Subject: With all due respect...
PLEASE PUBLISH THIS IN FULL.
You know I've been reading your page for at least
8 years. I think that gives me some credibility
to say this: you are disingenuous when you claim
that your commentary is not anti-Obama.
I don't think I've ever said that.
I think Hillary has a better chance in November,
so that means I think Obama has less of a chance.
What I have said is that I don't insult or demean
or slur or slam Obama in a personal way.
You've given yourself plausible deniability by
avoiding any outright insults of him, but you
1) let others do it on your behalf, and 2) consistently
and openly challenge Obama and his
supporters to answer your and others' charges,
while not holding Clinton to the same standard.
I think you just said it's wrong to print anything
that doesn't flatter Obama.
Good God, have you looked around the internet
and seen the hundreds of sites
that either outright call Hillary a ruthless
whore or imply that she is?
If you're claiming I'm like those sites, you're
If you're not claiming that, could
you be more precise in your accusations?
You can't see this on your end, but I regularly
de-flame a lot of the letters I get.
When someone write, "those brain-dead Obamatons,"
I change that to "Obama supporters,"
because there's nothing to be gained by fanning
the flames of hate.
And what's wrong with asking questions?
Example: Obama said his camp had nothing
to do with fanning the flames on the original
"the Clintons are racist" charges which involed
MLK and LBJ and the Civil Right Act.
Hutchison Political Report, he says:
You (Obama) told reporters
that neither you nor anyone in your
campaign had made the
accusation that Clinton denigrated King.
Why did you say that
when clearly it was the memo from your
campaign advisor that
triggered the media and public assault on
Clinton regarding King?
Obama is currently beloved by the lying whore
media that took down Gore and Kerry.
They will not give us the facts if the facts
might hurt their candidate. I don't have the time to
investigate these charges, so I ask, "Are
these charges true?" and YOU say that's out of line.
I think you have a problem with the First Amendment.
It's clear that YOU don't think these questions
should be asked, much less answered.
YOU apparently have unwavering faith in Obama,
wheras I do not. To me, Obama is
an unknown and if I was going to have unwavering
faith in the unknown I'd be religious.
We're choosing the person who'll run the planet
for 4-8 years and you don't think we should
know as much as we can about the man upon whom
we're about to bestow unlimted power?
Okay, so you've never come right out and said
"Obama sucks and Clinton rules",
but anyone with the ability to think critically
can see that you have turned your page
into a propaganda tool for the Clinton campaign
(whether you intended it that way or not.)
Did you remember to ask: Compared to whom?
Compare bartcop.com to DailyKos,
HuffingtonPost, ConsortiumNews, Buzzflash, Ed Schultz,
Keith Olbermann, Randi Rhodes, Chris Matthews,
Democratic Underground, (the list is endless )
and you'll see bartcop.com
is a citadel of honesty, fairness and common sense.
Things are so one-sided, bartcop.com
is one of or THE biggest pro-Hillary site on the web,
and you think I should pull back and help the
other 95% beat up on the underdog?
Your tactic of challenging detractors to find
"ONE time when I've insulted Obama" is
(I'm sorry to say this) reminiscient of the Fox
News tactic of using the phrase "some people say"
to interject commentary disguised as analysis.
How in the world can you equate "quote me" with
FOX News doesn't have every word they've ever
used archived for people to check them.
The vulgarPigboy says "Mark my words," but you
can't because he's afraid to archive anything.
It should be damn easy for you to quote me if
I'm as guilty as you claim I am.
Just because you don't outright say it doesn't
mean you aren't getting your message across loud and clear.
In media language, it's called "framing." See
George Lakoff's book "Don't Think of an Elephant" for an
excellent and concise discussion of this. In
fact, what makes what you're doing potentially dangerous
is that you've convinced many people that they're
not being propagandized by you.
Why are you so angry? Because I have opinions
that don't always run parallel to yours?
I never said I was anything more than a dude with
a smart mouth and a lot of opinions.
I've said again and again that bartcop.com
isn't a place to go to for research or fact-checking.
People come here to be entertained and laugh
at the absurdities of the right wing and politics in general.
For example, on your "questions" to Obama (that
you ask readers to respond to)
why haven't you done the same thing with Clinton?
The Clintons aren't unknowns.
Besides, there are hundreds of Clinton-bashing
Why would I want to be like the rest of the pack?
How about I ask you a question:
Why haven't you answered any of the Obama questions?
Are questions the enemy of the Obama campaign?
Why didn't you discuss at length the fact that
it was a Clinton staffer who originated the email
called "Who is Barack Obama?" that accused him
of secretly Muslim, anti-American, and unpatriotic?
Did that happen?
Who is the staffer?
Got a link to the memo?
If they sent that e-mail, why doesn't he bring
that up in their debates?
Why doesn't Obama wave that traceable e-mail
with Clinton fingerprints on it
in her face and dare her to deny that her camp
sent out such a pack of lies?
Why do you only seem to pick up and run with the
stories that support the case you want to make?
You want me to make Obama's case for him?
I'm not that good.
I know your page doesn't claim to be legitimate
journalism and that you acknowledge that it's just
a humor site, but (though you will insert some
self-depricating joke in response to this) people read
your site for perspective on issues that matter,
and you have some responsibility to them.
I don't have a stranglehold on what people can
read on the internet.
There are hundreds and hundreds
of sites that extoll the virtues of Obama.
There are less than a handfull that don't
call Hillary a nasty, conniving whore
BTW, you're kind of long-winded for someone who
inisted that I print every word :)
Of course you are entitled to your views and God
Bless ya for all your success with your website over
the past decade. But at the very least, be real
enough with us to admit you've got an agenda when it comes
to Obama and Clinton, and it is to reinforce
the frame that Clinton should be the Democratic party's nominee.
Otherwise you're no better than the "media whores"
you've spent a decade unspinning.
My "agenda" is hardly hidden.
You want me to "admit" that I think She should be our nominee?
Is that what has you in such a dither?
That I haven't spelled out who I'm rooting for?
OK, I'll take that dare - I think Hillary is a better candidate,
but an Obama victory would be much better for me and this page.
Cynthia B, Ph.D.
Department of Political Science & International
Cindy, I'd like to see you smoke one, maybe watch a sunset - and relax.
You're going to get an ulcer if you stay this agitated.
I wish Obama the best of luck in this campaign.
Actually, I NEED for him to win, strictly for selfish reasons.
Back to Bartcop.com
to Bart | Discuss
it on The BartCop Forum | Comment
on it at the BartBlog