an angry jeering tone (as did the Republican convention, frankly) that was different than at Obama rallies. Is the MSM supposed to ignore the fact that angrier crowds say meaner things? Has Obama brought up the Keating Five in speeches? Has he raised it in front of crowds? How many times vs. Ayers? Does this have something to do with tone? Is this relevant? Yes. When there is something vile (e.g. "Palin is a C**t" shirts), it gets reported in the same blogs that reported the stuff at McCain rallies and those folks are rightly mocked. Here is where there is equivalence: signs of "Nobama," "communist", or "socialist" are roughly similar, and roughly not worth reporting, as signs that call McCain a "liar" or a "warmonger." It is not fair to say simply that some Obama supporters are out of bounds and some McCain supporters are out of bounds and call it a day. This is a false equivalency because it ignores two things: the rate of such behavior, and the severity of it. I don't know if there are more or less of this behavior on one side or the other, but certainly this could be reported by the media. They are at every event, aren't they? As to severity, I do think there is a qualitative difference between implying a black guy with a Muslim middle name is buddy buddy with terrorists, and suggesting a war hero is a warmonger or a hot-headed bully. This is my judgment, but it seems there is a pretty well-acknowledged racial history in this country that is rife with violent oppression. To feed off of the the same fuel that started the fires of the past and then to suggest you didn't know it would burn today is willful ignorance.
Put me in the "bogus comparison" camp. It's not as though reporters have been flogging the "bloodthirsty mob" aspect of McCain rallies all along, just when their rallies started to turn into bloodthirsty mobs. It shouldn't surprise anyone that the right wing would get angrier and angrier the worse McCain's chances got, and they're pretty bad these days. The campaign itself didn't help matters either by making the Bill Ayers/terrorist/Obama smear a prominent part of their messaging. I haven't been to any Obama rallies but my sense is that one doesn't get the impression that, were John McCain to appear in person during one of them, he'd be in physical danger. That's where I think the tone is notably different than at the McPalin rallies.
I think that supporters on both sides can go too far, and balanced reporting requires that both be covered. I notice a lie by ommission on those comments that seem to back the Obama camp. First is the implication that Palin called Obama a terroist. Not true. She did say Obama has had a professional, personal, and political relationship with a "unrepentant domestic terrorist", and that "he doesn't view America the way we do". I would agree that Ayers doesn't view America the way that I do. I do not believe that you resolve a court case by fire bombing the judges house (and attempting to kill the judges wife and nine year old son). I do not belive that you protest a war by bombing US servicemen (most of whom were draftees, by the way.) The second item that the Obama backers miss is that two Obama supporters in Portland tried to use Molotov cocktails to target a McCain supporters sign - and nearly burned down the McCain supporters house. Clearly this has been the most objectionable act commited by a supporter on either side. Perhaps thay were taking a lesson from Ayers?
Also, when Bible Spice claimed that Obama would "raise the white flag of surrender" was there an outrage? So, why should we be outraged by someone calling McCain "Bomb Iran" a warmonger? Call Obama a wussy peacenik...we don't care. But don't call him a traitor or a terrorist. There are laws against those things. This issue really isn't as nuanced as you in the McCain campaign try to make it out to be.
McCain IS a liar. The list of McCains lies are well documented. McCain is also quite a hawk, and would say so himself. Perhaps "warmonger" is an unkind way of saying the same thing, but unkind is not inaccurate. On the other hand, calling Obama a "terrorist" is not only inaccurate but dangerous. There are a lot of kooks out there and the McCain campaign was fanning the flames of their kookiness. There is little or no chance that some nutjob will attempt to assasinate McCain for being a liar. There's a much greater chance that some nutjob will try to assasinate Obama because they believe, as the McCain campaign has led them to believe, that Obama is a terrorist.
Your answer lies only in going to the two different rallies. Obama's rallies are standard political rallies. There are cheers, people wearing buttons and the typical jargon associated with stump speeches. They're actually pretty boring. However, as even right-wing journalists have reported, what's happening at McCain/Palin events is angry, vitriolic and not a little bit frightening to those considered outsiders (journalists, for instance). You can parse words and compare battle cries all you want, but defending the kind of atmosphere being whipped up at McCain/Palin rallies puts you squarely on the wrong side of decency.
No Equivalence, unequivocally. Please trying to paint someone as a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer is beyond the pale. You see it in the republican rallies, where they yell kill him, off with their heads, terrorist and then Arab... as though just simply being an Arab means one is evil. I tell you what, there simply is no excuse for this. It feels as though the Republican are attempting to whip up the crazies and then not take responsibility of what happens then they do their crazy stuff. It certainly is a sign of desperation.
Marc, this is a cat's paw posting to get people to outline all of the reasons why it is not equivalent, am I right? Because the moral equivalency is just not there. At all. The McCain campaign is full of Whiners.
And by the way, neither McCain nor Obama are responsible for the actions of every single one of their supporters. There are nutjobs at every point on the political spectrum. What McCain has done to deserve special excoriation is to have HIS OWN RUNNING MATE accuse Obama of terrorism and treason on the stump. (Accusations which, by the way, Snopes debunked last year, back when Palin was still wondering what exactly the VP does all day.) Whatever you can say about Obama supporters, I have never heard Biden call Palin or McCain the c-word or accuse them of treason at an official rally, and stand silently while his supporters screamed "Treason!" If he did, I guarantee that would be all over the news too.
The concern is that calling someone terrorist or "other" makes him dangerous, and that may incite some kook to try to kill him. Other insults may just discourage someone from voting, but these visceral fears could trigger an assination. We all remember John, Bobby and Martin all too well, not to mention attempts on Reagan and Ford.
What I do buy is that people don't like Obama for his KNOWN associations with criminals and terrorists. Sometimes I believe that America has dumbed down. So why does McCain so proudly promote the endorsement of someone who funds the very same terrorist? FORMER U.S. AMBASSADORS FOR MCCAIN-PALIN ... Lenore Annenberg, Chief of Protocol -- Radnor, Penn. If Ayers really does reflect that badly on Obama, why is McCain proud of the endorsement of the person that funded Ayers? Here's McCain on Gordon Libby's program: "I'm proud of you, I'm proud of your family, it's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great." Libby spent 4 years in prison because of Watergate. Libby offered advise to the Branch Dividians when ATF was trying to arrest them: If the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms insists upon a firefight, give them a firefight. Just remember, they're wearing flak jackets and you're better off shooting for the head. These are far more KNOWN associations and further, McCain hasn't repudiated these acts as Obama has. So, if you are going to apply a standard, apply it uniformly or don't apply it at all. So, it is now safe to assume that McCain agrees that ATF agents should be shot in the head, given that those apparently are part of the 'principles and philosophies that keep our nation great'?
If people at Obama rallies called McCain a sleeper Communist agent who would hand us to the North Koreans, and called Palin a terrorist sympathizer with the Alaskan separatists, then we'd have equivalence. If people left a Biden rally convinced that assassinating McCain and Palin would be an act of patriotism. Liar? Check the Pinochio scores at WaPo. Warmonger? Not flattering, but a pretty common term to fling at someone who never saw a war he opposed. ("We are all Georgians now.") They've been calling Obama a liar and a dilletante for quite a while: that would be equivalence.
Find me the equivalent with Obama supporters and I'll pay you $100. Posted by spavis This one has a nice video: noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/10/12/the-obama-campaign-role-models-patterned-violence/ noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/10/14/late-night-obamabot-pornography-open-thread/ paypal works for me.
Obama is not a terrorist, nor may McCain be a warmonger, but I think we can all agree that Marc Ambinder is a real piece of shit.
When Hillary Clinton referenced the Bobby Kennedy assasination as one of the reasons she should stay in the race, even after it was apparent Obama would win the nomination, she was given pretty harsh treatment by the press and also by posters, including me. Huckabee's joke about shooting Obama was similarly lambasted as being poor humor and even worse judgment. If the press didn't now take McCain and Palin to task for egging on what has now been a 6 to 8 month just barely under the radar subplot of 'gee I wonder if someone will kill Obama', now THAT would be a double-standard.
Clearly this has been the most objectionable act commited by a supporter on either side. And gunning down the chair of the Arkansas Democratic party is less objectionable? So Democrats now have less value than billboards? Ann Coulter has done her job better than I realized.
your 'double standard' question is rather unclear. Is it a double standard that we hear complaints about mccain's crowds, but not obama's? or is it a double standard that we're even Trying to equate the two crowds? the mccain crowds are blatantly more hostile and more hateful than the evidence on the other side. enough of this false equivalence.
Ambinder's penchant for equivalence is getting beyond tiresome. He should take some tips from Campbell Brown who pretty much put the"they say this therefore i have to find someone else who says differently" issue to rest.
If Marc Ambinder needs to even ask himself this question, then people shouldn't even bother reading his "analysis." This shows how clearly the media doesn't understand the difference between truth, reality, and spin. The fact that Ambinder is even questioning whether a United States Senator being called a terrorist and traitor to his country with absolutely no evidence is equivalent to a VP candidate who hasn't shown the public that she has a depth of knowledge on any of the national issues, just shows how skewed political coverage is and illuminates quite clearly the psyche of all those reporters who enjoy McCain's BBQ sauce at his Sedona ranch. We now know what goes on in the minds of McCain's "base" and why they have been so reluctant to call McCain out on his baseless rhetoric. And the idea that McCain has been so utterly truthful is laughable. Ambinder should be ashamed of himself. But hey, he's ensured himself another spot at the Arizonian's annual picnic.
When Hillary Clinton referenced the Bobby Kennedy assasination as one of the reasons she should stay in the race Posted by stan That didn't stan, except in the feverswamp minds of oborg. But please stan take this chance to prove how wrong I am. Links to Hillary quotes saying anything remotely like 'Bobby Kennedy was assassinated so I'm staying the race.'
This post nails it exactly, I'm reprinting so people pay attention, thanks Tim: "btw, someone calling MCCain a "traitor" for saying all those thing to Vietcong could be compared with Obama being called a "terrorist". But no one has called McCain a traitor at rallies." -Tim
"Maverick" is the new euphemism for mentally feeble. "Hey, look at that maverick smoking a cigarette by that open gas can!"
Two distinctions, however fine they may be:
The responses just crack me up. Part of the problem is the use of language that you used Marc that is hurled at McCain and Palin. How about people that call Palin a c*nt (I have seen pictures of protesters at a McCain Palin rally wearing such tee shirts). Oh by the way, did you happen to see the clip where McCain actually stopped an elderly woman who was calling Obama an Arab and corrected her on the spot. Wasn't that refreshing... All of this rhetoric on here about McCain is a liar... take a look at factcheck.org or politifact and you will find that neither candidate is exactly truthful. Give me a break... I think part of the reason for the animosity on the right is the perception that they are not just fighting against the left, but also against a propaganda machine in the media that is largely stacked against them. I understand that for many of you it is your candidate that is being assailed...but try turning it around once. I am sure all of you think Fox News to be outlandishly biased...but is it more so than MSNBC? We have become a nation of such polar opposites politically that those of us who are in the center just stop and shake are heads at all of you. And then wonder what is going to become of our nation.
cdm, Palin has been thrust into a leadership role. She's speaking in front of large crowds as a representative of an entire political party. She may not be directly closing the logic loop and calling Obama a terrorist, but she is pointedly putting the pieces together and then relishing in the audience reaction. We've all seen the videos. Her campaign staff have to have seen the videos. Where is her call to her audiences to keep it civil? McCain's attempt on Friday was a good gesture, but it's only a gesture when simultaneously the campaign is continuing to stoke the idea that a President Obama would be a president who pals around with terrorists. They continue to put out more sinister feeling advertisements. The only thing that would redeem them at this point would be a public service speech that spoke to the need for civil discourse and mutual respect. And can we be clear, Ayers *was* a terrorist. In the intervening 40 years he has become a respected professor and awarded community activist. The very Republican Annenberg foundation saw fit to give him $50million for education reform in Chicago. Perhaps it could be noted that Obama is willing to work with people who have demonstrated their ability change from their wicked ways and to work for good, rather than having a closed mind that never allows a person to redeem himself and become a positively contributing member of society. I prefer to live in Obama's world view than the hateful, short-sighted one I see displayed in the McCain crowds.
Joe@12:59: There's a distinction between what's tolerated at rallies or on websites, which are official campaign symbols, and what takes place away from the campaigns. Palin lets "kill him" past; McCain is cool with "terrorist." (The Friday night reversal came after he'd started to face major criticism--and a host of embarrassing YouTubes--for letting these pass.) Obama calls people out for obnoxious behavior in a rally, so much so that it stopped being news that you couldn't call Hillary or McCain names and get a smile and a nod. So I don't hold McCain responsible for a random jerk with an "Obama is a halfblood muslin" sign, but I hold his campaign and supporters responsible for what's perfectly acceptable, in front of cameras, at his rallies.
the difference is twofold. 1) John McCain actually IS a warmonger. By definition a warmonger is : one who urges or attempts to stir up war. John McCain was an early, (we're talking 2 weeks after 9/11 early) advocate of war in Iraq. McCain makes several statements regarding how he won't hesitiate to go to war in iran. "Bomb bomb bomb iran" anybody? John McCain urged war in iraq, and he attemps to start a war in Iran. That means he is, by definition, A WARMONGER. 2)Barack Obama has never, ever, called john mccain a warmonger. And i've seen obama correct his partisans and urge them to be respectful when they're not. John McCain, on the other hand, spends a week calling Obama a terrorist and telling people we should be very afraid of this guy who we "barely know" even though he's been running for president for two years and has written two best selling memoirs and given dozens, if not hundreds, of speeches. John McCain encourages, or at least plays to, the worst aspects of political campaigning and fearmongering. His campaign fosters an atmosphere where people feel its ok to shout out that a man running for president (and who very well could be our next president) should be KILLED, or is a terrorist, or is a traitor. But McCain wants to be "respectful" while calling obama a terrorist. So go figure that one out. stating a fact, John McCain is a warmonger, is not morally equivalent to calling someone a terrorist and turning a deaf ear when someone in your crowd suggest Obama should be killed. One last thing I'll say. Some of these people really believe these lies about Obama. McCain knows this and instead of correcting them, or getting the truth out there, he uses their ignorance and fear as a political weapon. That's dangerous.
hey as$hole, i hope you're real happy with your "analysis." "KILL HIM" again: The Times Tribune, covering the crowd awaiting Sarah Palin in Scranton, reports: Chris Hackett addressed the increasingly feisty crowd as they await the arrival of Gov. Palin. Each time the Republican candidate for the seat in the 10th Congressional District mentioned Barack Obama the crowd booed loudly. One man screamed "kill him!" Supporters have been noted shouting “kill him,” “terrorist,” “off with his head” and other equally incendiary terms about Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama. Others have directly suggested Mr. Obama is a Muslim, which he is not, or a traitor. Some comments even drew rebuke from Republican presidential nominee John McCain. Other than the lone man, there were no other such outbursts.
Part of the problem is the use of language that you used Marc that is hurled at McCain and Palin. How about people that call Palin a c*nt (I have seen pictures of protesters at a McCain Palin rally wearing such tee shirts). John, this is another false equivalence. Palin, the actual candidate and potential vice president, is leveling maliciously false accusations against Obama, a sitting Senator, and allowing her supporters to shout "Treason!" "Terrorist!" and "Kill him!" without once stopping to chastise them. The protestors wearing the c*nt T-shirts were random Americans exercising their freedom of speech. They were not at an Obama rally, their message cannot reasonably be inferred from anything Obama or Biden have said on the stump, Obama had no way of influencing or controlling their actions, and most importantly, they are not the candidate. Lord, no wonder this country is in shambles if you don't hold your elected officials to higher standards than random people with foul language on their shirts.
I think for me the difference is three fold. One, the actual shouts of "terrorist, traitor, kill him, etc..." were caught via audio and video all within a span of three/four days, which in turn creates a narrative for the media to report. Plus, the questioners created riveting video. Watching someone claim they are "scared of an Obama presidency" or that he is Arab is fascinating to watch...which makes all that more powerful. Two, The individuals' responses to Palin and McCain rally cries were based on pure fear and panic. Combine that with a history of racial violence and division adds to the storyline. Finally, issues of race trump shouts of "liar" or "warmonger" or labeling someone dumb....especially when it relates to the safety of the President.
Marc, I haven't read all the other responses, so maybe someone else has said this (probably!) but calling someone a terrorist is tantamount to calling them a murderer, and that's still news in a political campaign. Getting called a liar, or dumb, in a political campaign is not news. I think part of the alarm about the behavior of a few of McCain's supporters stemmed from the candidate's initial failure to admonish them, and the historical knowledge of a what a few nut cases, or even one, can do.
So calling someone a warmonger and a liar is now equivalent to calling for someone to be killed? Really? That's the basis of your argument. 'Liberals make fun of Palin and call McCain a liar so it's okay for people to talk about killing Obama'. That's pretty much exactly what you are saying. No one cares if people at McCain rallies say that Obama is a liar or too liberal or doesn't have a plan or is inexperienced or just says a bunch of rhetoric and no substance. That's all fair criticism. But saying he's a terrorist and shouting that he should be killed is just completely insane. There is no equivalence other than someone at an Obama rally calling McCain a terrorist and saying that he should be killed. Don't even try to tell me that if some nut said that it wouldn't be all over the news and for good reason. But I think you'd also see the Obama camp instantly come out with a statement denouncing the acts of that person. They would also likely be removed from the rally as that sort of talk has no place in decent society.
Calling an American citizen is the same as accusing him of treason. which in the constitution as offense punishable by death. So there isn't an equivalent between calling someone a war-monger or a liar.
I think the big difference is that the comments at the McCain campaign have been threatening, such as "Kill Him" or "Off With His Head". That takes things a step too far. Regardless though, any offensive comment should be dealt with, but the above comments are much worse.
Mary- I am curious what the malicious and false statements and lies are?
As others have pointed out, the difference between "liar" and "terrorist" is enormous. "Terrorist", "treason" and "kill him" are said by nut jobs who might feel the need to take things into their own hands as the treasonous candidate looks to win. "Liar" and "dilettante" (or one might say, "celebrity"?) are normal political charges that carry with them no threat of violence. Not to mention, that both "liar" and "unqualified" are at least arguably accurate viewpoints that the majority of the public (not just Obama rally attendees) believe if you look at the polls. "Treason" and "terrorist" (not to mention "Arab") are dangerous falsehoods. No reasonable person is saying that Obama is actually a treasonous Arab terrorist - because that charge is ridiculous. People are saying that Palin is unqualified and McCain is a liar - because both of those things are supportable by evidence. Yes, both sides have supporters that dislike the other candidate. That's what happens in political campaigns. The difference is that McCain's supporters are saying the sort of absurdly wrong things you see someone say before an assassination attempt. And McCain has actively (unintentionally or not) encouraged such dangerous malice towards Obama.
Wait a second - I am an Obama supporter, but I occassionally read conservative media to "keep tabs" on the other side, so to speak. And they aren't complaining about people calling Palin a dilletante; over at FoxNews, they're saying people are calling her a c*** and I've also seen pictures people have made of her being punched or graffiti calling for her to be "aborted." (see michellemalkin.com). I'm not sure if this is equivalent to calling someone a terrorist, but let's be honest & real here.
You are really treading a slippery slope there. Wearing tee shirts is free speech, but people making statements (as offensive as they are) is not? Well John, you're absolutely right. Encouraging an angry mob to believe your opponent is a terrorist and a traitor is exactly like wearing a T-shirt. Whatever was I thinking.
Of course a different standard applies. Liberals are to the nth degree more open minded. Now, the rich Republican elite has adopted what they call their "base," consisting of closed minded little-informed, little aware bigots in the American heartland. They promise them religion in politics in exchange for tax breaks for the rich. Fine, but a dose of responsibility goes along with that. When you tell those unthinking religious fueled jingoes that Obama pals around with terroirsts, they actually go for it, hook, line and sinker, and when he does get ellected, it weakens the nation. Shame on you Republican elite -- either be respoinsbile handlers of your "base" OR LOSE THE VERY STRENGTh OF THE COUNTRY. YOU SAY YOU LOVE.
over at FoxNews, they're saying people are calling her a c*** and I've also seen pictures people have made of her being punched or graffiti calling for her to be "aborted." (see michellemalkin.com). Were these things happening at Obama/Biden rallies within obvious earshot of the candidate? If not, they are still not equivalent to what McCain/Palin are doing. This is, of course, being extremely generous and assuming that Fox News and Michelle Malkin are reliable sources.
John, I will answer on behalf of Mary, and try using short words. No one in the Obama campaign is running on the premise that Sarah Palin is a c*nt. People wearing t-shirts proclaiming this sentiment have reached that conclusion on their own. John McCain and Sarah Palin have been running hard on the idea that Barack Obama has been pallin' around with terrorists. This is certainly malicious, and, in my book, false. (If it's true, then everyone on the Annenberg board and the faculty of the University of Illinois are also guilty of pallin' around with terrorists.) When his supporters roar "terrorist" when asked the rhetorical question "Who is Barack Obama," John McCain has no right to look surprised. He's planted the seed. By all means, folks shouting 'terrorist' at a McCain rally have the right to express their views. And we all have the right to judge them, and their candidate, accordingly.
First, lets find that hypothetical Obama rally where crazed liberals high on tofu and acai berry juice screamed for McCain's head on a stick. Don't bother. It doesn't exist. Second, lets deal with the factual. McCain IS a warmongering geezer with a dubious claim to knowing how to "win wars." Pray tell, which "wars" has he won? Winning an ugly divorce battle against the wife he cheated on doesn't count. Sarah Palin IS a nitwit with a third grader's knowledge of the world outside Alaska and the King James Bible. Obama IS NOT an Arab, a Muslim, or a terrorist. He is merely a young Oprah protege with a penchant for speaking in platitudes. If McCain's bloodthirsty rabble called him an Oprah-ite, they'd be forgiven for being right.
Damaging McCain's reputation as a decent guy vs. threatening the life of Obama . . . the same! Both sides do it! It's Bush/Gore all over, both sides exactly the same, no different! . . . why is it that American media is so toxic to the idea of paying people to think, instead of 'unthink?'
Tina Fey most likely isn't the only person heading off the planet if the McCain/Palin ticket wins the election.... http://www.theweeklydonut.com/index.php/2008/10/06/you-betcha/
"Were these things happening at Obama/Biden rallies within obvious earshot of the candidate? Posted by Mary" Good point mary. Of course at the mccain rally where known liar millbank says he heard somebody say, and millbank says he doesn't know in relation to who, 'kill him' there were 16,000 screaming people. So the chance that mccain heard what millbank claims to have heard are pretty much slime to none. Where we have proof of the most ugly hate filled "liberal" misogynist happenings maybe ever recorded during a US political campaign: This one has a nice video: noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/10/12/the-obama-campaign-role-models-patterned-violence/ noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/10/14/late-night-obamabot-pornography-open-thread/ So we have millbank claiming he heard somebody yell 'kill him' in a crowd of 16,000, in relation to who millbank says he has no clue. And then we have "liberals" caught on pixels acting like hate filled morons. Yeah a screen shot of obama's web site with the black and green t-shirt worn no doubt by one of the "well educated" "creative" class.
No equivalence. McCain is a liar. I saw him lie just recently in the debates about bomb bomb Iran. It wasn't something he did over a beer with a couple of vets, it was something he did on stage with cameras running. His campaign took to playing Barbara Ann for a while. He was embarrassed and his response was to mislead. This is just a recent example. Obama has lied too, but that doesn't make it inaccurate to point out that McCain has lied. Making fun of Palin is crude terms is crude. What I have heard are matters of opinion crudely expressed, but they are not factually wrong nor are they all that severe. Certainly Obama and Biden do well to maintain standards of politeness at their rallies. Whereas: Obama is not an Arab. His father was a Kenyan black and his mother is white. These are facts, not subject to dispute. Furthermore, what if Obama was an Arab? What is the underlying point these people are making? That we are at war with all Arabs? That no Arab should be considered for the Presidency? This is know-nothingness. Obama is not a terrorist. There is no evidence he has joined any terrorist organizations, just no evidence at all. The slender reed on which they hang this smear is that Obama is acquainted with a former member of Weather Underground who committed some terrorist attacks 40 years ago. By this standard Donald Rumsfeld is one of Saddam's henchman because they once shook hands. Jimmy Carter is a terrorist because he once worked with Menechem Begin. And on and on and on. Attempts to define Obama as an Arab and a terrorist are attempts to define him as an enemy of America. Calling McCain a liar or Palin a bimbo does not make them enemies of the state. Frankly, I cannot understand people seriously considering equivalence in this case. They are either in the tank as Republican hacks, or they are in the media tank that always presents equivalence even when equivalence is not there.
The double standard is a fair comment. This is a trite response but THAT'S POLITICS and people take sides including the media elite - republicans warn us of this all the time so why the surprise? It's another day in the trenches. And doesn't this make the Republicans the underdog? It was upsetting to see the Republican rallies where some folks were yelling that Obama was a terrorist or that he should be killed or off with his head, but this was calculated by McCain's strategists led by Steve Schmidt (a protege of Bush tactician, Karl Rove). When you are running a losing Republican campaign to become the most powerful person in the world, does one care how one wins it? No. But, I don't think this is the way John McCain wants to go down in history and I am fairly certain he's a better man then his campaign would lead us to believe. The language of the campaign is cleverly written to exclude the speaker of any liability - the GOP was counting on riling up the conservative base and the swing vote - failed on latter. If McCain gets elected, in 6 months no one will remember how he got to the Oval Office. Obama and Biden have consistently attacked McCain's position on issues - they have not attacked his character (and they have never gone after the neoconservative Sarah Palin easy enough for the media to discredit). If anything both Obama and even more so Biden have an authentic respect for McCain the maverick. I have not seen the tone of the Democrat campaign remotely mean spirited as the GOP. I was relieved to see McCain stand up for Obama when a woman said she didn't trust him because he was an "Arab". The misogynistic T-shirt display targeting Palin was reprehensible
Tom, thank you. That's exactly what I was trying to get at. "And doesn't this make the Republicans the underdog?" Just want to point out that it's possible to be the underdog and still wrong. So we have millbank claiming he heard somebody yell 'kill him' in a crowd of 16,000, in relation to who millbank says he has no clue Too bad that: a) "Kill him!" was caught on tape, it's not just Dana Milbank's word
foo Imagine if McCain supporters marched on a hotel where Obama was to protest his presence. Then imagine if one of the protestors demanded Obama be lynched when they saw him leave the hotel. I would think this would cause more than a passing mention in the media. In fact ehre would be a firestorm of denuciation. The Philadelphia Inquire reported that a crowd of 400 Obama suporters marched on a hotel whe Governor Palin was speaking and as she was leaving shouted - "Let's stone her, old school". Link: http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20081012_Palin_hears_plenty_of_boos.html I think the level of vitrol aimed at Governor Palin, some promoted by The Atlantic bloggers, has vastly exceeded that aimed at Senator Obama. Yet barely a word of concern in the media.
Tom- Former journalist - (liberal?) Mary- Sorry guys you want everyone to agree with you and it just ain't going to happen. I don't agree with much that either candidate has to say. I look back longingly at the day when BOTH candidates said they were going to take the high road. That isn't going to happen. So what does that leave for a choice... I can look at one person who has a history of health issues, but is experienced in the one area that constitutionally he needs to be, as Commander in Chief of the military. One person who has a history of reaching across the aisle...but at the same time has a history of being a bit hot-tempered, underachieving (at Annapolis), and a bit of a shoot from the hip guy. Or I can look at a guy who has the ability to raise the hopes of many with brilliant rhetoric and who is representative of many in America. At the same time he has virtually no record to stand on. The one issue I really struggle to get by, unfortunately, is Obama's stance on Iraq. Mind you I am not talking about entering Iraq, that day has passed. We are there. Now it is a question of how do we get out, and I believe that Obama has been naive here. He had a chance to win me over when he moderated briefly saying he would make a decision based on discussions with commanders on the ground...but then he went right back to his 16 month deadline. I am sorry, it just ain't that easy. The funny thing is, 3 weeks out I could still vote either way. Now if you want to discuss issues I would be more than happy to, but please don't simply fall into the trap of cutting down anything that you disagree with...
After today's TALK OF THE NATION falsely comparing the behavior of McCain and Obama crows, I wrote my public radio station that if they don't learn how to deal better with this false equivalencies issue, they're going to risk losing donors.
a) "Kill him!" was caught on tape, it's not just Dana Milbank's word Posted by Mary Take a breath mary. It was millbanks word. The SS tried to contact millbank but couldn't get a hold of him. Same thing they'd any time some reproted death threats. Repeat: millbank thinks he heard somebody say 'kill him' in reference to who millbank said he doesn't know. No tape just known liar millbank. oborg regularly show up at mccain/palin rallies. Put nothing past them. Especial shouting 'kill him.' For more sweetness and light from the "well educated" "creative" class try these links: noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/10/12/the-obama-campaign-role-models-patterned-violence/ noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/10/14/late-night-obamabot-pornography-open-thread/ You proud of that mary?
Marc,
Well, today we have "Kill him!" unchallenged, per your post above, and "Obama bin Laden!" unchallenged, per a post at Andrew's. I eagerly await the McCain apologists' links to videos of people at Obama-Biden rallies screaming "Kill him!" "Vietnam traitor!" "Secessionist treason Barbie!" or whatever else would be deemed equivalent, and going unchallenged by the candidate and the crowd around them. Should such exist, which so far they do not. (No, someone somewhere wearing a T-shirt is not the same thing as shouting death threats and accusations of terrorism and treason. Even if the T-shirt has a bad word.) It's like the crowds can't get the message that this is hurting the campaign and driving off the non-crazy, and so they're determined to up the number of threats. "You can't tell us not to threaten assassination, gosh darn it! We're Amuricuns!"
foo
Ambinder, Are you kidding?!? Crowds in McPalin events start reacting to the vitrol the campaign surrogates whip up as a local Repub/McCain official comes out to rev up the crowd about Barack "Hussain" Obama, then Sarah comes out and starts talking about shady associations and "hangin' around with terrorists" and a man who is "different" from them (the crowd)and finally someone in the crowds yells "kill him" or "Obama Bin Laden" and Palin nor McCain really has the guts to rein it in vs. 5 people wearing rude language Palin shirts outside an Obama event. How do these equate? I mean McCain has advocated in song "bomb, bomb, bombing Iran" and has repeatedly lied about any number of issues but we'll use the "bridge to nowhere" as an example...this is warmongering and lying! Yet Obama is as American as you or I and has had tenuous relations with a man guilty of terror acts when Obama was 8 years old and you consider this slightly balanced? Or at least are throwing out the redmeat to those who do. That McCain has joked about war and lied is a fact. Calling Obama a terrorist and worst is a lie and the 2 comparisons just don't compute. Don't be a fool...or a tool.
Asnevitt, In regards to your response to my post: You may feel that Ayers is mainstream, however, I (and many other Americans) believe that he should be in jail. Again, there seems to be an astounding amount of moral flexibility from the left on this issue. They acknowledge that the actions were reprehensible, yet they claim the actor is mainstream. Ayers, quite frankly, is a monster who tried to undermine civil institutions through the murder of servicemen, and the murder of a judge, his wife and nine year old son. How you can claim that someone who is unrepentent about trying to firebomb a nine year old boy is beyond me. Bringing him up is a legitimate question for the campaign. Should the people who are upset about this respond with shouts of "kill him". No. But part of this problem is that there a large percentage of Americans who do not feel Obama has reconciled his relationship to Ayers in his evasions to the public. Perhaps Obama has an obligation to explain to a public he wishes to govern why it was that he felt a relationship with Ayers would not be offensive? You also failed to adress the instance of Obama supporters lobbing Molotov coctails at the house of a McCain supporter, verifying my lies of ommission claim.
Well, it MIGHT be a double-standard, except for the fact that it's not true that Obama is a terrorist.
Come on, Ambinder. Let's turn it back on you - you know the facts as well as anyone. Is McCain a liar? Is Obama an "Arab" and a "terrorist" who "pals around with terrorists"? If you're not sure, email me, and I'll send you the evidence.
Every election contest has one campaign, like McCain's (and the Clintons before him) that starts belly-aching about how their opponent is being negative, too, but the press isn't reporting that. Investigate their complaint, and you always find that the problem isn't so much press bias as it the tendency of the press to celebrate a winner, and the opponent being good at making attacks stick, and the complaining party is not. The problem is their opponent is good at delivering negative attacks that voters believe, and the belly-aching campaign is just too clumsy and not good at delivering an effective attack. Over the past two (100% negative advertising) weeks, the McCain campaign put a torpedo into the side of their own boat. Voters now see Obama as presenting his plans for the future, and McCain always attacking Obama. Sure, it's no fair that the press only reports on the McCain-Palin crowd's nuts and not the nuts in our crowds, but honestly, if the McCain campaign was as good at sticking in the shiv as the Obama campaign is, they'd get better press, fair or not.
One of these two examples could possibly lead to the assassination of a future president.
It's not just that, as many have said, the accusation of being a terrorist has far more gravity than that of being a liar, it's that the former is based on a suspicion of Obama that has little to do with his positions on issues, and everything to do with his race, and/or international connections, and/or newness to the scene. The latter is based on McCain's statements for the public record about his own beliefs and intentions. When McCain asks "who is Barack Obama?" he's inviting his audience to believe that his opponent is some sort of Manchurian candidate who is not worthy of voters' trust despite what he says, whose true agenda can never be known to a certainty. Obama invites his audiences to believe that his opponent is an orthodox Republican who is not worthy of voters' trust because of what he says, whose true agenda can be known by listening to him, and should be rejected on that basis. The equivalent of "warmonger" would be "capitulator." The equivalent of "liar" would be "liar." The equivalent of calling for Obama's violent death would be calling for McCain's violent death, and so far no one seems to have heard that happening at Obama's rallies except for McCain himself, whose attendance at those rallies is probably news to his Secret Service detail.
Terrorism and being a traitor are offences punishable by death in the USA. Being a 'Warmonger' is actually a complement for a lot on the right. Being called a liar is going on both sides of the party.
Bush has proven time and time again to be a serious threat to the livelihoods of Americans. Seems to me the use of the word "terrorist" in the Republican Party's campaigning has been sadly misconstrued.
Perhaps the accusation of palling around with terrorists would be unfair, and dangerous to Obama, and wrong, if it wasn't based on facts. You obviously care about the man's safety, but do any of you care that there is something to these accusations? And what it could mean for the country to have him as president? Do you want a president who is friends with an unrepentant terrorist (yes I know he denies friendship, but politicians will say anything when they're running for president--they live on the same block), someone who attended a church led by an angry racist sexist preacher for 20 years until that preacher insulted him by calling him, oh no! a politician! Suddenly, what the preacher says becomes offensive! And what about a man who was good friends and was helped financially and politically by a convicted criminal (Rezko). Why DOES NOT ANY OF THIS MATTER TO YOU followers? And yet, it's so easy for you to dismiss a woman being called a *un*. Oh, that's just nothing, because hate of woman has no consequences in the real world. Domestic violence is not an epidemic in this country. Women are not stoned and burned in Muslim countries. Females have been treated equally and have reached the highest levels of powers in our government for many years now. Yeah.
The Iran tyranic regime had endorse Barak Hussein Obama. The Palestinian Terrorist cell too.
The difference is in the intent of the person at the podium. McCain and Palin actively seek to instill distrust of Obama with misinformation about his relationship with Ayers. It went further than McCain intended (not so sure about Palin, she seems to thrive on the anger of her supporters...), but they are still responsible for fanning the flames of hatred. Obama has never spoken of Palin at his rallys and Biden has always been respectful.
Marc, Although I don't agree with a lot of what you write I still read your blog fairly regularly because I respect your opinions. With that said, I think this piece is the dumbest thing you've written in a long time. There is a difference between a bending of the truth and a flat out lie and that is the difference between these two campaigns. To oversimplify in order to fit in with your piece, Obama supporters call McCain/Palin liars because they are; much of what they say has no basis in fact what so ever. Obama supporters call McCain/Palin warmongers because they are; do you remember the bomb bomb Iran song? McCain/Palin supporters call Obama a terrorist and and Arab, flat out lies that the campaign has encouraged. Now, back to your original hypothesis, where is this so called double standard? If anything the MSM is laying down for the McCain/Palin campaign.
Name calling means nothing, grow-up....There are so many of you drunk "kool-aid" drinkers it's amazing. After your "Messiah" (as he is called by Louis Farrakhan) has won maybe you'll awake from your hang-over and realize that you've put an inexperienced Senator, who you really don't know anything about and has accomplished nothing, in charge of your well-being. When Barry is confronted with his first challenge you'll see that deer-in-the-headlights look and then you'll realize you made a bad decision. Will our country be better off with Obama?....four years won't come fast enough! GOD save us.
Calling out things like "kill Him", "traitor" or "terrorist" has no comparison at all with what the dems are dishing out. While watching Hannity and Comnes last night I felt this is a microcosm of the differences between the left and right wings, the republicans are mean and angry and the democrats and meek and friendly. Bill, posting 3 times REALLY? and your posting has nothing to do with Marc's question what are you doing pasting the same paragraph all over the internet?
Ok I take back the posting 3 times REALLY? theres a glitch in the system
It's false equivalency as set up, HOWEVER, let's not forget that Obama supporters: 1. sent death threats to Tavis Smiley and Steve Corbett (WILK-FM), Etc. Etc. Etc. But of course, no one's blaming Obama for telling his supporters: "I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face." in Elko, Nevada. I'm a liberal and have always voted Democrat, but I'm sitting this one out b/c there's no way I'm voting Obama. (I'm biracial by the way, so no, I'm not a racist.)
One more thing. Remember this? "What is the difference between Palin and a Muslim fundamentalist? Lipstick." -- Juan Cole at Salon
"I'm a liberal and have always voted Democrat, but I'm sitting this one out b/c there's no way I'm voting Obama. (I'm biracial by the way, so no, I'm not a racist.) " Melinda B. Yeah right. And I'm the emperor of Freedonia! McCain said Obama wasnted to teach sex techniques to kindergartners, thats a LIE. Palin, went to 6 colleges in 3 states, and is too good to answer the legitimate questions of people's representatives in the media, she IS A DILLETANTE. You know whats Braver than surviving capture by the Vietnamese? Running for president in a country that has a 400 year history of assasinating black leaders. Your false equivalencies are the same as your pre Iraq invasion coverage.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
| 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
"Terrorist" and "dilettante" are not equivalent epithets in the current political, social, and intellectual climate of the US. We kill terrorists (I think). We ridicule dilettantes. Better ridiculed than dead, I would think.
Posted by Idaho Nick | October 14, 2008 12:39 PM