Obama: Liberal MSM and the Barack Blackness Meter

The Right Color instead of The Right Stuff



The favorite parlor game for liberal, MSM reporters and commentators must be, "Ask Me A Non-Question". Mixing business and pleasure during the spring 2007, they obsessived over the following non-question: "Is Barack Obama black enough?".

By posing non-questions, liberals can give non-answers, which suits them for several reasons. First, it satisfies their regular readers/viewers that they are all thinking. Secondly, it shows they all "care", by just asking. Lastly, they don't have to address real questions: those have much harder solutions.

Asking a non-question to a liberal is like waving the green starting flag at Darlington.

Google the search term, "is obama black enough" and it returns 2.78 million references--overwhelmingly from liberal blogs, newspapers and magazines. It isn't surprising: it was a non-question and any old non-answer was sufficient.

Asking hard, real questions about whether a first-term senator from Illinois had "The Right Stuff", the liberal media was manic about "The Right Color"--or, to be more exact, the right shade of color.

Here's a few representative samples:

As much as his biracial identity has helped Obama build a sizable following in middle America, it's also opened a gap for others to question his authenticity as a black man. In calling Obama the "first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," the implication was that the black people who are regularly seen by whites — or at least those who aspire to the highest office in the land — are none of these things.
--Is Obama Black Enough?
Time: Feb 1 2007

The Democratic hopeful Barack Obama could become the US's first black president. Yet, with his mixed-race background, Ivy League education and midwestern accent, one of his greatest challenges has been convincing African-Americans that he is 'one of us'.
--Is Barack Obama Black Enough?
The Guardian: Gary Younge, March 1 2007

Black enough for government work?

That was the question 60 Minutes correspondent Steve Kroft posed to Obama in an interview that aired on Sunday. Kroft asked the biracial senator why he considered himself black even though he was raised in a white household. Obama responded by telling Kroft that he never decided to be black: “I think if you look African-American in this society, you’re treated as an African-American.”
--Is Obama Black enough?
Columbia Journalism Review, Sarah Sarmah Feb 15 2007

Liberals asked, "What's exactly the right color?"

It was as if American Liberalism had regressed 250 years, to the days of the mulatto, quadroon and octoroon.

The terms mulatto, quadroon, and octoroon originated with the racial policies of European colonizers in the Americas, especially the Spanish. Because civil rights and responsibilities were based directly on the degree of European blood that a person had, such classifications were highly elaborated, and minor distinctions in ancestry were carefully recorded. While these terms have highly precise definitions, in actual practice they were often used based on impressions of skin color rather than definite knowledge of ancestry.
--Ask.com: Octoroon

Conservatives mostly commented on the media's interest in a non-question. The question itself was absurd, as was the liberal's fascination with it. If Obama held conservative positions on the issues, he could have been a bright blue.




"Black enough" non-questions are best left to be considered by the liberal Left. Those that practice racial identity politics are better equipped to comment on that which is familiar.

Apparently, liberals decided that Barack Obama was "black enough". The question disappeared and won't be seen again--unless Obama does something to anger a segment of the black population.

In which case, it will be like waving a red flag to a bull--and liberals will get to play their favorite game once again.





by Mondoreb
images:
* blackpeoplearefunny
* media.canada
* destinations360
* pinrepair
DBKP.com - Bigger, Better!.
Back to DBKP at Blogger Front Page
* sheffieldutilities

The Angry Liberal: Fifteen Quotes

"Resentment is like taking poison and waiting for the other person to die."
--Malachy McCourt



The "angry white male" is old and busted news. New and hot is the "angry liberal".

Why are liberals angry? 15 quotes that might shed some light on the phenomenon of The Angry Liberal.

"We have been too nice. We have been too polite."
--Ann Lewis, veteran strategist with the Democratic National Committee, where the official party weblog is called "Kicking Ass."


"He who angers you conquers you."
--Elizabeth Kenny

ALSO at DBKP: Quotes: DBKP Library of Quotes

Q: Anybody else see the outrage on the part of liberals at ABC because they had the 'audacity' to ask the Holy Messiah Obama slightly tougher questions than say 'do you wear boxers or briefs'? Imagine for a second that John McCain had had a fundraiser for his campaign years ago with Timothy McVeigh. How is it unfair to ask Obama about his personal relationship with a DOMESTIC TERRORIST? Why are liberals angry over this?

A: People who are not secure in their positions do not like to be questioned. Those who are secure, encourage questioning because it gives them the opportunity to convince others.
--Answers, Yahoo.com



"Liberals enjoy claiming that they are intellectuals, thrilled to engage in a battle of wits. This, they believe, distinguishes them from conservatives, who are religious fanatics who react with impotent rage to opposing ideas."
--Ann Coulter


"Get mad, then get over it."
--Colin Powell


""My contribution to the civility of the dialogue has been to get down and say, 'You're lying, and we're going to call you on it.' "
--Al Franken, MN senate candidate and talk radio host


“[T]he decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath.”
--Alan Dershowitz, Harvard law professor









"I was very angry. I was angry for a period of two days."
--Keith Olbermann, explaining to Bill Moyers his reaction upon reading in August of 2006 about Don Rumsfeld talking to the veterans and talking about how "every-- everyone who was in opposition to the Iraq War policy, the so-called war on terror, even to some degree the Bush administration, was the equivalent in his mind to the Nazi appeasers of the 1930s."


"Republicans had better worry. Angry people are motivated to get out to vote. If they can channel that anger into something constructive, they can literally upset the presidency."
--Paul Weyrich, veteran conservative organizer


"I think a lot of people felt the media was giving a pass to Bush."
--"Bill Scher, a 31-year old publicist who runs LiberalOasis.com


"Liberals believe that men--left to their own devices--are not to be trusted. They also believe in the goodness of government; a government composed of men. This paradox may help explain why many liberals are angry much of the time."
--RE Bierce


"Sure, liberals still seethe from a doubtful election, an illegal war and political prosecutions. But there's a genuine anger out there engendered by something rooted far deeper in the past: a quarter-century of callous right-wing tactics. Its purveyors now carping about liberal anger have no one to blame but themselves."
--P.M. Carpenter, History News Network


"I thought liberalism was supposed to be all about tolerance and diversity and stuff. I guess that applies only to skin, but not to thought or ideas."
--Fred Dooley, Real Debate Wisconsin


"Never go to bed mad. Stay up and fight."
--Phyllis Diller

Okay, a confession: the last quote could apply to liberals or conservatives.

by Mondoreb


images: variety.blogs
Source:
* paradox
* When Angry Liberals Attack
* Entertainment for Angry Liberals
* Why are liberals angry at Stephanapolous for asking Obama totally legitimate questions?
* Why Liberals are Angry
* Why Are Liberals so Angry?
* Liberals Finding Their Voice--and It's Angry
* Bill Moyers talks with MSNBC host Keith Olbermann.
* Anger quotes

One More Glenn Greenwald Joke

Hey everybody! Glenn Greenwald's gonna tell another joke!
When a litigator pretends he's a journalist pretending to be a press nanny, the result is usually another Glenn Greenwald joke pretending to be a column.

Only a former litigator could manage to make the claims that Glenn Greenwald does without his body twisting into spasmodic fits of laughter.

In "Bad Stenographers", Greenwald reaches the correct conclusion that most mainstream hacks are little better than stenographers.

If only.

Greenwald proceeds to tell us what he thinks a journalist should do, ought to do, doesn't do, whatever.

One example:

I worked for years with highly professional stenographers in hundreds of depositions and court proceedings. Their defining trait is that they have a fierce devotion to transcribing accurately everything that is said and doing nothing else. It's not uncommon for lawyers, in the heat of some dispute, to attempt to recruit the stenographer into the controversy in order to say who is right.

Say, sounds like what reporters used to do.

Back in the day--before journalists got the bright idea that someone elected them to make policy--reporters/journalists used to record the facts and what was said: without trying to resolve the "good guy" or "bad guy" issue for the reader.

Greenwald then takes the press to task the few times they slip up.

Stenographers will never do that [say who is right]. They will emphasize that they are only there to write down what is said, not to resolve disputes or say what actually happened -- exactly like Time Magazine and most of our press corps. If someone in a court proceeding voices even the most blatantly false accusations, stenographers will faithfully write it down and publish it without comment -- exactly like Time Magazine and most of our press corps, at least when it comes to claims from the government and its GOP operatives.

"Greenwald said what? The press are Bush robots??

So the Washington press is nothing more than a herd of Bush poodles.

Journalist n. A person who collects and edits news for the public.

Sound familiar?

I didn't think so.

It doesn't sound familiar to Greenwald either.

After wading through the rest of the piece (with a short nap in the middle), the former litigator has completely convinced the reader of his case for liberal media bias--all the while swearing it doesn't exist.

Not content with completely disgusting anyone who believed the Journalism 101 teacher about a "disinterested press", he inserts this howler. Probably to check to see if anyone was still awake.

As Eric Alterman documented before most people were pointing it out, the greatest myth in our political culture is the Rush-Limbaugh-generated complaint about the "liberal media."

Greenwald even writes the phrase "liberal media myth".
Did he say "liberal media myth"?? Stop it! You're killing me!
Long before Limbaugh settled into his popular show, complaints of bias on the network newscasts began, people switched off their sets and network ratings began their slide down. Greenwald argues that Limbaugh manages some kind of mass hypnosis/mind control to plant this outrageous voo-doo idea of "liberal media bias" in the public's imagination.

Limbaugh is an evil genius. With the powers he possesses, he should quit his radio show and take over the world.

Then maybe he'd use his power to save us from former litigators masquerading as journalists masquerading as concerned press nannies.
Glenn, will you be my nanny?

by Mondoreb

Source:
Bad Stenographers




Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.

Liberal Newspaper Publishes Convict Op-Eds Bashing Conservatives

Convicted Murderer Does Newspaper's Dirty Work

Bleeding Heart Liberal Newspaper Editor Defends Publishing Op-Ed Pieces Bashing Conservatives From Convicted Murderer In Local Prison

Newspaper to convict: "Take Care of My Light Work for me, will ya?"

The New Hampshire paper, the Concord Monitor invited convicted murderer and prison inmate at the men’s prison in Concord, Charles Huckelbury to write several op-ed pieces.
The executive editor, Felice Belman, appalled by the “flood” of over “100 nasty and repulsive emails” followed up with her own editorial, “Murderer gives our readers a peek inside. Prison town needs to look behind walls.”

She goes on to ask the question, “Should a convict be allowed to write columns for the newspapers?” I think a better question to ask is this: “Why ask a convicted murderer to write Op-ed pieces for a newspaper?”

Ms. Belman writes:

“If you're a regular reader of these pages, you already know what I think. The Monitor has published several recent columns by Charles Huckelbury, an inmate at the men's prison in Concord, and a couple of dozen in all during the last three years. He follows in the tradition of the late Ray Barham: Both men were murderers, inmates and writers for the Monitor.”
Concord Monitor

As if this “blanket” explanation covers all the subtleties of posting Huckelbury’s Op-Ed’s. Here is a slice of one such Op-Ed piece from Huckelbury:

In the state prison, Iraq war is popular, Hillary Clinton is not
Most criminals appear to think like Republicans

GOP to the bone
The men engaged in critiquing Hillary's motives and policies were thus anomalies of a sort. GOP to the bone, their arrests and convictions had done nothing to sway their political philosophy. The unconcealed antipathy toward Clinton left only one conclusion: Republican sympathies are forever and not subject to interpretation, analysis, reflection, or modification, a characteristic confirmed by a recent study on problem solving and learning theory ("Red minds, blue minds") that appeared last month in the Monitor.

When you think about it, men predisposed to criminal behavior exhibit personality traits very similar to self-described conservatives, which perhaps explains the confluence of discouraging recidivism rates and presence of so many Republicans in prison today. But it doesn't explain the counterintuitive Republican preference for disenfranchising convicted felons. With so many of their brethren behind the walls, that king of voting bloc would certainly be a force in any election. In fact, it just might be their last chance to beat Hillary, a detail certainly not lost on Gov. Lynch and the Legislature.
(Charles Huckelbury is serving a murder sentence at the state prison in Concord.)

Ms. Belman goes on to write quite the flowery prose about her “prison protege,” Huckelbury:

“I surely cannot deny that allowing Huckelbury to write about his life behind bars has softened his image in the eyes of the public. He is not only a convicted murderer but also a man who loves literature, mourns the death of his mother and is dabbling in acting. He has a sense of humor and an interest in politics. Life, alas, is rarely as black and white as we'd like.”

More from Ms. Belman:

“Huckelbury is, indeed, serving time for killing a man in a murder-for-hire plot in Florida 31 years ago. He is also a talented writer. In the past several years, he has written provocative columns about false patriotism among inmates, the appeal of the Harry Potter series to criminals, a humiliating trip to the doctor's office, and how state officials might identify sexual predators while they're still behind bars.

We don't give Huckelbury space in the newspaper as a gift to him, although I imagine for a writer with time on his hands it certainly feels like a gift.
We publish Huckelbury's columns for our readers.

Concord, among many other things, is still a prison town. There are 1,523 men packed into cells on North State Street, a fact that's strangely easy to forget on your daily commute past the tall prison walls. We put those men there, and we pay $45 million a year to keep them there. It's the newspaper's job to shed some light on what we're getting for our money. Are the inmates being treated humanely? Are they being prepared for life on the outside? Do taxpayers like the fact that there's a Shakespearean drama program behind bars - not to mention a service-dog training program?”

One could point out to Ms. Belman that Huckelbury’s piece on how convict’s thinking processes are the same as “Republicans” is not even “Six Degrees Of Separation” to such subjects as preparing for life outside nor a Shakespearean drama. It is a hit piece on Conservatives written by a man who sits in prison for taking the life of another man. Surely Ms. Belman knows about the “content” of a story she chooses to publish? She has, by her own admission, admitted to “championing” the prisoners locked up inside by giving them a “voice.” Therefore, Ms. Belman must accept the fact that she is also responsible for which “pieces” she chooses to publish which she has done in her own editorial.

Ms. Belman:

“When choosing columns for the newspaper, I like to think about the quality of the writing and whether the writer is giving readers something they won't get elsewhere. That's definitely true in this case. The newspaper, of course, does not condone Huckelbury's crime, but that doesn't mean he has nothing to teach us.”

My question is this, why does Ms. Belman assume that her readers are in dire need of “lessons from convicts” in the local prison especially “lessons” where a convicted murderer compares the worst side of criminals to Republicans and Conservatives?

by Little Baby Ginn




Back to Front Page.