“Shocking” Obama Video Turns Out To Be Not So Shocking

A five year old "shocking" video of President Obama speaking to a group of African-American ministers proves to be not very shocking at all.

Late yesterday afternoon, The Drudge Report went into full-blown Breaking News mode with a huge font headline promising a “Blockbuster” video that would change the campaign for President that would be revealed later that night. Speculation quickly turned to what the tape could possibly be, although it seemed unlikely that it would be anything that would truly be a “blockbuster” as Drudge described it. Soon, the headline was changed to “Obama’s Other Race Speech,” and it became clear that we were talking about something that would feed into the long standing conservative meme that Barack Obama was some kind of black radical before running for President and that the truth of this has been concealed from the American public. In 2008 we saw it mostly in the constant effort of people like Sean Hannity to push Jeremiah Wright as a relevant story even after the President had responded to that story and disassociated himself from Wright. We saw it again during the 2008 General Election when rumors circulated about some video of Michelle Obama talking about “Whitey,” a video that never surfaced and likely never existed.

So, I suppose it wasn’t surprising that the new “shocking” tape made it’s premier on Hannity’s show yesterday evening:

Sean Hannity, The Daily Caller, and Drudge Report spent hours hyping a racially explosive secret video of President Obama. But the bombshell clip turned out to be a public speech from June 2007 that was covered by the major networks, including FOX News, at the time.

Excerpts of the open press speech to historically black Hampton University were already easily available (and quickly discovered by reporters after Drudge teased the clip on his website hours before the “new” Daily Caller/Hannity clip even aired). But Daily Caller founder Tucker Carlson claimed the video was relevant because it contained additional ad-libbed portions that went off the prepared remarks.

Among the sinister revelations Drudge, Hannity, and Carlson cited: Obama’s use of what they considered an overly African-American cadence to his voice in front of the majority. “This accent is absurd. This is not the way Obama talks,” Carlson said on FOX. Drudge Report teased “THE ACCENT” and “THE ANGER” as scoops.

Hannity, who was a leading figure on the right in promoting Obama’s relationship with Jeremiah Wright as a story in 2008, also pointed to Obama acknowledging Wright as “friend and great leader” at the event. As was widely reported at the time, the two were close until Obama disowned him later that year over his continued inflammatory comments.

You can find the video over on The Daily Caller if you want to take a look at it, but the truth of the matter is that it’s all pretty much old news:

The video played at the start of Hannity’s Fox News show and posted on The Daily Caller website was of an open-press speech that Obama delivered to a crowd at Hampton University in June 2007, months after he launched his presidential campaign. The speech was covered at the time, including by Fox News and Carlson on the MSNBC show he then hosted, but had never been released in full before.

Hannity introduced the tape as a “bombshell” that includes “some of the most divisive class warfare and racially charged rhetoric ever used by Barack Obama.” Though a local newspaper posted videos of some of the remarks online and reporters from major news organizations covered it, Hannity said all of that attention “omit[ted] the most inflammatory comments” from Obama.

But a portion of the speech — including Obama’s introduction of Wright — has been on YouTube since 2007.

Also already public was Obama’s discussion of “quiet riots that take place every day [that] are born from the same place as the fires of destruction and the police decked out in riot gear and death.” President George W. Bush, he said, had done nothing to ease the tensions. Discussing the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Obama said that “the poverty and the hopelessness was there long before the hurricane. All the hurricane did was to pull the curtain back for all the world to see.”

Other parts are newly unearthed. Poor people “need help with basic skills, how to shop, how to show up for work on time, how to wear the right clothes, how to act appropriately in an office,” Obama said in what Drudge teased for hours as a particularly explosive line.

“We don’t need to build more highways out in the suburbs. We should be investing in minority-owned businesses, in our neighborhoods,” Obama also said, in another line that hadn’t been quoted until Tuesday.

Tucker Carlson even covered the speech on his own MSNBC show at the time,  So, to argue that there’s something new here is simply absurd. Many on the right have noted  that the coverage at the time omitted what they consider the more incendiary remarks, but Brit Hume talked about them on Fox five years ago. The reaction to this video has been rather muted. One Fox News host pointed out this morning that the video doesn’t prove anything and that it’s rather obvious that the President has not governed in a a racial matter since taking office in January 2009.  Meanwhile, though bloggers on the right seem to see this as something significant, the Romney campaign has distanced itself from the video and many Republicans are dismissing it entirely:

“This hurts Mitt,” 2008 Romney adviser Alex Castellanos told BuzzFeed. “An abysmally selfish and stupid event.”

“What’s the ‘So what’ of this video?” asked Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) on Fox News. “I don’t think it’s going to really go anywhere.”

The Romney campaign, which in recent weeks highlighted a 1998 video in which Obama talked about government “redistribution,” has ignored the release and denied any involvement. A spokesman merely told ABC News that “President Obama’s views shape his policies, and his policies have been devastating for our economy.”

Senior Romney campaign adviser Kevin Madden was less enthusiastic on CBS Wednesday morning.

“I think what’s much more important to this debate right now are the president’s policies — the president’s record over the last four years,” he said.

Fox News host Greta van Susteren was skeptical, telling former House speaker Newt Gingrich, “I think his record has a far greater impact than what he said in 2007, but I could be wrong.”

Gingrich argued that the tape has “some impact,” although a few minutes later he added, “I don’t think this particular speech is definitive.” He compared it to Vice President  Biden’s “chains” comment, which Republicans greeted with far more enthusiasm.

Some conservatives suggested the video could have had an impact in the 2008 primary, had it gotten more coverage. Many saw it’s relative obscurity as a sign of media bias. But few saw it as a political coup.

“Not quite a yawn, but no game-changer,” wrote National Review’s Jim Geraghty. “I don’t think this tape will persuade anyone,” said RedState’s Erick Erickson.

Conor Friedersdorf argues that this video really says more about the right than it does about Obama:

These conservatives don’t care that President Obama’s actual record on racial matters is anything but radical. Nor do they care that his reelection poses zero threat to white people as a class.

It isn’t any proposed policy change that gets them going. There isn’t any sound, substantive reason that they focus on racial controversy. They’re just race obsessed. Racial angles are constantly emphasized in right-leaning media because that’s what the conservative audience wants, every bit as much as the average New York Times reader wants a very different sort of race-focused journalism. On the right, ethnic studies is treated as an illegitimate discipline for the race-obsessed; but positing that Americans are supporting Obama’s reelection because of a psychological aversion to black people failing? That is totally acceptable speculative commentary.

“This guy is whipping up race hatred and fear,” Tucker Carlson ofThe Daily Caller said on Fox News. So according to Carlson, Obama said some stuff in 2007 that should totally shock us becausenothing like it has been part of his rhetoric as president; those words would remain totally obscure if not for Carlson; but it’s Obama who is “whipping up race hatred and fear,” for telling a black audience that the federal government did less for Katrina victims than other natural disaster victims, in part because they were poor and black. For conservatives, complaining that college administrators do less to accommodate students because they’re white is perfectly respectable commentary, and anyone who says otherwise is enforcing political correctness; but a specific critique of disaster relief dollars shortchanging blacks is “whipping up race hatred,” and labeling it beyond the pale isn’t political correctness run amok at all.

There really was nothing “shocking” in the video clips that Hannity and Carlson highlighted last night. The fact that then Senator Obama had nice things to say about a man who, according to his own description, had been the person who made him more of a Christian, officiated over his wedding, and baptized both of his children is no surprise, and it does not constitute an endorsement of the more distasteful things that Wright has said in the past, which Obama has since specifically denounced. The fact that he pointed out differences between the government’s response to Hurricane Katrina and its response to other natural disasters or the 9/11 attacks isn’t racist, especially since, as David Frum points out, the critique he made in the speech is pretty much what actually happened. Facts are facts, they are not racial code words.

Perhaps the most bizarre part of Carlson’s argument, though, is the obsession with pointing out the fact that Obama allegedly used an accent in the speech. Now, personally, having watched sizable portions of the speech itself, I really don’t see that much of a difference between the way Obama spoke at this conference and the way he generally speaks in public, especially at political rallies. That’s not important, however, because it’s really rather clear that Carlson and Hannity were aiming to make a racial point here. They were trying to point out that Barack Obama spoke like a black man, which is actually unsurprising considering that he is a black man. It’s really quite pathetic what has happened to Tucker. He used to be a fairly decent columnist back in the day, he even had a fairly decent cable career notwithstanding Jon Stewart’s famous rant. However, ever since he started The Daily Caller he has apparently decided that the key to success is to sink down into the mud of racial mudslinging with the Sean Hannity’s of the world. I assume it’s quite popular for him.

This video will have little impact on the race itself, even conservatives seem to agree on that point. However, as yet another example of the right’s absurd Obama Derangement Syndrome, it will no doubt become part of the Fox News/talk radio zeitgeist. Which should be interesting to watch if, as it appears he will right now, Obama is re-elected.

FILED UNDER: Barack Obama, Campaign 2012, Politicians, Race and Politics, US Politics
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. Tod Kelly says:

    This is the best analysis of this story I’ve seen. Well done.

  2. Septimius says:

    So, Obama does have a Negro dialect. Does Harry Reid know about this?

  3. Eric Florack says:

    Actually, you’re quite correct … its not shocking at all.

    First, it shows a case of extreme pandering by Obama.

    Secondly, it shows race baiting and flat out lying by Obama. He’s trying to whip up racial fear of the white candidate. From The Hill:

    “This is not a dog whistle, this is a dog siren. These are appeals to racial solidarity,” (Tucker) Carlson said. “He is making a very clear case on again on the basis of his racial solidarity to this audience that they are getting shafted by a racist federal government.”

    And again…

    Former GOP presidential nominee Newt Gingrich weighed in on the speech on Fox’s “On the Record,” saying that he does believe it will have some impact because of what it indicates about Obama’s party.
    “It’s a reminder of the depth of dishonesty, the appeals to racism, the factual falsehoods that are at the heart of the modern Left,” he said.

    He said that the speech was “clearly divisive.”

    “There is no way you can listen to the speech and not hear it as a deliberately divisive speech that pits Americans against each other, and does so largely with racial innuendos that are very, very clear when you hear the speech,” he said.

    Thirdly, it shows, given the time frame it was recorded in, Lamestream media collusion. It’s the kind of pandering that would have killed his campaign, back then, had it been shown. But of course, the Lamestream Media decided not to bother. It would have prevented their guy from winning the election. Ask yourself, why were the most inflammatory remarks never related to the voting public? You KNOW why, don’t you, really?

    So, again, Doug, you’re quite correct…. All it does is manages to confirm what we’ve been saying about Obama himself and how the lamestream media’s been covering for him for some time now.

    But effective? Well, look, the majority of voters in this country already do not trust the lamestream media. That’s been confirmed in poll after poll. They’ve been starting to see the collusion of the press with the far left, even back in the day.

    But now that perception has changed with the failures of Obama policy over the past four years. When that changed perception is added to the true picture of what Obama is by way of this video, a side of him the lamestream media has intentionally hidden from us, the combination is not something that can be blown away by rhetoric, particularly when those leftie house organs called “The Press”are not trusted, either.

    No, not shocking at all. It’s a simple confirmation of what we’ve been saying all along.

  4. Rob in CT says:

    It was reported on at the time, Florack. Jayzus.

  5. Eric Florack says:

    @Rob in CT: Not at that level. All the press did was work off the prepared remarks. Most of the inflammatory stuff was ad libbed and therefore not noted by the ‘reporters’.

  6. grumpy realist says:

    @Eric Florack: What the commentary on the right (and your comments) show is that President Obama could get up in front of a podium and say “two plus two equals four” and you guys would find some reason to complain. Get down off the cross, Mabel, we need the wood….

  7. Moosebreath says:

    bithead,

    “given the time frame it was recorded in, Lamestream media collusion”

    Since FOX covered the speech at the time it was given, and did not highlight these passages, does this mean FOX is part of the lamestream media? Is this yet another example of how there are no True Conservatives, except in your imagination?

  8. Rob in CT says:

    @Eric Florack:

    Where did the scary black man touch you, Eric?

  9. “What’s the ‘So what’ of this video?” asked Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) on Fox News. “I don’t think it’s going to really go anywhere.”

    When even Allen West thinks you’re being a wingnut, it’s time for a long hard look at yourself.

  10. C. Clavin says:

    Once again the Republican leadership…Hannity, Drudge…proves the party is made up of angry rich white xenophobes. And Florack proves he has never had an independent thought.

  11. Moderate Mom says:

    @Moosebreath: Most media did cover the speech, based on the prepared text. Andrew Sullivan provided a transcript on his blog, but it was also only the prepared text. A local news station released a truncated video of the speech as well, less than half of a forty minute speech. This is the first time that the speech has been seen in its entirety.

    About the only things I found sort of interesting were that the President seems to change the cadence of his speech and some pronunciations (droppin’ those g’s and r’s) for select audiences and that he channeled Kanye West in this video, i.e., George Bush doesn’t care about black people replaced with the federal government doesn’t care about black people – “Where’s your dolla?” Otherwise, yeah, not much there.

  12. David says:

    It is really too bad a fine journalist like Tucker didn’t cover this back when it happened… Wait, he did. Talk about a non story. Tomorrow Drudge will have breaking news on President Obama’s last state of the union address. I’m sure it will be just as shocking.

  13. stonetools says:

    Great analysis, Doug. Its another example of the the “radical” Obama” that conservatives would prefer to argue and run against, not the moderate “real Obama.”
    This video is evidence of the ” radical ” Obama-the one that has been vetted by right wing sources. Also too, another example of conservatives creating their own reality.

  14. MBunge says:

    A very nice post and nice analysis. Don’t undersell Stewart’s rant, though. Yes, Carlson left CNN to have another failed show at MSNBC, but he’s clearly never recovered from that moment in his own mind.

    Mike

  15. legion says:

    @Eric Florack: Did you note the part where Tucker himself reported on it 5 years ago? Is he a part of the “lamestream media”? Is Fox News?

    You are both a liar and a moron, Eric. You know what the tip-off is? When you “analyze” the content of the video, you don’t even use any actual quotes from the video – just quotes from Gingrich and Carlson telling you what to think about it. I bet you call people like me “sheeple” too. Pathetic.

  16. Fiona says:

    Shorter Carlson, Drudge, and Hannity: Obama is really, really black.

    As for the charge of pandering, he’s a politician. It comes with the game. It’s not like Mitt doesn’t play to his crowd (white 53 per centers, particularly the really wealthy ones). Although I will give Mitt points for having the smarts and class to stay far away from this obvious attempt at race-baiting.

  17. Jr says:

    Just another sign that this election is close to being over and the GOP tank is running on empty.

  18. Jr says:

    @Moderate Mom: Oh please, Obama changing his dialect to adjust with the crowd is something nearly every politician does.

    Hell, you remember when Hillary had a southern accent in the primaries?

  19. Fiona says:

    “We don’t need to build more highways out in the suburbs. We should be investing in minority-owned businesses, in our neighborhoods,” Obama also said, in another line that hadn’t been quoted until Tuesday.

    Why does Hannity find this line so objectionable? It sounds like a recommendation of self-help to me, as in working to improve the quality of and provide more job opportunities in predominately minority areas. You’d think conservatives would support such efforts.

  20. Markey says:

    “What’s the ‘So what’ of this video?” asked Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) on Fox News. “I don’t think it’s going to really go anywhere.”
    ————————————-

    Alan West is a closet Obama supporter! And you wingnuts know why right?

    .-)

  21. Jeremy R. says:

    For me, the only note-worthy part of this event is that for a couple hours, Drudge attached his bigot-traffic-spigot to the Romney donation page, so that the Romney Campaign gained financially from this particular descent into white resentment politics:

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/10/the-drudge-hype-falls-flat-137305.html

    Five years after the fact, and almost four years into Obama’s presidency, it may be difficult for the outside observer to understand how a previously reported event could draw so much attention, especially given that it offers few bombshell revelations. The answer isn’t Hannity or Carlson — it’s Drudge.

    Despite providing only 2 percent of Americans with their campaign news, the Drudge Report continues to carry outsized influence — because of his brand recognition and, in 2012, because he has a direct line to the Romney campaign. (When Drudge first posted a banner-headline for the video, the link re-directed to the Romney campaign donation page, and was subsequently pulled down.)

    What’s that about Drudge having a direct line to the Romney Campaign you might ask? Well, one of Romney’s campaign managers is the GOP’s premeir Drudge-whisperer Matt Rhoades. Here’s an old NYT article on that sleazy relationship:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/22/us/politics/22drudge.html?pagewanted=all

    The early advantage on their side, in the view of several Republicans, seems to have gone to Mitt Romney, who hired the former Bush political aide who had been the central party’s prime point of contact with Mr. Drudge, Matthew Rhoades. His status was solidified after the 2004 election at a steakhouse dinner in Miami with Mr. Drudge, who for all his renown in politics is a somewhat spectral presence who rarely agrees to meet with political operatives or journalists and who did not respond to requests for an interview for this article.

    So important was the Romney camp’s perceived advantage in the eyes of aides to Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, that at one point this year they even considered sending an emissary to Miami to build their own relationship with him, two former McCain campaign officials said. (Mr. Drudge ignored the invitation, one of the officials said.)

    Before Mr. Griffin left politics to work as a military lawyer in 2005, he had a dinner with Mr. Drudge and Mr. Rhoades to solidify Mr. Rhoades’s new place as the main Drudge Report contact for the central party. That dinner was first reported in the book “The Way to Win,” by Mark Halperin and John F. Harris, published last year.

    As the Bush political team dispersed among the Republican candidates this year, some of Mr. Rhoades’s former colleagues came to regret his special relationship with Mr. Drudge. Former aides to Mr. McCain said in interviews that they had cursed Mr. Rhoades’s name daily this year as Mr. Drudge ran a series of photographs making Mr. McCain look old and other items, like one wrongly raising the possibility that a bump he took to the head in Iraq was cancer.

  22. gVOR08 says:

    Courtesy of Democratic Underground, who have a transcript, a little context for the “Poor people “need basic skills”” line that “Drudge teased for hours as a particularly explosive line.”

    “We know that we have to invest in transitional jobs too. When there are people who are homeless, veterans struggling with post-traumatic stress disorder from this war in Iraq, and thousands of children aging out of foster care, we can’t expect them to have all the skills they need for work. They may need help with basic skills-how to show up to work on time, wear the right clothes, and act appropriately in an office. We have to help them get there. That’s why I have called for $50 million to begin innovative new job training and workforce development programs.”

    I’m having trouble seeing anything objectionable in that. Anybody know if they got the money?

  23. Matt W says:

    @Jr:

    Hell, you remember when Hillary had a southern accent in the primaries?

    Or when Romney did?
    link

  24. Gromitt Gunn says:

    @Eric Florack: Okay, bithead, I’ll bite What specific quotes from the speech itself do you consider to be race baiting?

  25. Eric Florack says:

    @legion: Matter of fact I did note that… and so too did he. But as he explains, there’s a major difference between the prepared remarks… such as what he reported on, and what was actually said.

    As for @Markey: and his comments on Allen West, I tend to disagree that this won’t affect anything. Game changer? Prolly not. But it does amplify the situation.

    Consider too, the remainder of West’s remarks:

    “The only thing that comes out of this is, I believe, what everyone knows is when the president gets off of script, gets off of his teleprompter, you see a different type of president,” he said. “We saw that just recently in Virginia when he got off script…and started talking about small business owners ‘didn’t build that’ and he had to retract that and make better hay of it.”

    Which would seem to explain the slavish reliance on teleprompters. When he gets off the prompter, the real, racist, lying, socialist comes out.

    Still, those comments from West not withstanding, what is clearly happening, is that many Obama voters are seeing this duplicitous racist that is Obama, for the first time. They’re also getting confirmation that the press has been covering for him. And of course, the Democrats are going to be screaming about that. I suggest the volume with which they scream is an indication of how much their candidate has been damaged.

  26. C. Clavin says:

    Meantime…while the infantile minds that make up the Republican Party these days busy themselves with their petty and racist screeds:
    – The Auto Industry saw a sales increase of 13% in September, with ’12 sales reaching 14.5M cars…up from 12.8M last year.
    – ADP this morning reported 162,000 jobs added in September.
    – The Institute for Supply Management, a trade group of purchasing managers, said its index of service companies rose to 55.1 in September. Economists expected that it would drop to 53.4. Any reading above 50 indicates expansion.
    I think these fools should resurrect a couple more 5 year old speeches from Obama.

  27. Ron Beasley says:

    @Matt W: How about Bush’s phony Texas drawl.

    I think this entire thing was less about politics and more about attracting some eyeballs which is really what Drudge, The Daily Caller and FOX are really about.

  28. Eric Florack says:

    @Fiona: Self help? No. It’s a call for redirection of government funds on the basis of race.

  29. Andre Kenji says:

    They were trying to point out that Barack Obama spoke like a black man, which is actually unsurprising considering that he is a black man.

    No, that´s more complicated. All my Brazilian Black Friends talks in the exactly same way that all my “White” friends do. Obama in fact is a mulatto(Or a Multi-ethnic), that was raised by a white mother. Since he quit Chicago Politics Obama speaks with a accent that´s more similar to the Midwestern than to the usual African American Dialect.

    To me, that´s at least interesting.

  30. Rick Almeida says:

    @Eric Florack:

    Do you have some quotes from the speech to support your claim?

  31. C. Clavin says:

    “…Which would seem to explain the slavish reliance on teleprompters….”

    You sir…are a fool. There’s nothing more that needs to be said.

  32. Jeremy R. says:

    @Ron Beasley:

    @Matt W: How about Bush’s phony Texas drawl.

    I guess if the politician is white it’s called being “folksy,” if they’re black it’s apparently subversive and racial.

  33. jan says:

    I do remember hearing Obama’s Philadelphia speech, and was positively impressed enough to bookmark it. The one produced by the Daily Caller, though, was new to me. Not only was Obama’s demeanor different in both speeches, given less than a year apart, but so was the content of his remarks.

    In Philadelphia he was conciliatory towards all races, and seemed to call for bridging and healing the divides that might continue to be separating people. However, 9 months earlier he seemed to be emphasizing these very same divides, putting emotional accelerant on them, stridently calling for affirmative action kind of policies to be applied to minority areas. It was a polarizing sermon, very different from the Philadelphia one where he was offering soothing verbal poultices for racial problems

    Also Obama’s Philadelphia speech was built around a distancing of Rev. Wright’s influence in his life, as well as an open repudiation of this man’s offensive, racially divisive words. Again, only months earlier, in the video revealed yesterday, Obama was warmly, publicly embracing this same man, his advice and his assistance in his life.

    If nothing else the two speeches, separated by only a matter of months, showed some of Obama’s hypocrisy, and his tendency to be captivated by political expediency calling for any kind of posturing, even lying, to achieve his goals.

    Consequently, rather than calling this video ‘shocking,’ I would describe it as ‘revealing.’ Similar to how Romney’s secretly taped 47% comments were construed (inaccurately IMO), that Romney didn’t care about half the people in this country, I think this film may also be construed by some as showing Obama having much more animus towards white people than he has otherwise shown in his mainstream talking points and campaign speeches.

  34. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @Eric Florack:

    No. It’s a call for redirection of government funds on the basis of race.

    Or maybe…. just maybe…. It is a call for investing in areas that need investing in, investing in people that need investing in…..

    Naaahhhhhh. Your right Eric, Obama hates white people

  35. JohnMcC says:

    @Eric Florack: It seems cruel to me to be too hard on Mr Florack. He reminds me of Kurt Vonnegut’s description of people who act irrationally as being ‘full of bad chemicals’; it must be difficult to walk through one’s daily life with so many bad ideas and mistaken ‘facts’. It would be like living in a tiny little cultural enclave where one’s identity is threatened every hour every day endlessly and only AM radio affirms you. Sad.

    But really! Quoting NEWT GINGRICH…NEWT GINGRICH!!…saying that the speech was “divisive speech”. Amazing.

    But carry on, Mr Florack. And God bless you.

  36. Gromitt Gunn says:

    @jan:

    However, 9 months earlier he seemed to be emphasizing these very same divides, putting emotional accelerant on them, stridently calling for affirmative action kind of policies to be applied to minority areas. It was a polarizing sermon, very different from the Philadelphia one where he was offering soothing verbal poultices for racial problems.

    Much like my ignored request to bithead, do you have any direct quotes to support this? I don’t see any race baiting or strident calls for affirmative action, or whatever boogieman spectre this speech supposedly raises.

  37. legion says:

    @Eric Florack:

    there’s a major difference between the prepared remarks… such as what he reported on, and what was actually said.

    So, you’re suggesting Carlson reported on the prepared remarks, but what Obama actually _said_ in the speech was this astounding bombshell of race-baiting socialism that neither Carlson nor any other reporter – left, right, or centrist – noticed for the last 5 years, despite the speech being covered by reporters at the time it was given and being available for viewing by anyone with an Internet connection. Right.

    Neither you nor Carlson is looking any less dumb or desperate.

  38. stonetools says:

    Still, those comments from West not withstanding, what is clearly happening, is that many Obama voters are seeing this duplicitous racist that is Obama, for the first time

    4

    Quite some projection,there.

  39. legion says:

    @Ron Beasley: Or the time Romney put on spray tan to look darker for his Univision interview? Good times…

  40. Rob in CT says:

    Ah, I see. Thanks for laying it out Jan. The plan here is to try and use this to: a) whip up the total idiots (like, say, Eric); and b) for the slightly more intelligent, attempt to equate this to the 47% remarks and convince people that they cancel out. Without, of course, actually showing how they’re comparable in any way.

    Bad luck with that.

  41. anjin-san says:

    @ Florack

    It’s a simple confirmation of what we’ve been saying all along.

    We know exactly what you’ve been saying all along. Obama is a ni**er. You are a brave man when you are talking from behind a computer.

  42. Fiona says:

    @Eric Florack:

    Self help? No. It’s a call for redirection of government funds on the basis of race.

    Where is the call for government to fund it? He’s speaking to a group of African-American college students, suggesting that instead of heading to the burbs they open businesses in the city, and bring economic life to their own neighborhoods.

  43. gimmeabreak says:

    What I think this whole episode shows best is that Carlson, Hannity and Drudge don’t hang with many black people. If you’ve been with African Americans in different settings – mostly white people and then mostly black people – you’ll nearly almost notice a difference in speaking style, cadence, grammar, etc. Not unlike a white from Alabama losing his accent after moving away at a northeast school or job, going back home will invariably bring back the accent.

    Obama, like many upwardly mobile African Americans or those brought up in mixed households, doesn’t sound like a “thug” that the right so often wants to make him out to be. So they have to try and create that image. In most minds they failed miserably.

  44. Fiona says:

    From Andrew Sullivan’s blog:

    “That poverty has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which cut off generations from the opportunity of America. We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action. So let us restore all that we have cherished from yesterday and let us rise above the legacy of inequality. When the streets are rebuilt, there should be many new businesses, including minority-owned businesses, along those streets,” – Barack Obama George W. Bush, addressing the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina on September 16, 2005.

    Of course, Bush was showing his ” black” side when he said this.

  45. C. Clavin says:

    For Jan…countering Romney’s Kinsley Gaffe (which is perfect conformance with his policies) with racist demogogueing is perfectly valid.
    Of course she is on record as saying that the poor and the elderly and the sick should pay more taxes…so Romney’s comments are in perfect alignment with her views.
    And she is also a xenophobe…it is abundantly clear that anything Obama says disturbsher on a deep emotional level.
    Anyone that has read any of her previous comments would know where she comes down on this sort of race-baiting. It gets the Jan stamp of bigotry approval.

  46. mantis says:

    A large chunk of the Republican Party are obsessed with race in general and Obama’s race in particular. It’s all they think about. Tucker Carlson built a website just for them. I call them the Confederate Party. Bithead is a longtime member. They are an embarrassment to the United States of America. We’ll all be better off when they die out.

  47. mantis says:

    @jan:

    Consequently, rather than calling this video ‘shocking,’ I would describe it as ‘revealing.’

    Indeed, the reaction to it by many on the right will be revealing to Americans who don’t already know what you confederates are all about.

  48. bk says:

    @Eric Florack: I count FIVE mentions of “lamestream media” in your first post. Do you have a picture of Sarah over your monitor?

  49. bk says:

    @Rick Almeida:

    @Eric Florack: Do you have some quotes from the speech to support your claim?

    Of course he doesn’t. Actual quotes are for losers. And the “lamestream media” derp derp.

  50. C. Clavin says:

    “…Consequently, rather than calling this video ‘shocking,’ I would describe it as ‘revealing…”


    Yes…because the guy has been President for almost 4 years….and we have absolutely no idea what he might be like.
    Well Republicans don’t actually..they are running against imaginary Obama.

  51. Moosebreath says:

    @bk:

    “Do you have a picture of Sarah over your monitor?”

    I’d bet it’s the one where she was winking at the VP debate in 2008. bithead probably thinks she was doing it just for him.

  52. sam says:

    @Gromitt Gunn:

    To Jan:

    Much like my ignored request to bithead, do you have any direct quotes to support this?

    No.

  53. Ken says:

    @Moosebreath:

    I’d bet it’s the one where she was winking at the VP debate in 2008. bithead probably thinks she was doing it just for him.

    That wink caused a lot of tightey whiteys to get just a little bit tighter that night. I wonder if he felt like it sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America.

  54. wr says:

    There’s a certain breed of “conservative” who is certain that the only reason Obama got elected is because none of the sheeple out there noticed he was black. And they’re convinced that once the American people open their eyes and notice that they’ve elected a ni**er, they’ll all switch their allegiance to the Republicans. Hence Bithead swooning over this video, which he takes as indisputable proof of Obama’s blackness.

  55. Gromitt Gunn says:

    @sam: Ssssh! I’m hunting wingnuts!

  56. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @Rob in CT: Where did the scary black man touch you, Eric?

    Right in the motherfracking wallet.

  57. gVOR08 says:

    @Ron Beasley:

    How about Bush’s phony Texas drawl.

    I saw Bush on TV one night get all the way through “nuclee” properly. Then he went deer in the headlights for a second, restarted and said his trademark “nukelar”. I swear he was going ‘wait, Rove told me not to say that, it sounds uppity, what was it he said, oh yeah, now I remember.”

  58. bk says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: How so, Indy?

  59. gVOR08 says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: Jenos said something genuinely, and intentionally, funny!!

    Also, you should hear me when I visit my brother in Minnesota you betcha

  60. sam says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    @Rob in CT: Where did the scary black man touch you, Eric?

    Right in the motherfracking wallet.

    Yeah. When he cut your taxes. Or was it when the market went nooooorth?

  61. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    @Rob in CT: Where did the scary black man touch you, Eric?

    Right in the motherfracking wallet.

    I did not know Mitt Romney was black. Learn something new everyday!

  62. mantis says:

    @sam:

    Don’t you guys know that Obama passed secret tax increases on white people?

  63. legion says:

    @mantis: I thought that was just my new white-case iPhone! You mean Obahama gets that money in taxes? Jinkeys!

  64. anjin-san says:

    Right in the motherfracking wallet.

    I guess you don’t have any money in the market. If you did, there is a pretty good chance you would be a fan of Obama’s…

  65. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @anjin-san:

    I guess you don’t have any money in the market. If you did, there is a pretty good chance you would be a fan of Obama’s…

    No Anjin, they would be even better off because… Free Market Fairies!!!! Majic Mitt Dust!!! (I know, because Mitt told me so.)

  66. Rat Mud Report says:

    You can find the video over on The Daily Caller if you want to take a look at it,..

    !SHOCKING DEVELOPMENT!
    Lamestream BLOG OTB SUPPRESSES 5 Year Old Obama Video!!!

    (How do you like my hat?)

  67. Mr. Replica says:

    Personally, I find this video nothing more than Obama pandering to the crowd, much like Romney’s pandering to the southern crowd where he tries to speak with a southern accent and informing the crowd he enjoys grits. It’s bullshit, and nothing to get up in arms over. It’s a whole lot of nothing.

    But…

    If what Obama said in that video is racist and showing off his true self…does that mean that when Romney and his campaign endorse a blogger on their official website, only to have that same blogger release a tweet that says:

    “A white woman voting for Barrack Obama is like a black woman voting for the KKK”

    Does that mean Romney is also a racist and showing off his true self?

    Obviously it’s a little of a reach on my part, but I would not consider it any different than the reaching by those who think that Obama’s pandering is concrete evidence that he is in fact a racist.

  68. Jc says:

    For a guy who hates white people, Obama sure hangs out with alot of white people.

  69. bandit says:

    Obama’s an ignorant racist. Who knew?

  70. grumpy realist says:

    @bandit: He isn’t. But don’t let that stop you from spreading lies.

  71. grumpy realist says:

    @gVOR08: I thought it didn’t count unless you threw a lutefisk reference in.

  72. john personna says:

    I find the whole issue not very important but midly comical. Especially comments like this:

    Thirdly, it shows, given the time frame it was recorded in, Lamestream media collusion.

    Because this:

    Conservative media coordinates on release of old Obama video

    (For those who need an example for the word “irony.”)

  73. Janis Gore says:

    Gawd, all this crap bores me to death.

  74. jukeboxgrad says:

    Jr:

    Obama changing his dialect to adjust with the crowd is something nearly every politician does.

    Link:

    Pawlenty Admits Adopting Phony Southern Accent, Says He Does It All the Time

  75. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    This wasn’t “covered” at the time, it was “covered up.”

    And PowerLine has noted something rather interesting. Obama is talking about how the Katrina relief should get an exception from the Stafford Act requirement for matching funds. Oddly enough, the vote for said exception was held a couple weeks before Obama’s speech. It passed overwhelmingly — and one of the 14 Senators who voted against it was one Barack Obama (D-IL).

    And how about those “they don’t need more roads and bridges in the suburbs” remarks? Not even if they were “shovel-ready?”

  76. Eric Florack says:

    @Rick Almeida: Oh, several, but lets start with one that even you can’t deny:

    Now here’s the thing, when 9-11 happened in New York City, they waived the Stafford Act — said, ‘This is too serious a problem. We can’t expect New York City to rebuild on its own. Forget that dollar you gotta put in. Well, here’s ten dollars.’ And that was the right thing to do. When Hurricane Andrew struck in Florida, people said, ‘Look at this devastation. We don’t expect you to come up with y’own money, here. Here’s the money to rebuild. We’re not gonna wait for you to scratch it together — because you’re part of the American family.

    What’s happening down in New Orleans? Where’s your dollar? Where’s your Stafford Act money? Makes no sense! Tells me that somehow, the people down in New Orleans they don’t care about as much!

    Sound familiar? Rapper Kayne West’s made an eerily similar, racist claim that, because of the Katrina response, “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.”

    And aside from the race baiting nature of the charge… the thing is this; the claim is untrue.

    But as the Daily Caller points out, by January 2007, six months before Obama’s Hampton speech, the federal government had sent at least $110 billion to areas damaged by Katrina. This was more than five times the money that the Bush administration pledged to New York City after 9/11.

    Moreover, says the DC, the federal government did at times waive the Stafford Act during its New Orleans reconstruction efforts. On May 25, 2007, just weeks before Obama’s speech, the Bush administration sent an additional $6.9 billion to Katrina-affected areas with no strings attached.

    So here’s what Barack “No Red America, No Blue America” Obama, the great racial unifier, did at Hampton. He charged the U.S. government with racism based on false claims about the response to Hurricane Katrina.

    Any questions, class?

  77. jukeboxgrad says:

    jenos:

    PowerLine has noted something rather interesting

    What’s “rather interesting” is that Powerline’s Paul Mirengoff has no credibility, and neither do you.

    the vote for said exception was held a couple weeks before Obama’s speech

    It’s dishonest to talk about “the vote” because there was more than one vote, and more than one bill. There were two version of that bill: one included extra money for the Iraq war, and one that didn’t. Obama voted for the latter. That vote can be seen here, and the whole story is explained here.

    one of the 14 Senators who voted against it was one Barack Obama

    What Obama “voted against” was the version of the bill that tied the Katrina aid to the Iraq war. Instead, he voted for the version that didn’t tie Katrina aid to the Iraq war. So you and Powerline and a bunch of other people are being dishonest when you say Obama didn’t support the Katrina aid. What his votes show is that he supported the Katrina aid, but didn’t supporting tying that aid to extra funding for Iraq.

    Let’s see how long it takes for Mirengoff to post a correction informing his readers that he didn’t give them the whole story. We shouldn’t hold our breath. His post (“THE BOUNDLESS DISHONESTY OF BARACK OBAMA”) should have his own name in the title.

  78. jukeboxgrad says:

    florack:

    Any questions, class?

    Yes. You are citing Mirengoff who says this:

    as the Daily Caller points out, by January 2007, six months before Obama’s Hampton speech, the federal government had sent at least $110 billion to areas damaged by Katrina

    The only Daily Caller link Mirengoff provides is this. Where in that DC article can I find the claim that Mirengoff just referenced?

  79. jukeboxgrad says:

    florack citing mirengoff:

    Moreover, says the DC, the federal government did at times waive the Stafford Act during its New Orleans reconstruction efforts.

    Mirengoff and a bunch of other people are trying really hard to run away from the basic factual point that Obama made: after 9/11, the Stafford Act was waived almost immediately. After Katrina, there was a lot of GOP resistance to waiving the Stafford Act, and it took almost two years to get that done. This has been explained by Fox:

    … at the time of Obama’s speech, there were still concerns about federal response to the disaster under the Stafford Act, which governs relief efforts. The Federal Emergency Management Agency was unwilling to waive the law’s 10 percent local match provision for aid, like it did after the Sept. 11 attacks and other hurricanes. … then-Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco was pushing in early 2007 for a federal law eliminating the 10 percent match. The House passed the bill, but it stalled in the Senate and President Bush had threatened to veto it.

    If you pay attention to what he actually said, Obama did not make a claim that there was no Katrina aid. He also did not make a claim about the size of Katrina aid relative to 9/11 aid. He made a claim about the Stafford Act. He was pointing out, correctly, as Fox said, that “[FEMA] was unwilling [regarding Katrina] to waive the law’s 10 percent local match provision for aid, like it did after the Sept. 11 attacks.”

    florack citing mirengoff:

    On May 25, 2007, just weeks before Obama’s speech, the Bush administration sent an additional $6.9 billion to Katrina-affected areas with no strings attached.

    Obama’s speech was on 6/5/07. That was eleven days after 5/25/07. On what planet is it honest to describe 11 days as “weeks?”

    It’s also dishonest to say “additional … with no strings attached,” because this implies that previous grants also had “no strings attached.” That’s false. The bill Bush signed on 5/25/07 was the first instance of Bush finally waiving the Stafford Act of the benefit of Katrina. Obama’s complaint is this: why did it take so long? And at the time he spoke, no one in LA had seen any of that money yet, because Bush’s signature had barely dried on the bill.

  80. jukeboxgrad says:

    Oops, this:

    the first instance of Bush finally waiving the Stafford Act of the benefit of Katrina

    Should obviously be this:

    the first instance of Bush finally waiving the Stafford Act for the benefit of Katrina

  81. Eric Florack says:

    What Obama “voted against” was the version of the bill that tied the Katrina aid to the Iraq war. Instead, he voted for the version that didn’t tie Katrina aid to the Iraq war.

    Huh. So, apparently, his anti-war idiocy… his politics… was more important than helping black hurricane victims.
    Got it.

    Obama’s speech was on 6/5/07. That was eleven days after 5/25/07. On what planet is it honest to describe 11 days as “weeks?”

    Nearly two weeks. And are you suggesting Obama was so disconnected as to not know about it? Plausible, perhaps, but unlikely and certainly doesn’t paint a picture of someone who cared about the cause.

    Your position seems to lack an ability to defend it.

  82. jukeboxgrad says:

    So, apparently, his anti-war idiocy… his politics… was more important than helping black hurricane victims.

    So I guess you’re saying that Bush’s pro-war idiocy was more important than helping black hurricane victims? Because Bush blocked the other bill.

    are you suggesting Obama was so disconnected as to not know about it?

    I’m suggesting that Obama stated, correctly, that the Stafford Act was waived promptly after 9/11, and this was not done for Katrina. Obama asked this question: “Where’s your Stafford Act money?” That’s because none of it had arrived yet, because the GOP had blocked the waiver for so long.

    And you’re still ignoring a bunch of questions I asked.

    Your position seems to lack an ability to defend it.

    Your position is to ignore all questions and facts that you find inconvenient.

  83. Rob in CT says:

    Right in the motherfracking wallet.

    Wow, just saw this.

    Taxes: lowered.
    Economy: up. Not nearly as much as we’d like, but definitely up.

    By what f*cking measure, has the scary black man touched your wallet?

  84. Rick Almeida says:

    @Eric Florack:

    Thanks for the quote, Eric.

    I don’t see any language that explicitly mentions race or ethnicity at all. Is your argument that referencing “New Orleans” is code for “black people”?

  85. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @jukeboxgrad: So… basically, after all your Huffing and Puffing, you admit it: there was a bill that waived the Stafford requirement for New Orleans, and Obama voted against it.

    Thanks for the confirmation.

    And as far as lumping me in the same category as Paul Mirengoff, thanks! He’s been a fave of mine for years.

    You waste so, so much energy endlessly saying how me, him, and a host of others you don’t like have “no credibility.” Dude. do you have any idea how much you reek of desperation and flop sweat?

    Go and read up on yourself. It’ll do you some good.

  86. jukeboxgrad says:

    jenos:

    there was a bill that waived the Stafford requirement for New Orleans, and Obama voted against it

    Imagine this conversation:

    A) Harry didn’t eat last night.
    B) How do you know?
    A) I know he drove right by the restaurant and didn’t stop.
    B) Oh, OK.

    B then finds out that Harry drove past that restaurant and drove to another restaurant and had a nice dinner. Which means that B knows that A is dishonest. Part of A’s dishonesty is saying “the” restaurant, as if there’s only one.

    When you say “there was a bill that waived the Stafford requirement for New Orleans, and Obama voted against it” without mentioning that he voted for a different bill that did waive the requirement, you’re being dishonest.

    Let’s recall what you said:

    the vote for said exception was held a couple weeks before Obama’s speech. It passed overwhelmingly — and one of the 14 Senators who voted against it was one Barack Obama

    You’re being dishonest by saying “the vote,” because that implies there was only one vote. Trouble is, there wasn’t only one vote. (This is the same dishonest trick that A used when he said “the” restaurant.)

    Mirengoff said this:

    Obama was one of 14 Senators who voted against the waiver of the Stafford Act … Obama voted against the Stafford Act waiver

    Same dishonest use of “the.” Obama didn’t vote against “the” waiver. He voted against a waiver. There wasn’t just one “Stafford Act waiver.” Obama voted against this one because he voted for a different one. Mirengoff leaving that out is form of lying.

    So thanks for proving, yet again, how dishonest you folks are.

  87. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @jukeboxgrad: Tell me… do you take some kind of special pills to be as much of a pill as you are, or is it entirely natural? Some times, I swear you’re juicing.

  88. Rob in CT says:

    He’s got you on sustance, Jenos. You’ve got “oh, you’re annoying.”

    In some ways, a microcosm of Dems vs. GOP.

  89. mantis says:

    @Jay Tea’s dimwitted puppet Jenos Idanian #13:

    Tell me… do you take some kind of special pills to be as much of a pill as you are, or is it entirely natural?

    Awww, Jay doesn’t like when it is pointed out how dishonest he is for the umpteenth time. So unfair, this life.

  90. jukeboxgrad says:

    jenos:

    do you take some kind of special pills to be as much of a pill as you are, or is it entirely natural? Some times, I swear you’re juicing.

    Thanks for making it so obvious that you have nothing left with any remote resemblance to an actual argument.

    Florack is at least smart enough to shut his mouth and slither back under his rock.

  91. Eric Florack says:

    No, I simply recognize that dimwits such as yourself are not going to be swayed by fact. Supporting the left is your only goal, regardless of fact. It’s just downright fun exposing you on this stuff.

  92. Eric Florack says:

    @Rick Almeida: Obama certainly was. Consider the context of where and to whom Obama was speaking.

  93. jukeboxgrad says:

    I simply recognize that dimwits such as yourself are not going to be swayed by fact.

    Your concept of “fact” is well-illustrated by your long and growing record of telling brazen lies (example, example, example).

  94. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @jukeboxgrad: Thanks for making it so obvious that you have nothing left with any remote resemblance to an actual argument.

    You usually start off and end your “arguments” with personal attacks, which shows you have no interest in actual discussion. You seem to want to be the site’s version of Media Matters, with the same intent — to silence those whom you disagree with.

    It’s why I really should just ignore you entirely. God knows you’re not worth attempting to engage in discussion.

    Hey, remember that time I suggested we just ignore each other entirely?

  95. jukeboxgrad says:

    You usually start off and end your “arguments” with personal attacks

    When I say you have no credibility, that’s a factual observation backed by evidence (example). It also happens to be a personal attack, but it’s a personal attack that’s correct, substantiated, appropriate and relevant. As compared, say, with a statement like this:

    I swear you’re juicing.

    Or this:

    Circular douchebag

    There’s more where that came from.

    to silence those whom you disagree with

    On many occasions I have thanked you and your ilk for your inadvertent public service. This is sufficient to demonstrate that silencing you is the last thing I want to do. If you did a better job of vividly demonstrating that conservatives are ignorant and dishonest, people would think you’re a liberal’s sockpuppet.

    Also, as you may have noticed, this site runs on recycled electrons, which are relatively unlimited. For this and other reasons no commenter, including me, has any ability to “silence” you or anyone else. So this idea that someone is trying to “silence” you is exceptionally stupid. But thank you for that nice example of conservative victimhood.

    I also notice that you aren’t actually silent. Far from it. Another indication of how asinine it is for you to suggest that you’re being silenced.

    It’s why I really should just ignore you entirely.

    Promises, promises. I won’t bother citing the many times you’ve said this before. What can I do to support you in doing what you have repeatedly claimed you “should” be doing? I could recommend various self-help programs.

    Hey, remember that time I suggested we just ignore each other entirely?

    Yes, and I think you forgot my response.

    Why on earth would I want to ignore you? I’ve explained your inadvertent public service. Why would I want to no longer point it out and appreciate it? I know why you want me to stop doing that, but why on earth would I want to stop doing that?