Clintonian

I've been having this same discussion with my co-blogger over at Stubborn Facts.

You're off-base in comparing this to Clinton. Clinton didn't hedge on rumors, he hedged and dodged on specific accusations by specific people. Kathleen Broaddrick made the allegations directly. Gennifer Flowers made the allegations directly. Those kinds of public allegations SHOULD be addressed.

But this is nothing of the sort. This is a rumor of a possible tape that Larry Johnson claims he has spoken to people who have spoken to people who have viewed it. Requiring candidates to address all such rumors, rumors that stem not from any identifiable person making a specific allegation but have grown in the telling by the media and bloggers, would give far too much power to the campaign dirty tricksters who thrive on such chaos.

Which version of the rumor should he deny? Is he to deny that his wife ever said the word "whitey"? That she was ever on the same podium with Farrakhan? No, the candidate shouldn't have to answer a rumor unless somebody is willing to attach their own name and reputation to the accusation, with sufficient detials so we can evaluate who is telling the truth.

To deny, or confirm, is to invite having the next rumor brought up for confirmation or denial. To non-answer is to say that the next time you bring it up you will get the same non-answer, so don't bother to bring me this kind of trash again. But just not so clearly.

As I said, he's in an awkward position, because the rumors are vague, and it's hard to know what to deny without in some way concretizing them. But he knows his wife. He may be concerned that there is something out there that she has said, because she has already said some controversial things, and it's been recorded, so he can't make a categorical denial about it.

But it's also part of a continuing pattern where he attacks the media, and demands to lay down the ground rules for the campaign, and what he can be questioned and criticized about, and what he can't. Sorry, he's not running the country yet.

He didn't deny because, almost without doubt, it's true. Can anyone seriously doubt that Michelle Obama, or even Sunshine Boy himself, have used "whitey" in a derogatory way sometime in her (or his) life?

Of course they have. (And so what? But that's another story.)

The interesting question to Obama -- and to his interrogators -- is whether she was caught on tape doing so. Since he can't possibly know that she has not, not having himself a second-by-second tape of her life, he can't deny it. That isn't quite the same as knowing that she has been, and therefore not denying it. Which is the case, we don't know.

It's just a giant game of "gotcha," anyway, a version of America's Nastiest Political Home Videos, since no serious person doubts she's said some nasty things about white folks in her lifetime. Yet more evidence that this is less a serious election for political leadership and more an American Idol kind of celebrity election. Obama is going to be elected on the basis of his cool-guy demeanor, or not elected on the basis of being a doofus -- but whichever, it will have zero to do with his qualities of political leadership, and everything to do with his qualification to be on the cover of GQ or cameo in the next James Bond movie.

Given Snobama's track record I wouldn't take his word on anything. For a guy who has spent 20 years attending the black equivalent of the Nuremburg rallies and can't recall any of it besides describing them as inspirational can anyone doubt his memory or integrity?

Its getting crowded under the bus. My bet is the video shows up in October if it exists.

As for Johnson, he shares all the vices of the Clinton's and none of their virtues (give me a year to think of one).

A couple of Politico commenters noted the resemblance between Obama's challenge to the media and Gary Hart's 1987 gibe. Follow me around. I don't care. I'm serious. If anybody wants to put a tail on me, go ahead. They'll be very bored. Speaking of Hart, Larry Johnson's posts evoke another phrase applied to him. Where's the beef?

Note that Politico is running a follow up story:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Urban_legends_and_Democrats_spouses.html#comments
It makes the point that the same basic rumor about democratic presidential candidates' wives shows up every 4 years. The blog entry cites Robert George saying:

".. a really weird conservative urban legend that pops up every four years. The names change, but the basics remain the same: 1) It always involves the wife of the Democratic presidential candidate; 2) It always portrays the wife — not the candidate — committing some anti-American, unpatriotic act."

"I was first exposed to this during the 1988 campaign when the line was, "There's a picture out there of Kitty Dukakis burning the American flag ... just wait till that comes out ..." (that one got out of hand when a GOP senator actually believed it and called a press conference to say he would soon produce the evidence — which never materialized). Four years later, "There's a picture out there of Hillary Clinton burning the American flag ... just wait till that comes out ..." In 1996, the Hillary thing repeated itself. In '04, there was a similar one about Teresa Heinz Kerry."

Such a tape wouldn't surprise me. However, as much as I dislike and distrust Obama and will not vote for him, I must agree with him on this point. He's perfectly right. Expecting a denial is like expecting someone to prove a negative. In all but a very few situations that's impossible.

Here's something else to think about. I have no evidence for this, but it's logically possible the rumor could be planted by the left to discredit people who pick it up.

We should keep our heads down. If the video shows up and it's accurate and authentic, there'll be plenty of time to castigate him for it. If this turns out to be a hoax or a simple misunderstanding, those who spend too much time on it will look stupid and probably be accused of being racist, regardless of the original source.

There is no tape. If there was a tape, I'd comment on it, but there isn't.

I heard a rumor around last year that Obama's mentor was a black racist who hated America. Obama pretty much "denied" that rumor in the same way too, didn't he?

His wife wailing over "whitey"? Not too far fetched.

Rand, you asked "Who can deny that there is dirt and lies circulated in emails?" in response to Obama saying "There is dirt and lies that are circulated in e-mails and they pump them out long enough until finally you, a mainstream reporter, asks me about it." You are asking the wrong question. The right question is "Is it a lie", and you say he didn't deny that it was.

The "it" in Obama's sentence refers to the dirt and lies. When Obama says he already answered the question about the truth of the matter, he is correct -- he labeled "it", the subject at hand, "dirt and lies", and hence, he did answer the question.

You're playing a hyper-literal game that many people don't play when they speak. I don't think the game should apply to Obama, because as a successful politician who wants to appeal to a broad swath of people, he doesn't speak in the precise literal way that computer nerds and philosophy majors appreciate. But in this case, I think Obama was correct, even when held to a hyper-literal standard.

He's perfectly right. Expecting a denial is like expecting someone to prove a negative. In all but a very few situations that's impossible.

Then he would have been a lot better off saying that, rather than attacking the reporter and trying to pretend to deny while not denying. I'd have respected him a lot more had he done that.

We should keep our heads down. If the video shows up and it's accurate and authentic, there'll be plenty of time to castigate him for it. If this turns out to be a hoax or a simple misunderstanding, those who spend too much time on it will look stupid and probably be accused of being racist, regardless of the original source.

You will notice that this is my first mention of this issue on my blog, because I have no idea whether there is anything to it or not. Again, my point is that the reporter (or at least whoever wrote the headline) at Politico is wrong in characterizing this exchange as a "denial by Obama." It is not.

If this tape exists, I don't see the logic in waiting until October to reveal it to the public. It should dog him through the entire general election campaign. It should be in the back of people's minds when he gives his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention. People already suspsect the Obamas of being anti-American and anti-White through their associations with Wright, Trinity Church, Ayers & Dorhn, etc. This would be the iceing on the cake. Why wait? If this tape doesn't appear after Hillary officially concedes, then I don't believe that it exists.

I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial.

Anybody else bothered by Obama's extemely ungrammatical statement? "...there IS dirt and lies...you, a mainstream reporter, ASKS me about it...if somebody has evidence that MYSELF or Michelle or anybody has said something inappropriate, LET THEM DO IT..." Huh?

If W had made this little speech, the MSM would be all over it. Sigh. My mother would never let me talk like this.

If the tape exists it would be much more effective to
hold it until after the Democratic Convention when the super delegates can no longer undo the screw up.

Paul

I don't think the game should apply to Obama

Of course not, Robert. Like Obama, you don't think that any criticism, legitimate or otherwise, should apply to Obama.

Just curious. How does that Koolaid taste?

You'll notice Obama doesn't deny it.

He says, "If somebody has evidence that myself or Michelle or anybody has said something inappropriate, let them do it.”

Same as Hillary in her "Pretty in Pink" press conference years ago. Asked if she did something, she said "Well, there's no evidence of that."

I was screaming at the television in disbelief that NO ONE stood up to say, "Hey, we didn't ask if there were evidence, since we all know evidence can disappear. We asked IF YOU DID IT."

Rand, I say that you are wrong. I say that Obama did make a proper denial, and I say that he did answer the question. I explained why in my above comment. Do you think I'm wrong?

Regarding Kool-aid, of course, my comment about not being hyper-literal would have to apply to any other politician. I'd be happy to address that aspect of my comment if you really care about it, but...

...I'm genuinely curious what you think of my analysis of Obama's sentence (again, see the above comment). I think your logical analysis is flat out wrong, and I explained why. If you think I'm wrong, it would be great if you could explain why.

Robert, if Obama wanted to deny it, he could have done that. He was offered a second opportunity to clearly do so, and he turned it down, simply reiterating his previous statement. He was dodging. Sorry.

Rand, but why wasn't his previous statement a denial. The word "it" in Obama's statment referred to dirt and lies. Since we are being logical and literal, we know that "and" logically requires the assertion to be dirt and for the assertion to be a lie. He was saying that the assertion was a lie. What more denial would he need?

I don't want to sound hostile, but if you don't want to directly address my analysis, I may begin to wonder if you are the one who is dodging. (Sorry!)

If you want to be pendantic, the singular word "it" can't be referring to the plural "lies."

We seem to be reduced to arguing what "is" is. Except in this case, it's what "it" is.

And you continue to grasp for straws in support of your candidate.

Once again, I'm not actually criticizing Obama for not being able to deny a vague charge. I can understand why he dealt with it as he did. He is a politician, after all, despite all the fantasies among the votaries (like you) about the "new politics."

I'm simply pointing out that the headline of the story was wrong.

I definitely do want to be pendantic. You said you "parsed" Obama's sentence, and you concluded that:
1) He didn't deny a vague charge about his wife.
2) He didn't answer the question.
3) The Politico was wrong.
4) Obama was "Clintonian".

You conclusions seem to rest only a singluar/plural mismatch. Obama's use of the pronoun "it" could not have been referring to anything other than "dirt and lies". Regardless of whether "dirt and lies" is singular or plural, Obama's meaning was perfectly clear.

He did deny the vague charge -- he called it a lie.
He did answer the question.
The Politico was right.
Obama was not being "Clintonian".

Since your entire blog post was based on parsing one sentence, you should admit that you parsed incorrectly.
You got it wrong, and if you want to be intellectually honest and non-Clintonian, you should just be forthright, and just admit that you made a mistake.

(And of course, since someone who really likes your blog pointed it out to you, you can be cheerful about it.)

No, my conclusion is based not just on a singular/plural pronoun. It is also based on the fact that he was offered a chance to clarify the issue, and he turned it down, insisting that no clarification was necessary.

But I expect you to continue to believe in the Messiah.

You aren't being logical. The number of times someone repeats the denial of an assertion has no logical bearing on whether or not they denied the assertion the first time.

Obama denied the claim. Your parsing was wrong. Obama answered the question the first time. The Politico was right. Obama was not being Clintonian.

You were wrong, and you shouldn't hesitate to admit it.

====

There is an entirely separate question of why Obama curtly said "I answered the question" when asked for the second time about an ugly and vague rumor about the woman he loves. Since I don't believe Obama is the Messiah, and since I am only a "votary" about spacecraft and astronomy, I can ascribe various cynical as well as romantic reasons for Obama's second answer. But this conversation, as you've pointed out, is not about that. It is about whether the Politico was wrong, whether Obama was being Clintonian as per the posting's title, and about how to parse Obama's sentence.

If he had answered it clearly the first time, there would have been no need for the follow up. Obama chose to not clarify on the follow up, instead insisting that he had already answered the question. That is not the behavior of someone attempting to make himself clear. It is simply repeated obfuscation.

You fall for it.

Watch out Rand---I agree with what you're saying . . . but no one REALLY expects the Obaman Inquisition. (my apologies to the old and wonderful Saturday Night Live) Let's face it Rand, you're a heretic. . . .I admire that.

IF this tape is true and surfaces, his first public response will be along the lines of "That's not the Michelle I know..." variety. It's worked with the media and devoted followers to this point...

"LittleBit wrote:
IF this tape is true and surfaces, his first public response will be along the lines of "That's not the Michelle I know..." variety. It's worked with the media and devoted followers to this point..."

....and then he divorces her under the bus......

Robert,

Where in this quote do you see an unequivocal denial?

There is dirt and lies that are circulated in e-mails and they pump them out long enough until finally you, a mainstream reporter, asks me about it," Obama said to the McClatchy reporter during a press conference aboard his campaign plane. "That gives legs to the story.

Even if you replace the word "it" with "them". OB doesn't say the current rumors are "dirt and lies" he generically notes that "There is dirt and lies that are circulated". This gives him the option to hedge later if a tape really does show up to say, well gee, I never said that particular rumor was a lie.

Doug, Rand asks us to parse the sentence. The subject of the sentence is "dirt and lies". The word "it" refers to the subject of the sentence. If you, or Rand, or anyone reading this comment, doesn't think that "it" refers to "dirt and lies", please let me know what you think "it" does refer to.

I just called an English teacher (with about 40 years of teaching experience). She confirmed the above, and then she said, and I'm paraphrasing, "Obama's use of the singular pronoun "it" rather than the plural pronoun "them" is revealing. It suggests that Obama was thinking about the specific rumor that the reporter asked about. If anything, Obama's use of the singular pronoun makes his denial more specific."

The English teacher reviewed this thread, and tut-tutted. She said that both Rand and I were wrong, but about something else! We both used the word "pendantic", but there is no such word in the English language -- Rand and I both meant "pedantic". The following link documents the misuse of this imaginary word: http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=238 includes the funny line: "And, as a substitute for ‘pedantic’ it has a delightfully self-undercutting character- anyone who worries that he’s being too pendantic about words can stop worrying!"

In conclusion:

Obama referred to the rumor as "dirt and lies". There is no alternative parsing of the sentence.

It surprises me that Rand doesn't readily admit that he parsed the sentence incorrectly.

I know there's no such word as "pendantic." That's called a "typo."

And no, he didn't refer to the rumor as "dirt and lies." He referred to stuff that went around in email as "dirt and lies."

As I said, if he wanted to clearly and unambiguously deny it, he had an opportunity to do so. He chose not to.

It would seem that there are a large number of "D's" that are a plague on Obama's House. He can be described by accumulating a few of them. . e. g. deny, deceive, Democrat, dodging, ducking, denial, et.al., Never mind the words he chooses in defending his wife's dissatisfaction with the U. S. A.

It surprises me that Rand doesn't readily admit that he parsed the sentence incorrectly.

Robert, why are you surprised? Simberg has never been an honest libertarian. He revels in slime and besmirchmnet - it's an addiction. He always has indlulged this style, grimy fingers stuck on his keyboard of lies.

He just pretends that he is a clear-eyed analyst, when he is just a whiny shill, serving as a sewer for the effluent flowing from NRO's Corner and finding its stinky extrusion on this blog.