Mar 29 2008
Financial Times calls Hillary eventual Race-Baiter. Obama the Victim.
The Financial Times is universally acknowledged as the world’s leading business newspaper of global affairs…It is the only world-wide daily concentrating on international business and its team of 600 journalists present economic and business news from a truly global perspective…. As the most authoritative source of international news, comment and analysis, the Financial Times is required reading for decision-makers and opinion-shapers around the world. [FT]
The Financial Times is also the most misleading, least objective, most pro-Obama rag in the serious newspaper business. I encourage readers to write and fax the FT, to vehemently protest its bias.
write to letters.editor@ft.com; or fax: 44 (0) 20 7873 5938
The FT is read by more business men and decision makers then either the International Herald Tribune, Wall Street Journal or New York Times. It shapes polite political opinion from Singapore, China, and Bangalore, to New York, London, and Paris. It is a business journal, but unlike its Wall Street Journal cousin, it is Social-Democrat, and grossly Pro-Obama.
When the Wright controversy surfaced- the FT refused to cover it - and today has only its second (after three weeks) Wright quote. FT ignored all Democratic debates in which Hillary did well, pooh-poohed Hillary’s OH and TX victories, and has refused to say anything positive about her. A gang of London and New York based journalist thugs, are doing everything in their power to marginalize Hillary, and influence elites world over to support Obama. (one exception to this, Giden Rachman, only one at FT openly pro-Hillary, out of 600?!)
The Democratic nomination process is an American affair, but the Financial Times is a pacemaker for global coverage of American politics. It comes a close second to the Wall Street Journal in its share of the American market for elite leaders. who it thus influences both directly, and indirectly by brainwashing their overseas partners.
Unlike the Wall Street Journal, the FT enjoys virtually a hegemonic position among left-leaning bourgeois, even in America. The very elites who contribute to either Obama or Hillary, tend to be FT readers, not Wall Street Journal ones. Such bourgeois, generally put a premium on multilateralism and are deferential to overseas opinion, making them overexposed to pro-Obama propaganda.
We need to fight back.
***
Today’s FT coverage of the Democratic Primary merits a few emails and faxes. It marks the latest assault on our party, and if unchallanted, will only worsen.
This is a picture of the small inset on the cover, it is not available online. Beneath the “Obama Dilemma” you read “Nearly a quarter of Democrats who hold a negative view of Barack Obama believe he is a Muslim, according to a poll.” and then the “miffed” air of why the same people dislike Obama’s tie to Wright, if he introduced him to Christianity. Then an incongruous Buchanan quote, and “Report” on page 4, on where we find the following two articles of unparalleled propagandistic brilliance:
“Obama faces prejudice on all sides” next to an article called “Clinton Urged to Quit Race for Nomination‘
In a post few weeks back, I suggested that the Obama campaign had no alternatives but to tighten the screws on American voters by continuing to pander the Obama as victim, and consigning all criticism and dislike of Obama, to blind and irrational prejudice. Lo and behold, 1/4 of Democrats who dislike Obama do so because he is Muslim (that’s the inaccurate implication being made), while at the same time many who dislike him due so because of his tie to a Christian Wright. That, the FT calls a dilemma (nothing in the following articles suggests otherwise).
Is the confusion and chaos deliberate? Where and what is the message? How does Buchanan come in on this?
In one respect “Obama faces prejudice”, is not confusing, in being a cacophony of victimhood. Outlining vicious anti-Obama screeds by Pat Buchanan and Rush Limbaugh, the article cites -for the first time in the FT- Wright and the “US-of KKKA” [sic]. It goes on to mention Chris Wallace (Fox) who defended Obama against being grilling for his “typical white person” charge with the words: “two hours of Obama-bashing …is somewhat excessive”. The article then talks of Democrats (the very same negative anti-Muslim and anti-Christian? ones) unhappy with Obama, going over to the Republicans and voting McCain, and suddenly with little logic segues into a Clinton supporter telling readers that Clinton-
“There is no way she can say to fellow Democrats that Obama is unelectable because of the race issue,” says one Clinton supporter. ” But in the absence of any other weapon it may become irresistible“.
I fail to understand why these sentences appear in the article. Is a connection between Democrats going for Republican that of racism which make Obama unelectable? A reality Hillary cannot address, but eventually will use to her advantage? I think that’s exactly the implication here. And it is both baseless, unethical, and should not go unchallenged. It is really a smear- Hillary the race-baiter in waiting in a racist America.
Before concluding “Obama faces prejudice”, goes back to Republicans with Donna Brazil saying
Wright fits with their [Republican] narrative of division, diversion, and distraction
Huh? So far, McCain has eschewed practically any possible controversy, nipped it in the bud before it could grow an inch. No Husseins, no Islams, clean issue-oriented election. Not according to Donna Brazil the Racial Vigilante, and the FT - who have just identified Obama’s greatest obstacle in becoming president - America’s prejudice.
The wording of the FT article, and its complicated references make its message difficult to sum-up or even identify.
Is Obama a victim of irrational prejudices and machiavelian deviousness? So what’s his dilemma? Why mention Wright a tall if Obama is being assaulted on all sides and will only get worst? And what of the pele-mele mix of Republican and negative Democrats?
The Republicans’ are leading the racial charge, but are being joined by renegade Democrats who have problems with Obama’s Islam, and will eventually ally with a Republican party which can only beat Obama if it taps Americas racial divide? Hillary wants to do it, can’t right now, but eventually will? Hillary’s people who are defecting because of racial slight? Their interpretation of Obama’s speech is in itself problematic, because it was a Rorschach inkblot test, into which they projected their racial uneasy (that’s the final paragraph in the article)?
I think so- all of this is being suggested in the least coherent of manners.
***
Coming from the worlds leading newspaper, such fact-less speculative disinformation warrants serious rebuke. Not only are there absolutely no signs of Obama facing any serious scrutiny, hence no real opposition in the Democratic primary , the notion that Obama is under attack deliberately blurs Republican fear-mongering with Democratic anti-Obama sentiment, there is absolutely no racial prejudice in the Democratic party except that entirely in Obama favor!
Of course, the FT has never reported on such prejudice. It was among the few English speaking papers to entirely ignore the Ferraro affair, or the SNL skit. The FT, has been at the forefront of pro-Obama prejudice, and pretended such prejudice did not even exist!
Let me go back to the cover inset touting anti-Obama Democrats as anti-Muslims. It is not based on fact, or rather a very fanciful reading of facts.
The source for this “fact” claim is a recent Pew Survey, which the FT clearly distorts. If it were true that nearly a quarter of Democrats holding a negative view of Obama think he is a Muslim (but it appears to be about 10 %), did the FT not notice that 35 % of those who think Obama is Muslim, are happy to vote for him!?
Did it also happen to miss that most respondents to the Pew survey are either totally confused, or unaware of Obama’s religion? So why confuse readers with irrelevant and inconclusive statistics (in fact favorable to Obama!), if not, to insinuate with the words “Obama Faces Prejudice” , that Islam, and Wright amount to confusing racial and cultural anti-Obama prejudices?
While there is some pretense in the FT article of objectivity when citing Wright (again, FT refused to do this up till now, pretending Wright did not exist), and some attempt to explain that Obama’s race speech did not convince everyone, the Obama is a victim of race-baiting pose, is rather stark. The detour accusation of Clinton, and Republicans as race-baiters, maybe neatly packaged, but the odor stays the same!
***
For those Hillary supporters looking to defect to the Republican camp in the case of an Obama nomination, look to be called “race-traitor” and “race-baiter” for the next five months. The set up, the frame-up, has already begun. Axelrod’s strategy is entering its final stage.
All this said, “Obama faces prejudice” is as neutral an FT article as they come. As chaotic, and unfocused as it may appear, there is an absolute unbending, and unambiguous subliminal message:
a) republicans are prejudiced against Obama because of his race > b) Obama cannot win in national election against such prejudice > c) Hillary can’t use the prejudice to win in Democratic party > d) Hillary’s prejudiced supporters will join the prejudiced Republican party.
Again, looking back at Election coverage by the FT, which is singularly focused on the Democrats, “Obama faces prejudice” ranks among the most seemingly neutral articles to date - until you dig into the most basic impression the article imparts - and of course, until you take stock of the immediate context, i.e. the FT’s Hillary coverage.
***
The FT’s Hillary coverage has always been dismal, and laced with “quit” “leave” and “time to retire” sentiment for four months straight. In “Clinton Urged to Quit Race for Nomination‘ it is the FT doing the urging, reinforcing the lie that Hillary cannot win, and devoting 80% of the text to Leahy and Dean. Readers are welcome to read the FT’s editorial page, which harps on about Hillary’s Bosnia “misspeak.” I Sniping at Hillary, we read that
“She is fabricating some national security credentials before our incredulous eyes…Obama has been accused of a bit of resume-padding too. Yet he has done nothing like claim, as the senator for New York has, to have been “instrumental ” in brining peace to Northern Ireland”
Yes. Juanita has made clear why Obama has done nothing of the sort of Ireland, and I’ve argued why claiming Hillary fabricated or lied on Bosnia, is but a fabricated smear.
If any fabrication were at play, we know who is doing it, who it is aimed at, and who is leading the charge. As the single-most left-of center newspaper at the heart of the Business World (a sort of BBC for the world’s elites) the FT needs to hear from us. It needs to be asked why it is Hillary, and not Obama, being asked to quit the Democratic race?!
We should also demand appologies for setting up Hillary and Hillary supporters, as bigots and race-baiters, indistinct from divisive Republicans such as Rush Limbaugh and Pat Buchanon. The FT is ignoring the concerns of the core of the Democratic party, what that core stands for, and destroying this core’s place in the Democratic party.
Let’s raise our voice against this. Again, the contact is:
write to letters.editor@ft.com; or fax: 44 (0) 20 7873 5938
***
The immediate tactical objective of this latest salvo in the media’s psychological war on Hillary and her supporters, is: lower the margin of her Pennsylvania victory, a margin especially important in the popular vote. Don’t let it happen, and as limited as our means, try to fight back.
As for Obama’s Islam troubles- they are entirely of his own making. He could have been forthcoming but decided to mislead and lie.
14 responses so far
[…] Continue Reading […]
[…] Read the rest of this great post here […]
My, my. Can only imagine the venom of those posts you guys wisely expunge. Your article hits exactly on why this clown, Obama, CAN NOT become our nominee. Axelrod and co. will stop at nothing to win–including smearing millions of lunch-bucket voters (core Dem support) as racists and “Archie Bunkers” for not accepting the lies and race-baiting of the Obama apparatus. They’re not winning in the general against McCain. They may succeed, however, in beginning a race war or racial division the likes of which we haven’t seen openly in this country since the 1960’s.
Here is an apt rebuttal from the Philadelphia Inquirer.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/currents/20080330_Obama_was_the_first_to_play_the_race_card.html
To the guys at stop-obama.org…thanks… I and my friends just shot an email to FT….
this is what we wrote:
(KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!!!!!)
—————–
To the writers/editors/”reporters”/”journalists” at the FT:
Today I read in your paper that Hillary is the “race-baiter”, and Obama is the “victim”….
WHATEVER RESPECT I HAD FOR YOUR “NEWPAPER” has been THROWN OUT THE WINDOW AND BROKEN INTO A MILLION PIECES
I or my family no longer subcribe to your paper or read it……WE WOULD RATHER READ THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER…AT LEAST THEY DON”T PRETEND TO BE JOURNALISTS LIKE YOU GUYS DO!!!!!!!
Hillary has been a race-baiter???… have you seen Wright’s videos ( Obama’s 20+ mentor and preacher )…
AND SPEAKING of being a race-baiter…. WHAT ABOUT OBAMA’s “”TYPICAL WHITE PERSON” comment….I AM a MINORITY MYSELF…and FOUND THIS TO BE A RACIST STATEMENT…
Can you imagine if Hillary had said “typical black person”…OF COURSE THEN YOU GUYS WOULD HAVE BEEN ALL OVER IT!!!!!!!!!…
Do yourselves a favor… and stop calling yourselves journalists… obviously YOU ARE NOT!!!! ONLY pretending to be.. !!!!!!!!
Thank you.
Disgusted Former FT subcriber and reader.
[…] But even with just 14 registered lobbyists, 5 of which are DC based (out of Hillary’s 22, only 6 are DC based), Obama’s message of not taking Washington Lobbyists money, goes out the window and is exposed is a flat out lie… or fabrication, if one is to use Financial Times vocabulary. […]
FT Update.
Today, Edward Luce of FT faints interest in Clinton’s newly-gained support from arch-enemy Scaife, while really just drilling on about Hillary’s need to quit. She doesn’t stand a chance of winning, according to the Times.
This sentence caught my eye:
Clinton supporters are revelling in a sense of defiance against what they describe as a consistent media bias in favour of Mr Obama.
“Reveling”? and “what they describe”?
Reveling as in we are getting drunk on it? Getting drunk on insults and jeers for Hillary to quit and just throw our vote into the bin?
We “describe” media bias? For a newspaper as self-conceited as the FT, access to media analysis data, shouldn’t be a problem. No one is “describing” anything- we are merely stating facts.
With calls on Hillary to quit amplified by a media chorus -absent any logic, for if logic were applied, there should be calls for Obama to quit - we are far from reveling, or merely “describing.”
We are defending ourselves from psychological warfare.
It’s clear from coverage such as that found in the FT, that no matter what we do, say, or document, we are not only being called prejudiced and confused, we are also rowdy and delusional.
Get your head out of the sand- FT. When Hillary wins, I hope your parent company Pearson’s share’s collapse, and you are bought out by some right-winger like Murdoch. Being attacked by the Wall Street Journal is something we are used to, being sacked by our own, we’re not.
Jeff: I read this prof columns and though loosely related to the race card accusations of Hillary it does bring into account the negative re-enforcements that Rev Wright promtoed from the pulpit. And Obama surely knows that this is so. Thanks for your genius. All of you are doing an amazing job we just need to get it out there.
Obama’s indoctrination
By Ralph R. Reiland
Monday, March 31, 2008
The Department of Justice reports that approximately 8,000 blacks were murdered in the United States in 2005. In one year, that’s exactly double the total number of American military deaths during the entire five years of the war in Iraq; in one year, that’s 10 times the average number of American military deaths per year since the start of the war.
A recent study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics at the Department of Justice shows that blacks committed murders in 2005 at a rate seven times higher than whites.
The vast majority of those 8,000 black murders in 2005 were intraracial — black victims being killed by other blacks. Similarly, Justice Department statistics covering the years 1976 through 2005 show that 94 percent of black murder victims were killed by blacks, and 86 percent of white murder victims were killed by whites.
Conversely, in inter-racial terms, 6 percent of black murder victims during those years were killed by non-blacks while 14 percent of white murder victims were killed by non-whites.
For 1976 through 2005, the Justice Department reports that blacks, 12 percent of the U.S. population, committed 52 percent of the nation’s murders and were 47 percent of all murder victims.
Until I heard the racist and anti-American tirades of Barack Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, it hadn’t occurred to me that the murderous fires in the black community were being stoked from the pulpits inside black churches.
I wonder if it’s ever occurred to Obama and Wright that it probably doesn’t help young people in the black community when they’re told that their country hates them, that the U.S. government gave them drugs and AIDS, and that jail and genocide are the officially-sanctioned plan for them.
“The government gives them drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America,’” shouted Wright at his congregation. “No, no, no. God damn America. That’s in the Bible, for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”
I wonder if Obama ever considered the negative impact on young blacks from listening to these hateful and anti-white tirades. It’s not as if Obama is blind to the influence of hate speech. When Don Imus made one careless remark about black female athletes, Obama was among the first to call for his firing. Fines and a temporary suspension weren’t enough. Obama said he wanted Imus silenced so that his young daughters never had to hear such language.
Does Obama think it’s good for his daughters and the black community when black leaders increase the black community’s level of anger, defeatism, paranoia, cynicism, negativity and pessimism? Does he think it’s good to jack up the level of the resentment and racism in a community that’s already overdosed on rage and victimhood?
“Recent statistics show that more than three times as many black people live in prison cells as in college dorms,” reports the Lincoln Institute for Research and Education. “One in every 10 black men between the ages of 25 and 29 is in prison.”
On top of being murdered, blacks are also “more likely than any other group to be victims of serious violent crime,” reports the Justice Department, which is defined as “rape, other sexual assaults, robbery or aggravated assault.”
And we need more ranting and raving, more boiling with rage?
Does Obama think it improves matters when black leaders tell blacks that they’re poor, sick, jailed or hooked on drugs because of a government plot? Does it help to fix things if the choir is singing “The devil made me do it,” the white devil?
“The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color,” Rev. Wright preaches to his congregation. In America, he asserted, “no black woman can ever be considered for anything outside what she can give with her body.”
The United States is “the number-one killer in the world,” preached Wright, the “U.S. of K.K.K. A,” a nation that only maintains its standard of living “by making sure that Third World people live in grinding poverty.”
For 20 years, Barack Obama drank the aforementioned Kool-Aid, never seeing the problem. That makes him a problem.
Ralph R. Reiland is an associate professor of economics at Robert Morris University and a local restaurateur. He can be reached at rrreiland@aol.com.
One more word on today’s FT article-
Mr. Luce don’t use the word “defiance” if you’re talking about victims of prejudice. It gives legitimacy to their claims.
This is probably not the place to post this but maybe someone will put it in a more appropriate spot.
I am so saddened that our MSM has chosen to denigrate a former First Lady the way they have. I mean for 8 years she was our countries representative to the world. And now she is a Senator for NYS and campaigning to be the Frist Female President in our nation’s history. How do other countries view our media? Is this how we should be treating someone who has given her life to public service. What will our future generations think of our time and how we let this happen. On the White House Bios for First Ladies I found this….I hope some of you will post this on other sites and perhaps people will take a moment to read it. Very sad at this time in our history to see a former First Lady and a former President treated so poorly. Astonishing. Meanwhile Senator Obama is treated like the next best thing to nirvanna.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/firstladies/hc42.html
Rodham Clinton
Hillary Rodham Clinton
During the 1992 presidential campaign, Hillary Rodham Clinton observed, “Our lives are a mixture of different roles. Most of us are doing the best we can to find whatever the right balance is . . . For me, that balance is family, work, and service.”
Hillary Diane Rodham, Dorothy and Hugh Rodham’s first child, was born on October 26, 1947. Two brothers, Hugh and Tony, soon followed. Hillary’s childhood in Park Ridge, Illinois, was happy and disciplined. She loved sports and her church, and was a member of the National Honor Society, and a student leader. Her parents encouraged her to study hard and to pursue any career that interested her.
President Bush Biography
Vice President Cheney Biography
Laura Bush Biography
Lynne Cheney Biography
As an undergraduate at Wellesley College, Hillary mixed academic excellence with school government. Speaking at graduation, she said, “The challenge now is to practice politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible, possible.”
In 1969, Hillary entered Yale Law School, where she served on the Board of Editors of Yale Law Review and Social Action, interned with children’s advocate Marian Wright Edelman, and met Bill Clinton. The President often recalls how they met in the library when she strode up to him and said, “If you’re going to keep staring at me, I might as well introduce myself.” The two were soon inseparable–partners in moot court, political campaigns, and matters of the heart.
After graduation, Hillary advised the Children’s Defense Fund in Cambridge and joined the impeachment inquiry staff advising the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives. After completing those responsibilities, she “followed her heart to Arkansas,” where Bill had begun his political career.
They married in 1975. She joined the faculty of the University of Arkansas Law School in 1975 and the Rose Law Firm in 1976. In 1978, President Jimmy Carter appointed her to the board of the Legal Services Corporation, and Bill Clinton became governor of Arkansas. Their daughter, Chelsea, was born in 1980.
Hillary served as Arkansas’s First Lady for 12 years, balancing family, law, and public service. She chaired the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee, co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, and served on the boards of the Arkansas Children’s Hospital, Legal Services, and the Children’s Defense Fund.
As the nation’s First Lady, Hillary continued to balance public service with private life. Her active role began in 1993 when the President asked her to chair the Task Force on National Health Care Reform. She continued to be a leading advocate for expanding health insurance coverage, ensuring children are properly immunized, and raising public awareness of health issues. She wrote a weekly newspaper column entitled “Talking It Over,” which focused on her experiences as First Lady and her observations of women, children, and families she has met around the world. Her 1996 book It Takes a Village and Other Lessons Children Teach Us was a best seller, and she received a Grammy Award for her recording of it.
As First Lady, her public involvement with many activities sometimes led to controversy. Undeterred by critics, Hillary won many admirers for her staunch support for women around the world and her commitment to children’s issues.
She was elected United States Senator from New York on November 7, 2000. She is the first First Lady elected to the United States Senate and the first woman elected statewide in New York.
The Financial Times has shown genuine judgment for what news is, and what opposition research is, and what smears are.
They deserve a good reputation, and a site named “Stop Obama” does not. It adds no new information to the world.
[…] at this shit. Jeff’s been saying they trying this crap for months now. Here we get the Huffington Post, claiming Clinton’s […]
[…] time ago I posted on the Financial Times, and how an elite global publication consistently portrays Clinton supporters as Racists. I […]
[…] consistently (1,2,3,4,5,6, etc) posted empirical evidence of pro-Obama/anti-Clinton media bias throughout this Primary, and having […]