Michelle Obama ‘Whitey’ Video Revealed

June 2, 2008

Comments

Larry Johnson’s propaganda effort has worked. His promise to produce a “stunning” and “dramatic” video of Michelle Obama ranting about “whitey” has overloaded his servers. The revelatory post is supposedly here; at least that’s headlining memeorandum at the moment. I can’t get to it at the moment.

BooMan claims a transcription will say:

Why’d he cut folks off medicaid?
Why’d he let New Orleans drown?
Why’d he do nothing about Jena?
Why’d he put us in Iraq for no reason?

The antecedent to “he” is supposedly George W. Bush. Purportedly, Michelle Obama pronounces “Why’d he” as “Whitey.” Given that I haven’t heard the slur “Whitey” since the heyday of “The Jeffersons,” this strikes me as quite plausible. I’ll reserve final judgment until I’ve heard the video.

UPDATE: It’s 0906, six minutes past 0900 by my calculations, and still no tape. The above link is actually to a report from Johnson’s colleague SusanUnPC that Fox News has the video in question, not the promised video. My BS detector, already pegged like a pony on this one, is about to melt. That “Republicans who have seen the tape of Michelle Obama ranting about ‘whitey’ describe it as “STUNNING” does not ease my worried mind.

UPDATE: 1058. Still no joy.

UPDATE: 1138. The blog hasn’t been updated since 0743. Has Michelle Obama had Larry Johnson assassinated? That would truly be both stunning and dramatic.

UPDATE: 1241. FBI, CIA, if they’ve seen it, they ain’t saying. No news. Still no news.

Well, actually, there’s some news. Call it the dog that didn’t bark.

FYI, for those expecting to SEE the tape, GET REAL. Read Larry Johnson’s description of what is ON the tape. That is the story.

Except that, well, we were kinda promised we’d, um, see the tape.

UPDATE: Oh, and apropos the “rock like a pony” theme that I’ve been developing, this pitch in Johnson’s sidebar is quite amusing.

49 responses to “Michelle Obama ‘Whitey’ Video Revealed”

Michael

June 2, 2008 at 9:11 am

pegged like a pony

At first I thought this was going to get old real fast, but I can’t stop laughing every time I read it.
James Joyner

June 2, 2008 at 9:13 am

I’ll have to be judicious in using it, methinks.
Bithead

June 2, 2008 at 9:16 am

As I said in the other thread, it’s not like Booman has anything less in this hunt than Johnson does.

Still, whichever way this falls out will be of some amuseent.
Michael

June 2, 2008 at 9:18 am

Still, whichever way this falls out will be of some amuseent.

I think you’re over-estimating it.
Bithead

June 2, 2008 at 9:36 am

Not really. Even assuming Johnson comes up with nothing, what have we got? Perhaps this can be best described by historical comparison.

Think back… to the big arguments during the first Clinton misadministration, when we were faced with rumors about how Clinton had raped at least one woman on his way to the Oral Office.

The surpising factor there to me, was the number of people… even his supporters… who were not surpised by the charges. It’s a measurement of the reputation of the Clintons I think… what people are really thinking about them… as good as any.

It occurrs to me that by the same token, the part of this Johnson bit that is perhaps of greatest import… is the number of voters.. particularly the Democrat voters, apparently… who wouldn’t put such racism and hate as has been reported, past Michelle Obama.

That kind of mistrust doesn’t bode well for the vote.
Michael

June 2, 2008 at 9:40 am

It occurrs to me that by the same token, the part of this Johnson bit that is perhaps of greatest import… is the number of voters.. particularly the Democrat voters, apparently… who wouldn’t put such racism and hate as has been reported, past Michelle Obama.

I think you’re still over-estimating. By the way, comparing saying “whitey” to rape is pretty low.
Bithead

June 2, 2008 at 9:42 am

That wasn’t the comparison.
I’m talking about the reaction to each.
Pug

June 2, 2008 at 9:46 am

Even assuming Johnson comes up with nothing, what have we got?

Well, in that case my first guess would nothing.
Brian J.

June 2, 2008 at 9:51 am

You need to get out more. Whitey lives.

It’s just that some segments of the population don’t take racial epithets as seriously as the others. Remember the lesson of the Fighting Whiteys?
Hal

June 2, 2008 at 9:54 am

ROFLMAO! This is pure Rove. That old fart still has it.

Seriously, I’m literally rolling on the floor laughing my ass off. I spent 2 minutes trying to load the post over at No Quarter and was rewarded with the biggest puff of stinky smoke I’ve seen this election cycle.

Wow.

I guess they’re all just lulling Obama supporters into a false sense of security and when they least expect it, WHAM!

<giggle>

Again, wow.
Michael

June 2, 2008 at 10:09 am

That wasn’t the comparison.
I’m talking about the reaction to each.

How is that not a comparison of the two? You saying that we should be as convinced that Michelle Obama would never say the word “whitey”, as we are convinced that Bill Clinton would never raped anybody. Or at least you’re saying that lack of conviction that they didn’t is somehow equal.

Rape is a horrible violent crime. Saying “whitey” is not. I would assume that my politicians are not guilty of horrible violent crimes. I have no such assumption that they’ve never said stupid, mean or hateful things.
Bithead

June 2, 2008 at 10:21 am

That’s a nice horse you’ve got.

You saying that we should be as convinced that Michelle Obama would never say the word “whitey”, as we are convinced that Bill Clinton would never raped anybody.

Nope. I’m not suggesting that they should act with equal outrage at all. Outrage never enters the picture. What I’m pointing at is the lack of suprise in each case. Almost like they expected it to be that way, in each respective case.

At the bottom line, I’m remarking about what IS.

And lets test your idea that ‘whitey’ isn’t a serious thing. Replace it with “N!gg3r”, and get back to us, after spouting that around for a while. I’ll have some first aid ready.
Peacenik

June 2, 2008 at 10:29 am

This is a joke right? “Why’d he” being turned into Whitey! LOL Even if that were the case..so what! How long has the ‘N’ word been used? Whitey does not sound like a threat, nor does blacky. There are a lot more serious things that the GOP have done, other than stir this crap up…and you know..now that I think about it..lets take a look at the GOP..looks like ‘whitey’ to me! And not a segment of the ‘white’ population to be very proud of. I can think of a lot more deserving names for what bush and his minions have done to this country and the middle east too.
Don’t play their games..that is what they want you to do.
Michael

June 2, 2008 at 10:32 am

Nope. I’m not suggesting that they should act with equal outrage at all. Outrage never enters the picture. What I’m pointing at is the lack of suprise in each case. Almost like they expected it to be that way, in each respective case.

Again, how is that different? Everybody should be surprised to hear that a prominent politician raped somebody. Nobody should be surprised to hear that a prominent politician once said something stupid, mean or hateful. Treating both accusations with the same level of assumption of guilt is ridiculous.
Pug

June 2, 2008 at 10:34 am

Remember the lesson of the Fighting Whiteys?

I don’t remember that lesson, but I’m well aware of Tighty Whiteys.
Bithead

June 2, 2008 at 10:54 am

Again, how is that different?

In each case, the reaction is the same.
Bithead

June 2, 2008 at 10:55 am

Again, how is that different? Everybody should be surprised to hear that a prominent politician raped somebody. Nobody should be surprised to hear that a prominent politician once said something stupid, mean or hateful. Treating both accusations with the same level of assumption of guilt is ridiculous.

Who said anything about equal guilt? Methinks you’re over-reaching for a defense.
Michael

June 2, 2008 at 11:05 am

The surpising factor there to me, was the number of people… even his supporters… who were not surpised by the charges. It’s a measurement of the reputation of the Clintons I think… what people are really thinking about them… as good as any.

It occurrs to me that by the same token, the part of this Johnson bit that is perhaps of greatest import… is the number of voters.. particularly the Democrat voters, apparently… who wouldn’t put such racism and hate as has been reported, past Michelle Obama.

That implies, to me at least, that you are equating the lack of assumption of innocent in both situations as indicative of the same measurement of reputation of both individuals. I, however, would not think the assumption that Bill Clinton raped somebody, and the assumption that Michelle Obama used a racial slur, as providing qualitatively equal measurements of their reputations.
Bithead

June 2, 2008 at 11:17 am

That implies, to me at least, that you are equating the lack of assumption of innocent in both situations as indicative of the same measurement of reputation of both individuals

I’m suggesting that it certainly is indicative of a TROUBLESOME reputation, not particularly that their crimes are equal. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
Anon

June 2, 2008 at 11:20 am

And lets test your idea that ‘whitey’ isn’t a serious thing. Replace it with “N!gg3r”, and get back to us, after spouting that around for a while. I’ll have some first aid ready.

Huh? You could use the same argument to prove that ‘blondie’ is a serious thing:

“And lets test your idea that ‘blondie’ isn’t a serious thing. Replace it with “N!gg3r”, and get back to us, after spouting that around for a while. I’ll have some first aid ready.”
Tyrone

June 2, 2008 at 11:27 am

It seems Michael is being purposely dense. Bithead’s comments are not meant to draw equal parallels between racism and rape, or between one candidate and another. The comments are more likely judgements of the supporters, not the supported.

Supporters were not shocked when Clinton was alleged to be a rapist, or that Michelle Obama may be shown to be a racist because these are to be expected from those people. Bithead and myself are not shocked to find that Democrats will knowingly support corrupt, abusive, and under-qualified politicians. It is to be expected.
Hal

June 2, 2008 at 11:34 am

Wow. I’ll just say that I guess we’re not shocked that you on the right can’t logically argue your way out of a wet paper bag.

It is to be expected.
Michael

June 2, 2008 at 11:37 am

I’m suggesting that it certainly is indicative of a TROUBLESOME reputation, not particularly that their crimes are equal. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

The fact that you describe both rape and a racial slur as “troublesome” is, I think, my main problem.
Derrick

June 2, 2008 at 11:47 am

James,

I think you might have to change your story about Johnson being “objective” if this thing is as Booman is saying. He’s obviously heard the tape and wouldn’t have a reason to pile on a friend. I’m guessing that this will be added to the smear list against Obama including charges that he’s a Muslim, an apostate, holds his crotch during the national anthem and watches Rachel Ray for hidden decoder messages from her scarf collection.
Tyrone

June 2, 2008 at 11:49 am

Wow. I’ll just say that I guess we’re not shocked that you on the right can’t logically argue your way out of a wet paper bag.

It is to be expected.

Oh.

That stings.

Man, you really got me with that one. I doubt I will ever recover.

Great job saying nothing at all.
Michael

June 2, 2008 at 11:50 am

Supporters were not shocked when Clinton was alleged to be a rapist, or that Michelle Obama may be shown to be a racist because these are to be expected from those people.

The accusation is that Michelle Obama used a racial slur, not that she is racist.

The point I am trying to make is that most people assume that most other people are not rapists, therefore an accusation to the contrary is very serious and the party should be assumed innocent.

On the other hand, I don’t think that most people assume that most other people have never used a racial or derogatory term, and therefore there is no compelling reason to assume a party accused of such to be innocent.

Using similar reactions to both accusations to imply the same implication on the accuse is what is ridiculous.

If someone accused John McCain of uttering a racial slur (at any time in his life, even in jest), would anybody here proclaim their faith that it never happened? If you wouldn’t, does that mean you’d also believe he could be guilty of rape?
Hal

June 2, 2008 at 12:05 pm

Great job saying nothing at all.

Pointing out that people who have a low opinion of someone will expect the worst of that someone and so aren’t surprised by ugly rumors about that someone is pointing out nothing.

Bithead’s argument is circular. Yours is merely obvious.
Bithead

June 2, 2008 at 12:05 pm

The accusation is that Michelle Obama used a racial slur, not that she is racist

Odd. Isn’t that the assmption when the speaker is a Republican?

The fact that you describe both rape and a racial slur as “troublesome” is, I think, my main problem

.

Doubtful.
I think abuot everyone in here knows what your main problem is, and that ain’t it.
Michael

June 2, 2008 at 12:08 pm

Odd. Isn’t that the assmption when the speaker is a Republican?

Not for me it isn’t.
Tyrone

June 2, 2008 at 12:10 pm

Michael – If someone uses a racial slur they are a racist. What’s good for the white man is good for the black woman. How many white people have gotten in serious, life changing trouble for using a racial slur – even in jest? I know of an off-duty policeman that told a racially insensitive joke in a bar. It was overheard by someone and he was fired and branded a racist.

Michelle’s comment, if it does indeed prove to be a racial slur should be treated exactly as if it were a white senator’s wife using the “N” word. That is the only way to ensure true equality.
mq

June 2, 2008 at 12:11 pm

If everyone and their brother knows about this damn tape, where is it? Put up or shut up.

This story is rocking like a pony though.
Michael

June 2, 2008 at 12:43 pm

If someone uses a racial slur they are a racist.

Hmmm, what dictionary are you getting that from? Mine disagrees.
Michael

June 2, 2008 at 12:46 pm

I know of an off-duty policeman that told a racially insensitive joke in a bar. It was overheard by someone and he was fired and branded a racist.

Then someone in your police department’s hierarchy screwed up. Unless of course there was more insensitive content in the joke than just a racial slur, which I’m guessing was the case, right?

Michelle’s comment, if it does indeed prove to be a racial slur should be treated exactly as if it were a white senator’s wife using the “N” word. That is the only way to ensure true equality.

I agree, and I wouldn’t automatically label a senator’s white wife (different from a white senator’s wife, btw) as being a racist simply for using the “N” word.
sam

June 2, 2008 at 1:13 pm

BooMan claims a transcription will say:

Why’d he cut folks off medicaid?
Why’d he let New Orleans drown?
Why’d he do nothing about Jena?
Why’d he put us in Iraq for no reason?

Getting to “Whitey” from this reminds of the scene in Annie Hall where Woody Allen is trying to convince his friend that they’re awash in a sea of antisemitism because folks are going around saying things like:

D’you see what he did?
D’you hear about that?
…
anjin-san

June 2, 2008 at 1:44 pm

Hmmm… the right getting all worked up over something that does not exist. Sort of like Saddam’s WMD. Well hopefully no one will die because of this bit of stupidity.
Bithead

June 2, 2008 at 2:58 pm

So what you’re saying is Johnson got shipped to Syria prepetory to an invasion?
Michael

June 2, 2008 at 3:02 pm

So what you’re saying is Johnson got shipped to Syria prepetory to an invasion?

It’s true, I’ve got it all on tape. Nevermind actually seeing the tape, it’s what I’m saying is on the tape that is important!
Tyrone

June 2, 2008 at 3:26 pm

Michael: What dictionary did you use to look up “utterer of racial slurs”? I can’t find an entry anywhere online. I’m basing my definition solely on the social values of the day.

Janice Barton in Michigan, who said in private conversation to her mother that “I wish these damned spics would learn to speak English.â€ Her words were overheard by an off duty Hispanic deputy sheriff, who followed her to her car and took down her license number.

Janice Barton was arrested and spent 45 days in jail. She was released when she agreed to plead guilty to a hate crime and give up her right to appeal.

Anyone remember the school teacher that was fired for using the word “niggardly” in public? Need I bring up Trent Lott?

The firing of the police officer I mentioned earlier was defended by the mayor by saying “A police officer is never ‘off duty’. He is a representative of the city government and as such, should act accordingly whenever he is in a public venue.”

These people have all been labeled racist for their “freedom of speech” – I apply the rule equally, disregarding color and ethnicity.

However, I should add that I am not willing to label her a racist solely on a tape that I haven’t seen or heard. I actually doubt it is real – if it were real, it would be on Youtube by now.
Michael

June 2, 2008 at 3:56 pm

What dictionary did you use to look up “utterer of racial slurs”?

I looked up “racism”, but then again you already knew that. Regardless, you just had to respond with something didn’t you?

Janice Barton in Michigan, who said in private conversation to her mother that “I wish these damned spics would learn to speak English.â€ Her words were overheard by an off duty Hispanic deputy sheriff, who followed her to her car and took down her license number.

Janice Barton was arrested and spent 45 days in jail. She was released when she agreed to plead guilty to a hate crime and give up her right to appeal.

Anyone remember the school teacher that was fired for using the word “niggardly” in public? Need I bring up Trent Lott?

Misapplication of hate crime laws, ignorance, and public opinion don’t actually prove that using a racist slur makes you a racist.

The firing of the police officer I mentioned earlier was defended by the mayor by saying “A police officer is never ‘off duty’. He is a representative of the city government and as such, should act accordingly whenever he is in a public venue.”

And he’s right, especially if the accused was in uniform. If an off-duty cop said something that would undermine the public’s trust in the department’s equal application of the law, then that cop became a liability to the department.

These people have all been labeled racist for their “freedom of speech” – I apply the rule equally, disregarding color and ethnicity.

There is no constitutional right to not be labeled a racist. With the exception of the woman arrested in your first example, none were punished by the judicial system for exercising their free speech rights.
Bithead

June 2, 2008 at 7:33 pm

Misapplication of hate crime laws, ignorance, and public opinion don’t actually prove that using a racist slur makes you a racist.

Quick… someone tell Don Imus that he’s got something new to tell the Al Sharptons of the world.
Grewgills

June 2, 2008 at 8:16 pm

He got what he wanted. High traffic and much more interest in the non-story than there ever would have been if he had simply put up in the first place.

Bit’s correct in one respect, this is very much like the Vince foster, kids tied to railroad tracks, Clinton rape and murder spree stories of the 90s; a lot of innuendo, no substance, and it gets the base all worked up. Apparently the CDS camp is geared up and ready to transfer their rage to Obama and froth at the mouth over every non-story that might look bad for Obama if only it were true. And, of course according to Bit if some people believe it may be true that tells you a lot about the person accused rather than the people who believe the horse s#!t.
Michael

June 2, 2008 at 9:25 pm

Quick… someone tell Don Imus that he’s got something new to tell the Al Sharptons of the world.

I suspect they’re both already aware of this truth. The fact that neither of them change their behavior only indicates that they approve of the current situation.
An Interested Party

June 2, 2008 at 11:20 pm

Bithead and myself are not shocked to find that Democrats will knowingly support corrupt, abusive, and under-qualified politicians. It is to be expected.

Yes of course, because as we all know, Republicans will never, ever knowingly support corrupt (Randy “Duke” Cunningham), abusive (Don Sherwood), and under-qualified (George W. Bush) politicians…this non-story is yet another pathetic straw for conservatives/Republicans to grasp at as they know that they will lose even more seats in Congress and as they desperately try to keep their hold on the presidency…
Bithead

June 3, 2008 at 8:38 am

Yes of course, because as we all know, Republicans will never, ever knowingly support corrupt (Randy “Duke” Cunningham),

IP; what is the difference between Cunningham, and William Jefferson? The difference is Cunningham was outted by his own party. Get back to us when Jefferson is wearing a prison jumpsuit, OK?
Hal

June 3, 2008 at 9:32 am

what is the difference between Cunningham, and William Jefferson?

One was actually convicted in a court of law for corruption. Another, despite the full weight of an unrestrained prosecutor with multiple tens of millions in budget behind him, combined with a republican congress out for blood couldn’t even come close to a conviction.

Geebus, Bithead. Next you’ll be telling us that Vince Foster was murdered by HRC.

The difference is Cunningham was outted by his own party

Wow. What fantasy world do you actually live in and what drugs are you taking? Read up on the actual case history and timeline, dude. Lacking that, what actual fantasy evidence do you have to support your hilarious claim?
Bithead

June 3, 2008 at 10:38 am

One was actually convicted in a court of law for corruption. Another, despite the full weight of an unrestrained prosecutor with multiple tens of millions in budget behind him, combined with a republican congress out for blood couldn’t even come close to a conviction.

What you seem to be missing here, is that the Republicans dumped Cunningham the moment the corruption was exposed.

The Democrats remain supportive of Jefferson, depite being caught with the cash in his freezer.
Hal

June 3, 2008 at 10:51 am

What you seem to be missing here, is that the Republicans dumped Cunningham the moment the corruption was exposed.

Um, you actually said that he was “outted” by his own party, implying far more than them dumping him like a hot potato.

The Democrats remain supportive of Jefferson, depite being caught with the cash in his freezer.

Ah, I thought you were talking about Clinton, my mistake.

Still WRT your backtracking and restatement of your thesis, I’ll just point out that Cunningham was never “dumped” by his own party. He *resigned* when he was actually convicted of his crimes. So, WRT Jefferson, the guy hasn’t even been convicted of anything yet.

Further, wrt your assertion that the democrats remain supportive of Jefferson, that’s simply flat out wrong

On May 24, 2006, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi publicly requested Jefferson’s immediate resignation from the House Ways and Means Committee, but he declined to step down.[28] Although Mel Watt, then chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, declared the strong support of the caucus for Jefferson it has since been reported that two prominent members of the caucus, John Lewis (D-GA) and Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) have played a major role in the campaign to force Jefferson to step down.[29]
On 15 June 2006, House Democrats voted to strip Jefferson of his committee assignment while the federal bribery investigation continued. The vote passed 99-58. Some have reported that the vote was passed as a result of Democrats who were determined to make an election-year point about ethics. The full House, which is the only group with the power to actually remove Jefferson, then stripped him of his seat on the committee on June 16 in a voice vote without debate. Jefferson had offered to step aside temporarily if the Democratic caucus established a rule concerning cases like his and if his seat went to Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-LA). This offer was rejected by House Democratic leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi.[30]

….

Following Jefferson’s reelection, Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi announced that he will not regain his seat on the Ways and Means Committee as long as he is not “cleared of wrongdoing in an ongoing federal corruption probe”.

Now, can you please explain how this means that Democrats are remaining supportive of Jefferson?

Geebus.
Michael

June 3, 2008 at 10:59 am

Get back to us when Jefferson is wearing a prison jumpsuit, OK?

The Justice department is under the Executive Branch, which isn’t currently controlled by the Democratic party. Get back to us when they press charges.

combined with a republican congress out for blood couldn’t even come close to a conviction.

If I remember correctly, there were a good many Republicans in congress upset about separation of powers when the Justice department raided Jefferson’s office. Not exactly what I’d call “out for blood”.

The Democrats remain supportive of Jefferson, depite being caught with the cash in his freezer.

Jefferson was re-elected by the voters of his district, there isn’t a whole lot either party can do about that. The Democrats in Congress voted to strip him of this committee seat before his re-election, and declined to re-instate him after his re-election. Without an indictment and conviction, I’m not exactly sure what more you think the Democratic party is legally allowed to do to him.
anjin-san

June 3, 2008 at 3:41 pm

The Justice department is under the Executive Branch

Quite true. One more failure for the Bush admin, along with the failure to bring Bin Laden to justice.