the only groups making such calls at this moment would be groups that wished to prevent Obama from winning the California primary next Tuesday -- that is, groups that favor Clinton.

But, still, why are you so sure the call arises from one-dimensional intra-party dynamics rather than two-dimensional inter-party dynamics?

There are a lot of Republicans who "favor Clinton," too, in the sense that they'd prefer to run against her.

Or of course it could be praising Obama in a parodic way to make you suspect Clinton and thus turn against Clinton, thereby redounding to Obama's advantage.

Or it could be dirty tricks by miscellaneous troublemakers, trolls and nincompoops, a whole world of whom, regrettably, exists.

Keep digging.

So far this sounds like Romney's anti-Mormon push-polls, only aimed to discredit Clinton. Dial into liberal areas with an obvious fraud call from "Clinton supporters". Putting elected officials on the call list helps the smear get press coverage.

It is working like a charm.

Isn't the elephant in the room that your friend is a Westside Jew and the call probably originated from a "Jewish" group that supports Clinton?

OK... based on the above post by elephant, I feel justified in saying that HRC supporters have officially lost their damn minds.

My post occasioned some indignation when I surmised the call came from operatives working for some organization that supported Hillary Clinton. I'm sure it didn't come from the Clinton campaign itself

But that isn't exactly what you surmised, is it? In your original post, which (before it was judiciously edited) you wrote:

it looks like the Clinton campaign, or that of one of the groups campaigning on her behalf, is playing the race card discreetly -- and despicably.

The original post was bad enough. Now you're lying in our faces about what it said. Talk about despicable...

It's all well and good to surmise things, based on years of experience... it's just not actual, you know, proof of anything. I agree that stuff like this is offensive and outgh not to be done; but I think the problem with this stuff is that the reports of it are highly anecdotal, usually involve "some guy" who "got a call" and little else. If this stuff is as organized as everyone insists, then surely there's a firm that makes these calls or gets people to do them... why the heck can't some intrepid journalist actually do the legwork and get this story? at least find out which "group" organizes it? Until then, this is just anecdotes and suppositions, and while it doesn't make me feel better about the campaign cycle, it's not enough for me to draw a conclusion.

Keep digging. Sloppy, sloppy journalism!

Look, a speculative first post is one thing. But to come back and post a second time to defend your speculation by *more speculation* is really pretty indefensible. If you haven't been able to either truly test or prove your suspicions by this time you either a) aren't trying, b) can't do it. In either case its a kind of journalistic malpractice to continue to flog this dead horse. And introducing the bona fides of "your friend" and "your experience" as proof of baseless assertion? Even more embarrassing.

aimai

Isn't the likeliest explanation that the call originates from the Obama campaign? It's obviously an effort to discredit the Clinton campaign, and it's working thanks to Obama injecting race into the campaign and your baseless allegations.

You're full of shit, Harold. And I really don't appreciate your making stuff like this up just to score your candidate Jesus Christ Hussein Obama a few point.

This is dirty politics, and I'm calling you on it.

I don't understand how we are supposed to take this seriously. What did the caller say?

Obama has a volunteer program though his website through which anyone can make calls around the country to primary voters.

There's just no proof here that this call was anything but an earnest call on behalf of Obama, or a prank played by an individual.

A comments in Part1 mentioned a reader revolt.

If there's a reader revolt I hope it's against the hyper-sensitive, hyper-partisan commenters who fly off the handle at any criticism of their favored candidate. It's been pretty annoying, and up to this point I thought the Obama-ites were worse.

I see nothing wrong with H.M. thinking that an anti-Obama call originates with supporters of Obama's opponent. What's he supposed to do? Ignore it? But it seems noteworthy to me. Post that, contrary to past experience, it's just a very, very, counter-productive Obama supporters rather than L.A.-style dirty tricks? Or that it _couldn't_ have been anyone on Clinton's side because, well, because Democrats can't be slimeballs? Well - No, and No. He did what he should have done.

Sure, the original post could have been more clear, especially about who exactly he thought was most likely behind the call: Someone doing so with H.C.'s blessing or just local L.A. slime.

But I don't see H.M.'s failure to ring his posting with a fortress of comforting qualifiers as a failure in his writing. Rather, it was a failure to anticipate how many reader's brains would fuzz out the "seems", discount his past experiences (Which are a large part of why we're reading him at all, yes?), and completely shut down before the highly significant "or" in the original post's final sentence.

I think Peter Dou's response went too far in calling the original post "outrageous" - unless P.D. thinks H.M. is simply a complete liar. OTOH, it's basically his job. And I'll take the strength of the denial and reaction as a sign that Clinton would agree that the calls are despicable no matter who they come from.

V.O.R.
That's a pretty stunningly moronic view of journalism and journalists. No "he's not supposed to ignore something" but he's not supposed to represent something about which he seems to know little or nothing as something that its not.

The question isn't whether there are or aren't dirty tricks in campaigns but whether a single phone call that Meyerson hasn't bothered to actually investigate is proof positive of a dirty trick, by a single campaign, at this point in time.

A smear is a smear is a smear whether its "fuzzed" with a "seems" or trails off at the end. Again, the question isn't (as the obama people want to have it be) some kind of vice vs virtue question. Its not "is HM an evil person for putting up musings on a webblog" its actually much more cut and dried than that. Muse once, sure, but after that serious readers want *facts* and this is utterly lacking in anything approaching facts. Its a pity that meyerson correctly diagnosed that some significant portion of his obama readers prefer innuendo to facts.

aimai

VOR--When someone, without evidence, accuses your candidate of hiring an "Amos-n-Andy" impersonator to lambast an African-American opponent, I think a little bit of outrage amongst her supporters is wholly justified. And I honestly don't care what sort of experience Harold Meyerson has covering two-bit mayoral races in Los Angeles, or whether the same tactics were used 30 years ago against Tom Bradley (which is where I'm assuming his previous experience came from). When one makes baseless allegations, at least support them by citing analogous experiences in the past. General election mayoral races from 20 years are in no way, shape, or form comparable to a DEMOCRATIC presidential primary in 2008, where a misstep of the kind Meyerson is accusing HRC of making would be fatal. And his lame "some of my best friends are HRC supporters" defense makes me shudder at its sheer inanity. My mother is voting for Obama--can I post outrageous claims about him for public consumption? The bare bones standards of blogging demand something more substantive before an accusation like this is made. I'm fine with Meyerson stating that his friend received a call, but idle gossip has no place here. Bring back Dana Goldstein. Clearly Meyerson is talking like he's at one of these DC cocktail parties where this kind of tripe passes for casual conversation. The public doesn't need your reflexive anti-Clinton bias anymore, Harold. We've made up our minds---both of our candidates are outstanding.

... and it is highly reasonable to conclude that the only groups making such calls at this moment would be groups that wished to prevent Obama from winning the California primary next Tuesday -- that is, groups that favor Clinton.

No it is not. It is not reasonable to assume anything of the sort.

Let's recall, for the slow learners with poor memories, the last batch sensational of dirty robo-calls came from a Republican (see TPM).

As you've described him, your buddy from Sacto is not too imaginative. CA GOP dirty-tricksters have funded Green candidates (SD15), ran illegal phone banks claiming to be Democrats, and trumped up a recall election. And these examples sell short solo entrepreneurial efforts that never make the front page.

The fact is, you don't have facts, and this call could have been from anyone.

As I read this post, my reaction was exactly that expressed by FlipYrWhig. The false flag is a hallmark of the modern Republican ratfucking operation. Any risk/benefit analysis of an on-the-level operation like this would say that you shouldn't do it. So why do assume anyone actually would, if they were actually assuming the risk?

Harold Meyerson: you are a dishonest, race-baiting creep.

Even if one assumed that some Clinton supporters were behind this (a big assumption)-so? As you say yourself, Hillary and her campaign aren't behind it, so it isn't their fault if some supporters decided to do this. So what's the point? That false telephone calls are bad? Yes, we all get that. And?

All indications are that most Hillary supporters will vote for Obama if he is the nominee. But will Obama supporters vote Hillary if the reverse is true?

Since the odds remain good that Hillary will be the nominee, Obama supporters who want to see a Democratic President had better start being careful about painting Hillary as the dark side of the Force.

I'm with tdraicer on this. I'm voting for a Democrat in November and I feel no qualms about saying that bluntly mostly because there is barely a hair's width of distance between HRC and BO. But I'm quickly getting tired of this Evil Shrew vs. Saint Obama thinking on progressive web sites. Yah- that's really going to help us in November if HRC is the candidate! I'd say both Harold and his friend need to be a little more imaginative - I can easily see four possibilities: 1) Obama supporter lacking self awareness making call; 2) Evil Shrew supporter being a dumbass; 3) Obama supporter pulling a 'Rommney' (Mormon calls); 4)Republican rat fucker throwing sand in the gears. The fact that two older folks immersed in politics (Harold and his older friend who 'supports' Hillary) couldn't think of these possibilities before Meyerson posts his two blog posts, is simply amazing.

For the record, here is the original offending text:

HILLARY PLAYS THE RACE CARD

[...] Looks like the same thing is happening now in selected neighborhoods as a Clinton ploy against Obama.

With the race narrowed down to two candidates, deniability is getting harder. And if this call was what it seemed to be, it looks like the Clinton campaign, or that of one of the groups campaigning on her behalf, is playing the race card discreetly -- and despicably.

It doesn't reconcile too well with the current post, does it?

VOR:
I see nothing wrong with H.M. thinking that an anti-Obama call originates with supporters of Obama's opponent.

TDRaicer:
As you say yourself, Hillary and her campaign aren't behind it,

To reiterate: In his original post, Myerson didn't just say he thought the call originated with Clinton supporters; he said it was either Clinton supporters or the Clinton campaign itself.

That part of his post got so many complaints it had to be edited out. Now he's trying to pretend he never included the possibility that the call came from the Clinton campaign.

So whatever sins he committed in his reporting on the call to start with, he's compounded them by not being straight with his readers.

corrected html:

HILLARY PLAYS THE RACE CARD

[...] Looks like the same thing is happening now in selected neighborhoods as a Clinton ploy against Obama.

With the race narrowed down to two candidates, deniability is getting harder. And if this call was what it seemed to be, it looks like the Clinton campaign, or that of one of the groups campaigning on her behalf, is playing the race card discreetly -- and despicably.

It doesn't reconcile too well with the current post, does it?

To reiterate - the fact that the possibility that Republican supports would like to make these sorts of calls to sew the dissent that one sees in this comment section doesn't even enter Meyerson's mind is extremely disturbing. This is a primary problem of the current Democratic Party and its hanger-ons - its dominated by older folks who just can't bring themselves to imagine that Republicans will do unethical things to win.

Yes, DougMN, it's all the fault of the "older folks." Did you learn that at the last Obamacon meeting you attended? What a snot-nosed moron.

And this is why journalists "feign innocence" about things they have extensive knowledge on - people will only deign to consider mere human judgment if they agree with the conclusion already.

Occam's razorburn, much?

Christie - how bout you read both of my comments nimrod. I'm far from an Obamamaniac. If you don't see that that jackass older dems like Lieberman who just want to get along with our 'friends' on the other side of the aisle, and older left-leaning reporters like Meyerson, who just can't imagine Republicans being behind dirty tricks are part of the problem, you haven't been paying attention. And Obama's Kumbaya/post partisan crap is his most annoying feature. You can shove your Obamacon comment up your ass.

It's sad that such a progressive voice like yourself has stoop so low as to race bate in this historic election. This does our party so much harm. No matter who you support.

Well I would think like this:

1. It is a clinton supporting campaign trying to get people to vote against Obama.

2. It is an Obama campaign trying to discredit Clinton.

3. It is a republican campaign trying to get Clinton to win.

4. it is a republican campaign trying to discredit Clinton.

Now, the thing I can't figure out why you are saying that the obvious conclusion it is

1. I figure the obvious conclusion is either 3 or 4. Why is that? Well the following:

1. This is in the tradition of Republican dirty tricks against Democrats. If they did this during the democrat primary they also lay the ground for getting people against the Democrats when it finally comes to the election.

2. Republicans would be better at doing this trick, as it is in their standard arsenal.

3. I would expect if it was 1 or 2 we would know about it because some Democrats would have quit in indignation by now.

4. At any rate would a Democratic campaign want to run the risk of having people quit over such an issue?

5. The narrative of the last few weeks is based around painting the Democratic party as being secretly racist. If a campaign is run suggesting that Clinton is running a secretly racist anti-Obama campaign then it justifies the accusations of Democratic racism, helping to split the party. This narrative is also pushed by Republican spin.

6. Would a Democratic campaign believe that they could split off Democratic votes in a traditionally Republican manner?

For all these reasons I believe it is a Republican dirty tricks campaign. You may be right or I may be right, but the fact that you didn't even entertain the suspicion makes me wonder why you didn't. There could be many reasons why you didn't entertain the suspicion, some people in this thread have already accused you of bad faith. I'm just assuming you lack mental acuity.

I cannot empirically verify that the call came from some group backing Hillary Clinton. But based on my knowledge of L.A. elections, I certainly believe it came from such a group, and the odds that it didn't are roughly the odds that O.J. was innocent.

You rat bastard. You have no business making an assertion that you cannot provide evidence for.

Remember this: When you point a finger at someone, there are three fingers pointing right back at you. Tell me again who's playing the race card?

You, sir, are a despicable hack and a blatant liar! People like you have no business anywhere near a newspaper or blog. You are what is wrong with the press.

I can't type fast enough for your screen

You lying hack, now you've done it again. You are despicable and should be kicked to the curb NOW.

Let me get this straight: Your friend gets a phone call supporting Obama. The call is made by someone who speaks Ebonics. You immediately assume that there could not possibly be any Obama supporters who speak Ebonics? Newsflash: both campaigns have supporters who speak Ebonics. Where is the offensive part? That people speak Ebonics? That rich, white Jews--some of whom support Obama--don't know this and would be offended?

You're the racist here, pal.

Harold's conclusion was the obvious one. Supporting a candidate by pretending to support another in a way that will alienate voters is a well-known "dirty" campaign tactic. It's usually assumed to be coming from the opposing side in an election that's happening soon. As Bryan points out, other explanations are certainly possible. And any conclusion as to the source is speculative, since little information is available from the call itself and the source is extremely hard to trace.

So Harold's speculative conclusion may be wrong. But does that justify the insults that have been posted in response?

Where are all these trolls coming from? Such righteous indignation seems overdone.

AIPAC or the boys from Mossad could have been behind it (perhaps with a bit of Rethug help). They desperately want to keep Obama out of the White Hs: Their plan would be to make Obama look bad trying to make Hillary look bad so that they can keep their stranglehold on Mid East policy (Hillary's of course in their pocket and will stay there if she wins).

Well, I think we've come full circle with the last anonymous post at 8:10 in which it is "the jews" who are blamed.

Let me say this in words of almost one syllable to Daniel, neau mor and anonymous at 8:10.

It is not clear that this is a "dirty trick" of any kind. It is not clear that this is a *campaign dirty trick* by a particular campaign. Ascertaining the origin, spread, and significance of this mildly problematic phone call is a reporters job. Reporting as fact a baseless and stupid assumption by one person (meyerson) is *bad reporting.* It doesn't belong here on this blog. so, yes, Daniel, harold's "speculative conclusion" may not only be wrong *it is wrong to speculate* so baselessly. See, Peggy Noonan's line was always "would it be wrong to speculate--it would be wrong not to" but that is because she is *republican operative* intent on tearing the democratic party down. Meyerson is posing as a thoughtful journalist/reporter. This post is an embarrassment and the fact that so many posters came here to complain about it is the only thing that gives me hope that this primary isn't totally gutting what little sense was left in the party.

aimai

For what its worth, Taylor Marsh is a failed actress who runs a site that fair-minded individuals call the skidmark on the underwear that is the internet - filled with baseless smears about Obama that come across like they were penned by a scorned teenager. She is a Clinton shill who resembles a baboons ass. The end.

Wasn't Taylor Marsh one of the women featured in the 2 girls 1 cup" video?

Most of the negative comments are coming from all the bottom feeders who read Taylor Marsh's blog - an Obama smear site where she embarrasses herself on a daily basis by reporting seriously on things like "Snub-gate". Yes, she's a hack who looks like she uses fireworks to style her hair. Yes, she's a paid Clinton shill willing to say anything.(like Clinton) Yes, on her best days, she looks like she was savagely beaten with a bag of Soda's.

Blogga, Please.

You flat out lied and accused the Clinton camp of making the calls in your original post. taylormarsh.com has a screen cap of your unedited original post.

You're a disgusting, race-baiting charlatan and now have zero credibility. I hope your employers get wind of the dog mess you tried to perpetrate.

re: "I cannot empirically verify that the call came from some group backing Hillary Clinton."

I couldn't empirically verify Kaus and the goats, either.

Come on folks! What's with the nasty over-reaction to the original posts (and especially the folks bringing race and religion into their comments in demeaning ways)? Clearly there's no proof here one could take to court, but the author and his friend's experiences are something I respect.
My first reaction was that a few Hillary supporters, seeing the tide turn, are way beyond defensive to the point of paranoia. But I think it may be more than that.
Most importantly, doesn't all of this point to the need for a new politics, as Obama is arguing?

I am surprised by the juvenile reaction of some of Obama's supporters here.

None of them is willing to recognize that what Harold Meyerson did here is pretty irresponsible journalism, no wonder the WaPo is on death watch.

Why all the gratuitous insults at Taylor Marsh and why go after her looks and her hair like a couple of BO's supporters did here.

As a Black person, I have seriously been offended by the fact that people like Harold Meyerson and other in the MSM are willing to use us as a club to bludgeon the Clintons if they think that could eliminate them once for all.

That is very hurtful and it doesn't help Obama in the long run, in addition to the fact that it hurts the country.

Racism is a very charged issue and it behooves all of us to be careful with it.

>Most importantly, doesn't all of this point to the need for a new politics, as Obama is arguing?

No, it doesn't. (for one thing, a new style of politics would require the GOP to play along. I wouldn't count on that.)

It doesn't actually point to anything since it is sheer speculation based on a single anecdote that some Obama supporters want to take as a reason to support Obama, apparently regardless of whether it is true.

Frankly, I expected better of both HM and Tapped.

'She is a Clinton shill who resembles a ________. The end.'

This is the 'new kind of politics' Obama promises. And if there's a hack in the house, I nominate Meyerson.

L.A. -- the land of Rodney King and Mark Fuhrman -- but Myerson's first instinct was the Clinton campaign. We got these kinds of things over the police scanners in NYC when we had a black mayor. My first suspicion would be someone in LAPD. A racist wouldn't be a Clinton supporter to begin with. And from the description of the call, it could have been a Chris Rock recording.

What's with the gratuitous O.J. remark? The vast majority of black people thought O.J. was innocent--is Meyerson saying we're stupid? Sorry, but it sounds like Meyerson is just working through some unconscious race issues of his own. Neither Part 1 nor Part 2 sound rational to me.

Mr Meyerson.

I am an original subscriber to the American Prospect. For years I kept the first issue. I have always treasured the magazine and have almost always found your insights valuable.

But if you had no reason, no basis for believing her campaign had anything to do with it or knew anything about it nor would they condone it, and as the first poster explained it could just as easily be a Republican dirty trick....then why would you write about it?

This harms her by implication. No matter how many caveats, how many times you say youknow her campaign had nothing to do with it. Then what does writing about it prove? Maybe this is tactic that Republicans would use against him if he wins the nomination.

You have cast a shodow of suspicion that even you admit has absolutelu no justification.

Thre was no reason to post this at all, esp. since it could just as easily have been Republicans.

I am enormously disappointed in your judgement.

Mr. Meyerson

I read this post first and the original one second. I think there are so many other equally or more plausible explantions for those calls from Republican dirty tricks to an Obama supporter from somewhere with a heavy accent calling into the important state of California....that the only ethical and responsible thing to do is to just scrub both posts from the site.

That is the only way you can correct what is a very egregious error that even you admit you made.

I have read you long enough to think you are an honorable man....and that is the honorable thing to do.

So what offensive statements were made in the call? So far I've seen nothing except that the voice was high-decibel and in an exaggerated AA speech pattern. It's hard to imagine someone going to the trouble of making a harm-Obama call that in fact does nothing but 'sing his praises' and without using any terms insulting to your friend which he could quote.

By Occam's Razor, more likely some sincere Obama supporter in the Deep South was connected through a phone bank with a too-high volume.

Reprehensibly sloppy journalism. In LA, you should know better than to post such an inflammatory projection. This sort of thing harms the credibility of this publication.

It is not clear that this is a "dirty trick" of any kind. It is not clear that this is a *campaign dirty trick* by a particular campaign.

True. I should have considered that possibility in my earlier post.

Ascertaining the origin, spread, and significance of this mildly problematic phone call is a reporters job. Reporting as fact a baseless and stupid assumption by one person (meyerson) is *bad reporting.* It doesn't belong here on this blog. so, yes, Daniel, harold's "speculative conclusion" may not only be wrong *it is wrong to speculate* so baselessly.

Perhaps. But I'm not sure that I would consider this kind of blog post to be "reporting". Going beyond a just-the-facts approach is what makes blogs interesting reading, at least to me.

Seriously, is there anyone who can tell me, with a straight face, that a push-call using an exaggerated stereotyped minority voice to support a politician of that same minority *isn't* a hit job? I mean, have you people *ever* worked on a political campaign south of the Mason-Dixon?

That's not to say that this is something from the Hillary campaign (certainly not), nor from an associated group out on its own (almost certainly not). I'd agree that this sounds like a right-wing group doing some undermining, probably with the primary aim of hurting Obama on Tuesday with a secondary aim of causing dissent in the Democratic ranks.

Too bad that it seems to be working.

On further thought, it is kind of fun to take the far-fetched worst case assumption of malice aforethought (it's a conspiracy, it's a conspiracy!) and speculate about the most likely suspects.

Consider risk/benefit. The risk of such a tactic is that it only takes ONE callee quick enough to record the call and/or trace it -- to get your campaign VERY bad publicity. Why take that risk, when your candidate is going into the election ahead in the polls already? Such mischief (in reverse mode) is more likely to come from the desperate candidate.

Consider efficient use of phone volunteer time. The subtle plot you describe -- appearing to praise BO in hopes of offending the callee -- would have to hit just the right balance in order to serve BO's opponent. Someone less easily offended than your friend (you stll haven't said just WHAT offended him), might take the praise of BO at face value, and be influenced to vote for BO. For a BO supporter, this is a win-win situation -- either BO gets a vote, or the call is blamed on Hillary so she loses a vote -- but for a Hillary supporter, it's a lose-lose situation.

Consider consideration of factors like the above -- or lack of it. BO's people are known for stunts and 'gaming': "Democrat for a Day" to pack the Dems' primaries with GOP, campaigning for "uncommitted" in Michigan -- and Obama's entry into Illinois politics by getting ALL his opponents removed from the ballot.{1}
a
{1} reference Chicago Tribune profile segment "Showing his bare knuckles."

I just have to agree that this mystery report is the kind of thing that's driving us all APART. It's like the bigger war inside the party right now where race and gender are DIVIDING US NOT UNITING US irregardless of whoever is doing the spinning, lying, etc. What we need right now and hopefully can get soon is agreement among ALL DEMOCRATS that we going to be putting up absolutely the best ticket possible that'll UNITE US ALL AND BRING CHANGE for our whole country in the FUTURE—and it’s CLINTON/OBAMA OR OBAMA/CLINTON. It really doesn't matter who's first on this All Democratic Party All America unity ticket, we've just got to get to the REAL ISSUES and the FULL UNITY that will win the election and keep out the Republican lying, corrupt, warmongering fat cats who are destroying us. WE NEED THE LESSON OF UNITY RIGHT NOW BECAUSE WE CAN WIN TOGETHER AND FIX THE COUNTRY AFTER BUSH.

Mr. Meyerson,

Where's your new post reporting that some Clinton operatives showed up to comment in this thread posing as over-the-top Obama fanatics who go around raging at Taylor Marsh?

Based on your knowledge the blogosphere and odds, you certainly must believe those comments came from such operatives.

Well, but did you hear it?

Maybe your friend is just a sheltered person who turned green when he picked up the receiver and-- horrors!-- there was a negroe on the phone!!

Case in point: I don't see any negroes around these here parts...

PS. I'm not a Clinton supporter.

Pathetic. Simply pathetic. So much for paying any attention to Myerson anymore. No matter. Plenty of other gasbags to read.

Good Lord, what a depressing comments thread. Everybody complains about the media's bullshit "evenhanded" reporting style -- "X says world is flat, Y says its round!"

Now, when HM offers his judgment based on his experience and expertise, idiots want him kicked to the curb. Again, the call was judged by HM (Obama supporter) and his friend (Clinton supporter) to have been designed to undermine Obama. Both have long and varied experience in LA politics. Reasons have been offered for the judgments.

What the hell else do you want from a blog post?

A factor I forgot to mention: we're in a MSM atmosphere were ANY crap that gets stirred up, gets thrown at the Clintons, and none ever sticks to Obama.

Otherwise I'd suggest taping some of Barack's and Michelle's AA speech pattern lines ("Ain't no white folks in Iowa" ... "bamboozled") and see how the friend reacts. Or maybe some of the pastor's sermons at BO's church.

Marcel---I don't care whether the judgment was made by Bill and Hillary Clinton themselves, without a shred of evidence this kind of pernicious speculation only hurts our political discourse.

Am I the only one who's noticed that Meyerson's post looks more plausible in light of other recent reports about Clinton-favoring push-polling? See the LA Times' post:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/02/breaking-news-p.html

Lmao, the lot of you are pathetic. When Hillary loses in November due to an anemic turn-out within the black community, I hope you all remember this.

But no, you'll blame Obama and pretend black people are too stupid to realize the truth for themselves.

Late Update: A closer review suggests some skepticism about this story. The 'push-poll' reportedly was 20 minutes long, which is much longer than is ever cost-effective for a push-poll. And the Times seemed to go with this with a single person who claimed to have gotten the call. I should have scrutinized the LAT post more closely.

Am I the only one who's noticed that Meyerson's post looks more plausible in light of other recent reports about Clinton-favoring push-polling?

Am I the only one who's noticed that two LA Times-affiliated writers made dubious accusations about the Clinton campaign push-polling that stand to benefit Obama?

this is trash. Find a source before you report, preferably two actual human beings.

What is this drivel besides attempting to delude people?

I don't care what you want it to mean, I might care what it meant if you bothered to find out what actually may have happened.

I have a friend who saw a UFO that doesn't mean anything. It certainly doesn't mean that the Clinton campaign is engaged in the fabrication of UFO sightings to discredit the USAF.

You're inane suppositions make as much sense.

Go work for Fox if you really must be a well poisoner, your "talents" are wasted here.

If you must keep writing, learn your damn job. Such garbage.

If you understood the call to be an over-the-top minstrel-show-style parody of black dialect, but the call turned out to be from a genuine Obama supporter, how would you feel about that?

Why has this bullshit not been pulled? It's obviously total crap.

i just hope the call didn't come from the obama camp. based on john lewis's statement about obama pulling the race card and blaming it on the clintons in south carolina, i wouldn't put it past obama to do this.

This story reminds me of the Bob Novak column that ran a few months ago when he "reported" that "someone associated with the Clinton campaign" gave him information that there was dirt on Obama that was being held back. The next day Novak "clarified" his column and backtracked on how close his unnamed "source" was to the Clinton campaign.

According to this post HM had no information, documentation, verification or knowledge of any kind that this "call" came from the Clinton campaign.

I've read TAPPED and respected its writers and content for a long time. This has cast a shadow on its credibility as a progressive site. Looks like HM has joined the ranks of Arianna Huffington for biased "reporting."

BTW no donation for alleged "independent" media.

pollster.com has knocked down the Clinton push-poll meme being floated above. LA journalists sure are hacks.

I guess this is what desperation looks like, Obama surging in the polls are making peoples heads spin - just look at that hack Taylor Marsh and that steaming pile of a blog she runs to see evidence of that. lol

Let's try turning it around. An elderly Black man in the South gets a promo call from a young woman with a loud voice and a strong Valley Girl speech pattern, 'singing the praises' of Hillary.

Should he think:

1. Obama is doing this to cause trouble for Hillary
2. The GOP is doing this to cause trouble for Democrats
3. That Hillary girl has a funny voice.

How dare you even try to excuse what you wrote based on the fact that you were rushed. Your "rushed" article all but accused Senator Clinton of being a racist. Give me a break. Shame on you. How arrogant, how sloppy, how utterly irresponsible.

Meyerson is a FILTY RACIST

MEYERSON: And if this call was what it seemed to be, it looks like the Clinton campaign, or that of one of the groups campaigning on her behalf, is playing the race card discreetly—and espicably.

Sentences starting with “if” can be fun! Why, this would be another example of that useful genre:

SAMPLE SENTENCE: And if Harold Meyerson has been robbing banks and shooting the tellers, then he’s a viciously murderous bank robber

Please, stop the stupidy

HILLARY PLAYS THE RACE CARD?

http://dailyhowler.com/

"And my friend is very savvy about the kinds of things that go on in Los Angeles-area elections. As am I. I was the political editor of the L.A. Weekly for 14 years. I am still the L.A. Times' go-to guest writer when they want pieces on L.A. politics for the Sunday Opinion section."

Pretty impressive. If you do say so yourself. I urge you to get a little savvier.

I surmised the call came from operatives working for some organization that supported Hillary Clinton.

How did you surmise that? Let's take your word that this call (which you haven't heard) was as you represented. What evidence to you have that it was not by the RNC or some other Republican group? Bob Somerby rightly eviscerates you here.

It really is amazing that you think you convince anyone of anything when the only argument you give is how savvy you are and how savvy your friends are.

Now you tell us that you're "sure it didn't come from the Clinton campaign itself". So where was your extraordinary savviness when you earlier typed "HILLARY PLAYS THE RACE CARD" (caps in the original)?

PS I'm an Obama supporter fwiw (in reality, not much, but you seem to think differently since you assign so much weight to your friend's political allegiance).

中联石化不锈钢管销售公司,专业经营各种不锈钢管