snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 27 January 2007, 02:45 AM
Sara@home's Avatar
Sara@home Sara@home is offline
 
Join Date: 18 March 2004
Location: Reading, PA
Posts: 12,468
Default

Interesting that this showed up here on snopes weeks before it was printed in Insight. I wonder how long it was circulating (I'm assuming it was a forwarded email but I could be wrong) and where it started,
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 27 January 2007, 03:01 AM
Steve Eisenberg Steve Eisenberg is offline
 
Join Date: 15 October 2001
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 11,841
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnglRdr View Post
But who freakin' cares, already? It is about time we get over this meaningless horsehockey.
For sure. Then we can get back to thinking that Hillary Clinton has a unique ability to be slandered

This is unfair to Sen. Obama, but I am really worried about all the ugliness his candidacy is going to create. If he gets the nomination and loses, it is going to look to the world that we are a nation of bigots. I don't mind so much them thinking us a bunch of war-mongers, but the racism thing (especially if there is some considerable truth to it) will be a good deal worse.

The first minority member to reach high office tends to be from the conservative party. Thus Disraeli (born a Jew) and Thatcher were both Tories.

EDITED: I know. Women are a majority. But you perhaps get the idea.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 27 January 2007, 08:50 AM
Il-Mari's Avatar
Il-Mari Il-Mari is offline
 
Join Date: 27 January 2001
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,909
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eisenberg View Post
The first minority member to reach high office tends to be from the conservative party. Thus Disraeli (born a Jew) and Thatcher were both Tories.

EDITED: I know. Women are a majority. But you perhaps get the idea.
I'm curious - is this an actual trend that's been studied or just an observation made by you?

In Finland, the first woman president was from the Social Democratic Party, a center-left party that certainly wouldn't be counted as conservative.

- Il-Mari
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 27 January 2007, 10:41 AM
Steve Eisenberg Steve Eisenberg is offline
 
Join Date: 15 October 2001
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 11,841
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Il-Mari View Post
I'm curious - is this an actual trend that's been studied or just an observation made by you?

In Finland, the first woman president was from the Social Democratic Party, a center-left party that certainly wouldn't be counted as conservative.

- Il-Mari
Il Mari, it is not original to me. I believe in crediting the source of ideas I post, but, in this case, I cannot recall who it was.

Your counterexample is a good one.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 27 January 2007, 11:47 AM
Jonny T
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I stopped paying attention around here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
Obama takes great care to conceal the fact
that he is a Muslim while admitting that he was once a Muslim, mitigating
that damning information by saying that, for two years, he also attended a
Catholic school.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 28 January 2007, 06:53 AM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,660
Icon19 Sticks, Stones and Mr. Obama

It's become a fad among some conservatives to refer to the junior senator from Illinois by his full name: Barack Hussein Obama. This would be merely juvenile if it weren't so contemptible.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...012701097.html
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 29 January 2007, 04:51 AM
vison
 
Posts: n/a
This is just precious: "If he was raised in a secular household (as he claims), why does he have -- or retain -- Muslim names, Barack and Hussein?"

Um. How about if you were a Catholic but now you're a Protestant, couldn't you keep the name Mary or Peter or Paul? Like if you, you know, converted?

Or if you immigrated from Italy, would Gianni have to become Johnny? Would Maria have to become . . . oh . . .wait . . . Sharon?

Or, say, you were born in China and your name is Wong and you move to, oh, I don't know, Bugtussle, OK, would you have to take a name like Perkins, or Thorpe?

What a two years (100 days) you Americans are in for.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 29 January 2007, 06:08 AM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,660
Icon402

And why does our current president retain the same name as the tyrannical monarch against whom our brave patriots rebelled in the name of liberty? Traitor!

- snopes
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 29 January 2007, 05:54 PM
vison
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
And why does our current president retain the same name as the tyrannical monarch against whom our brave patriots rebelled in the name of liberty? Traitor!

- snopes
Holy cats!!! You're right!!!! Please bring this to the attention of the Powers That Be, immediately!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 29 January 2007, 07:20 PM
Silas Sparkhammer's Avatar
Silas Sparkhammer Silas Sparkhammer is offline
 
Join Date: 22 September 2000
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 26,843
Whalephant

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
And why does our current president retain the same name as the tyrannical monarch against whom our brave patriots rebelled in the name of liberty? Traitor!
i.e., the Whisky Rebellion...

Silas
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 29 January 2007, 08:26 PM
Buckle Up's Avatar
Buckle Up Buckle Up is offline
 
Join Date: 23 October 2006
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 6,163
Theme Icon

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
Even worse, it puts him in the position of having to vehemently deny ever having been Muslim, thereby essentially endorsing the viewpoint that it's something completely unpardonable and shameful. The same way that, fifty years ago or more, he'd probably have had to disclaim being half-black.
Well said. This is exactly what was troubling me so much about the controversy - that so much attention was being focused on denials of his Muslim background or sympathies, instead of being focused on the bigoted nature of the "accusations" in the first place. I can't imagine how difficult it must be to be a Muslim living here in the States these days...to expose onesself to even more attacks by running for office is very courageous.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 29 January 2007, 08:38 PM
Doug4.7
 
Posts: n/a
TV

Of course, as I read this thread, I hear that Rush song in the back of my head...

I'm not giving in
To security under pressure
I'm not missing out
On the promise of adventure
I'm not giving up
On implausible dreams
Experience to extremes...
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 30 January 2007, 04:35 PM
AnglRdr's Avatar
AnglRdr AnglRdr is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 50,681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eisenberg View Post
For sure. Then we can get back to thinking that Hillary Clinton has a unique ability to be slandered

This is unfair to Sen. Obama, but I am really worried about all the ugliness his candidacy is going to create. If he gets the nomination and loses, it is going to look to the world that we are a nation of bigots. I don't mind so much them thinking us a bunch of war-mongers, but the racism thing (especially if there is some considerable truth to it) will be a good deal worse.
Hmmm...If we are a nation of bigots, what good is denying the truth?

Quote:
The first minority member to reach high office tends to be from the conservative party. Thus Disraeli (born a Jew) and Thatcher were both Tories.
This does not necessarily hold true (see also, Ms. Ghandi).
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 01 February 2007, 10:31 AM
Tarquin Farquart's Avatar
Tarquin Farquart Tarquin Farquart is offline
 
Join Date: 20 November 2005
Location: London, UK
Posts: 16,354
Default

Obama Freezes FOX Out Of Campaign After Erroneous Madrassah Story

Quote:
These are chilly days on Capitol Hill ... and on the campaign trail for Fox News journalists -- at least when they're anywhere near Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 03 February 2007, 01:37 PM
Sara@home's Avatar
Sara@home Sara@home is offline
 
Join Date: 18 March 2004
Location: Reading, PA
Posts: 12,468
Default "But CBS......."

Right wing ditz, Michelle Malkin, defends FoxNews with the "But CBS...." whine.

She praises FoxNews for "immediate acknowledgement of error in repeating the false charges and despite the fact that Fox didn't originate the story." She fails to mention that FoxNews apparently didn't check squat about the story. It showed up here on snopes two weeks earlier and took me about an hour to prove it was false. Any halfway intelligent and informed person should have had the same shit detector go off as did whomever submitted that email (I presume) to snopes. But since intelligence and information are second (at best) to politics at FoxNews, they ran with it and made it a part of their cable telecasts.

She dug up a piece by a CBS reporter which appeared only on the CBS site that linked to some footage allegedly from an al-Qaida video which was not credited to al-Qaida in the piece. The media is suppose to come down as hard on CBS for that as they did on FoxNews and Insight for their treatment of the Obama urban legend.

This can't be the first variation on "But Clinton....", it has to be just the first time I noticed.

Did anyone hear her whining in your head when you read her column?

ETA: I just had to add a comment about Insight's denial that they were reporting these things about Obama but were instead reporting what they allege was coming from the Clinton campaign.
1. I don't believe anyone from the Clinton campaign would be so stupid to push this crap. Obama is her opponent in the Democratic primary, not the general election and they would have to know that this sort of pack of lies plays to the conservative right element of the Republican Party than to the Democratic Party.
2. Insight repeated in great detail the lies about Obama, continually mentioning that the information was coming from an unnamed Clinton source but all the while knowing it wasn't true, a fact they proved by debunking it through there own research at the end of the piece. The story was carefully crafted to both spread lies about Obama and to make Hillary Clinton responsible for those lies. If they really wanted only to point out that the Clinton campaign is spreading lies about Obama (which, again, I don't believe, I think they got their info from an email like everyone else) they would have mentioned that the linformation wasn't true earlier in their piece.

ETA2: Medial Matters has a timeline for this piece. First mention of the email was in Eric Zorn's column in the Chicago Tribune on January 9th. It had already been on snopes for 8 days. But we weren't the first:
Quote:
On December 13, Jason Zengerle, editor of The Plank, the weblog of The New Republic, predicted that Republicans would "launch a savage and despicable whispering campaign against the guy (Barack Hussein Obama, etc.) and then blame it all on Hillary."

Last edited by Sara@home; 03 February 2007 at 02:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 03 February 2007, 08:56 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,660
Reporter

Quote:
She praises FoxNews for "immediate acknowledgement of error in repeating the false charges and despite the fact that Fox didn't originate the story."
Yet another fine purveyor of the "some guy said" brand of journalism.

Quote:
Republicans would "launch a savage and despicable whispering campaign against the guy (Barack Hussein Obama, etc.) and then blame it all on Hillary."
But of course. Hillary looks much more likely (at least for now) to be the Democratic nominee and possible victor in 2008. How to scuttle her campaign? Smearing her to other Republicans won't accomplish much as all that's long since been done, and Republicans aren't going to vote for her in the first place. But smear her to other Democrats (by making it look like she's launched a scurrilous secret campaign against one of her challengers), and maybe enough Democrats will opt to support someone else as their party's presidential nomination -- someone with a much lesser chance of winning the White House.

- snopes
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 05 February 2007, 05:56 AM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,660
Icon84 Feeding frenzy for a big story, even if it's false

Jeffrey T. Kuhner, whose Web site published the first anonymous smear of the 2008 presidential race, is hardly the only editor who will not reveal his reporters' sources. What sets him apart is that he will not even disclose the names of his reporters.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/...0129rumour.php
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 06 February 2007, 02:34 PM
matches
 
Posts: n/a
Shifty Eyes The Hillary Connection

I don't watch Fox News, nor do I read Insight Magazine.

How are they sourcing the Clinton camp as the origin of the story?

Are they suggesting that the original email reprinted here is the result of a Clinton operative?

Obviously, as it predates the news reports, the email is the origin of the story (especially since it would be impossible to independently research something that never happened) so how are they saying this talk is comming from the Clinton camp?

Any one got a thought, or is this just more legend and hear say?

Honestly, I can't put it past anyone not to start a whispering campaign against their opponents, even if they are on the same side of the asile, but I likewise wouldn't want to accept a story from such obviously poor news services.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 06 February 2007, 03:54 PM
Sara@home's Avatar
Sara@home Sara@home is offline
 
Join Date: 18 March 2004
Location: Reading, PA
Posts: 12,468
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by matches View Post
I don't watch Fox News, nor do I read Insight Magazine.

How are they sourcing the Clinton camp as the origin of the story?
The link in post #18 will take you to the original Insight story and you can read it for yourself. Essentially it's secret sources inside the Clinton campaign.

Quote:
Originally Posted by matches View Post
Are they suggesting that the original email reprinted here is the result of a Clinton operative?
Insight doesn't mention the email.

Quote:
Originally Posted by matches View Post
IHonestly, I can't put it past anyone not to start a whispering campaign against their opponents, even if they are on the same side of the asile, but I likewise wouldn't want to accept a story from such obviously poor news services.
Oh, that FoxNews had your standards.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 06 February 2007, 07:57 PM
matches
 
Posts: n/a
Icon05 Thanks for the Link Sara

However, Now I'm more confused than ever.

In truth, if the Insight report is taken at face value, it doesn't seem to be the hatchet job that is implied.

They did (at least in the version I read, which could have been updated after the fact) acknowledge their own lack of independent verification of the story, and gave Mr. Obama's side of the story from his book.

The real question is, was this a story shopped by Ms. Clinton's office to various news agencies.

I assume she has issued a statement denying the acusation, which one would expect.

In truth I can't imagine that a Clinton source would allow themselves to be identified as such with regard to a Bogus article.

Given the promenant way that the Clinton official is sourced, I would say that the most logical argument is either a) a disgruntled former employee trying to discredit their employer or b) Non Clinton operative (though not necessarily a republican operative) passing themselves off as a Clinton operative in the hopes of discrediting Ms. Clinton.

Honestly it all seems a little ham handed not to be an intentional smear on Clinton. Although I can see certain Republican operatives seeking to hurt Clinton, I find this to be a rather circuitous route for the Republicans to take.

In truth, one could argue that Obama and Clinton as front runners are good for the GOP as both are junior Senators, and both will have to overcome certain prejudices in our country to win the White House. Having either as the candidate, arguably, could work out in the Republican's favor better than say an Edwards, Gore, or Richardson run.

It is a curious thing, unless of course it is made from whole cloth by Insight, which seems a little machiavellian to me, but who know what an internet publication might be capable of.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.