Michelle Obama's Whitey Video--Does It Exist?

[boloboffin]

A recap of the rumor's lifecycle from Reason Magazine.

I for one would like to hear the actual question posed to Obama by the McClatchy reporter before I weigh in further on this statement. But Obama's pushback is not on the precise subject of the "Whitey" rumor, but on how stuff like that makes it into the mainstream. If he was asked directly about the truth or untruth of the "Whitey" tape and he responded that way, then it's a non-denial denial. It doesn't make stories about the tape true or false.

And since we know that the McClatchy reporter did ask after that whether the rumor was false or true, according to the Politico, the reporter felt the same way. And Obama responded to that by saying that he'd answered the question. If he considers "You guys should think twice before producing unsubstantiated rumors as legitimate questions" an answer to "Is this true or false?", I'm going to beg to differ. I might agree that he shouldn't have to answer silly questions like this, but silly questions like this is what the American press seems to specialize in sometimes.

I know, I know, I've gone off my head. But I am trying my best to look at things like this as if someone I'm not supporting had said it. What would I have said if John McCain had responded this way to a story about (say) his illegitimate black child? Think about it - same measured and carefully worded response to such an outrageous question.

P.S. I personally think that Michelle Obama going off on a rant about Whitey would be absolutely hysterical and I would pay money to hear her do it again, if indeed she has done it once.

 

[Brainster]

I do, however, know that describing a claim as "dirt and lies" is a strong and unequivocal denial of that claim.

You really should try to learn English sometime.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Reporter: Any truth to the latest rumor that your wife's an evil racist?

Obama: We've heard this before. It's dirt and lies....

Conservative forumites: HA! He said more stuff after that so he didn't really deny it.


Really guys?

Really?

 

[Brainster]

Well, if the Whitey video does surface, and like Bolo, I would pay money to see it, we can look forward to hearing Dr A, and Pookster and several others denouncing Obama as a liar, while I defend him.

 

[Pookster]

... or you could again look at what he actually said: ...

Yes, you can. The words are all right there.

“We have seen this before. 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. If somebody has evidence that myself or Michelle or anybody has said something inappropriate, let them do it.”

Again, he said dirt and lies. Dirt also can mean gossip, excrement, and other things. You mix lies with truth (dirt) and you have fiction.

 

[gdnp]

There is no implication in that definition that "dirt" is untrue private or personal information, etc. In fact, the only good dirt (politically) is dirt that is true.

Truth is not what makes for "good dirt", believability is what makes for good dirt. In the end it is unimportant whether John Kerry was a hero or a coward in the swift boat case, what is important is what people believe. Same for whether Bush dodged the draft and skipped out on his National Guard committment, whether Bush or Obama used cocaine, whether McCain cheated on his first wife, or whether Obama is secretly a Muslim. Dirt that is a believable lie is much more valuable than dirt that is an implausible truth.

Now, if we take dirt as true and lies as lies, we can see that we still face a problem; how do you reconcile calling one particular allegation "truth and lies".

False dichotomy. Are your seriously arguing that by calling the allegations "dirt" Obama was admitting they were true? If, for example, a politician were to say "your allegations are nothing but dirt and do not even dignify a response" he is actually confessing to their truth?

As I have argued above, calling something "dirt" is claiming that it is a politically motivated attack on one's character. It neither admits nor denies veracity. Thus the use of the phrase "dirt and lies": Obama is stating quite clearly that the allegations are false and made to attack the character of his wife.

If you still deny this, answer this question: If said video ever surfaces, will the public excuse Obama's statement because he did not actually deny the event happened? I sure won't. Did they sympathize with Clinton when he tried to claim that "I did not have sex with that woman" only referred to intercourse? No, they called him the liar that he was. Many may have felt the lie was excusable, but few argued that he had told the truth.

 

[Daylight]

Well, if the Whitey video does surface, and like Bolo, I would pay money to see it, ..........

Wouldn't America be better if you put:

Well, if the Whitey video does surface, and like Bolo, I wouldn't pay money to see it, ..........

Once again we see on this board another republican that wants to see America divided with hate. Looks like we are starting to see a trend here.

 

[boloboffin]

Reporter: Any truth to the latest rumor that your wife's an evil racist?

Obama: We've heard this before. It's dirt and lies....

Well, he didn't say that. If he'd said, "It's dirt and lies...", the case for non-denial denial would go way, way down in my judgment. I doubt the reporter would have asked the question again if it had been stated like that.

But he didn't. I'm not saying you did this deliberately at all, but your subconscious strengthening of what he did say points out the wiggle room in the original statement.

And I am far, far, far from a conservative forumite around here. My one grandfather was a union organizer for the IBEW, my other was a three-war veteran (II, Korea, and Vietnam), and I'm gay. I hit the Democratic trifecta.

 

[T.A.M.]

yah trifecta!

TAM

 

[jberryhill]

You have actually gone off your frickin' head, haven't you?

No, Brainster is upset that Obama doesn't want to play the game of Denial of the Week.

The way it works is that every week you have someone make up some crap about the target, or cleverly interpret some event or quote. Then you ask the target to deny it.

The goal is to get as many headlines along the lines of:

"Target Denies X" as a vehicle for giving the assertion wider distribution than it had in the first place.

I've never heard Obama deny that he has sex with little boys. Not once. This makes it fair game for asking him, and generating the headline "Obama Denies Sex With Boys", and it elevates the "scandal" to the level of "Gee, I wonder why he has to deny a thing like that."

Nobody is asking McCain if he ever used the word "******". And one of the reasons why, for example, OJ was acquitted was because they put a white guy on the stand and asked him if he'd ever used the word "******". Ever. Now, you go put that question to every white person, and you'll find out that no white person has ever said it.

If you want to ask whether any black person has ever expressed frustration with "white people" generally as a consequence of conditions in this country. I'm sure it's an overwhelming "yes", and I'd wonder about a black person who claims never to have made such an utterance.

But what is the real point of the inquiry in this context?

Shall we ask John McCain if he ever used the word "gook" in reference to Vietnamese? Would you believe he didn't?

 

[gdnp]

I find it interesting that Obama is being criticized for his answer when NO ONE HAS POSTED WHAT THE QUESTION WAS.

A bad question does not leave itself open to a simple yes or no response. For example, this hypothetical exchange

Reporter: "Is it true that Michelle was at a luncheon with John Smith and called Mother Theresa a child pornographer?"

Obama: "no. It's a lie"

Fair and balanced news show: "look, here is the photo of Michelle at the luncheon with John Smith. It wasn't all lies, therefore Obama calling it a lie was a lie. And if he lied about her being at the luncheon with John Smith, what else is he lying about? Why can't Barack HUSSEIN Obama tell the truth? Why do the Obamas hate America so much?"

 

[Brainster]

No, Brainster is upset that Obama doesn't want to play the game of Denial of the Week.

I'm not upset about it. I made a simple statement that he'd issued a non-denial denial. Which you acknowledge, I see. And you give another good reason for issuing that type of response.

Shall we ask John McCain if he ever used the word "gook" in reference to Vietnamese? Would you believe he didn't?

You would NOT get a denial from him on that one, because he has admitted that he uses it unapologetically when referring to his torturers.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Well, he didn't say that. If he'd said, "It's dirt and lies...", the case for non-denial denial would go way, way down in my judgment. I doubt the reporter would have asked the question again if it had been stated like that.

But he didn't. I'm not saying you did this deliberately at all, but your subconscious strengthening of what he did say points out the wiggle room in the original statement.

And I am far, far, far from a conservative forumite around here. My one grandfather was a union organizer for the IBEW, my other was a three-war veteran (II, Korea, and Vietnam), and I'm gay. I hit the Democratic trifecta.

and you know something, the reporter didn't use the phrase "evil racist" either.

 

[T.A.M.]

No, Brainster is upset that Obama doesn't want to play the game of Denial of the Week.

The way it works is that every week you have someone make up some crap about the target, or cleverly interpret some event or quote. Then you ask the target to deny it.

The goal is to get as many headlines along the lines of:

"Target Denies X" as a vehicle for giving the assertion wider distribution than it had in the first place.

I've never heard Obama deny that he has sex with little boys. Not once. This makes it fair game for asking him, and generating the headline "Obama Denies Sex With Boys", and it elevates the "scandal" to the level of "Gee, I wonder why he has to deny a thing like that."

Nobody is asking McCain if he ever used the word "******". And one of the reasons why, for example, OJ was acquitted was because they put a white guy on the stand and asked him if he'd ever used the word "******". Ever. Now, you go put that question to every white person, and you'll find out that no white person has ever said it.

If you want to ask whether any black person has ever expressed frustration with "white people" generally as a consequence of conditions in this country. I'm sure it's an overwhelming "yes", and I'd wonder about a black person who claims never to have made such an utterance.

But what is the real point of the inquiry in this context?

Shall we ask John McCain if he ever used the word "gook" in reference to Vietnamese? Would you believe he didn't?

Very astute analysis.

TAM

 

[joobz]

Would everyone feel better if Obama "donounced and rejected" the existence of the tapes.

 

[jberryhill]

he'd issued a non-denial denial.

What was the proposition put to him to which he was issuing a denial or non-denial?

Unless you are going to state that proposition, your characterization of the response to it is meaningless.

So, if John McCain had been the victim of a crime by a black person, then it would be okay for McCain to use "n---r" in reference to that specific black person, yes? Because when he uses the word "gook", it is only in reference to specific Vietnamese people, and not all of them. Yah, I'll run that by some Vietnamese folks and see if they understand it.

 

[Dr Adequate]

There is no implication in that definition that "dirt" is untrue private or personal information, etc. In fact, the only good dirt (politically) is dirt that is true.

Now, if we take dirt as true and lies as lies, we can see that we still face a problem; how do you reconcile calling one particular allegation "truth and lies". Answer: You can't.

Epic hermeneutics fail.

 

[Megalodon]

There is no implication in that definition that "dirt" is untrue private or personal information, etc. In fact, the only good dirt (politically) is dirt that is true.

Funny that you think so...

But tell me, would you be less likely to vote for McCain if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?

Now, if we take dirt as true and lies as lies, we can see that we still face a problem; how do you reconcile calling one particular allegation "truth and lies". Answer: You can't.

Check your logic, 'cause from the strange noises I think the damn thing's broken...

 

[Pookster]

... There is no implication in that definition that "dirt" is untrue private or personal information, etc. In fact, the only good dirt (politically) is dirt that is true. ...

Well, your "fact" is defied by the 2000 Republican South Carolina primary. McCain knows all too well what good untrue dirt can do to a campaign.

 

[Pookster]

Funny that you think so...

But tell me, would you be less likely to vote for McCain if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?




Check your logic, 'cause from the strange noises I think the damn thing's broken...

You beat me to it. Doh!

Edited to add: As I mentioned earlier, truth and lies mixed into a story is called fiction. They can blend quite well. The idea that they can't is silly.