« Obama's low white support in SC | Main | Obama white vote exceeds expectations »

January 26, 2008

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d25c69e200e5500949758834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bob Herbert quotes random blog comment:

Comments

Giving Herbert the benefit of the doubt, I think he was pointing to the blog comment either as evidence that the Kerrey "smear" was "working" or as evidence of the degree to which politics has created divisive stances (a general theme in the article), or both.

I think he may have highlighted that it was on a "mainstream news site" to show that it was not a fringe statement (but of course a "fringe" statement can occur anywhere). I don't see that he was necessarily saying the comments were coming from Clinton supporters.

I disagree Herbert him regarding the Kerrey statements. Kerrey made an initial comment saying Obama's background was a strength but he suggested that in some ways it would be a handicap as a candidate (because of prejudices). It was very brief comment made following a speech.

When Kerrey was "called" on those comments he generally repeated them, causing more outrage from some people. I disagree about the "smear" label, but I can't know the Senator's real intent.

One thing that Herbert did was to draw selectively from each set of comments, to show a pattern of 'sowing concern' or 'starting rumors' or some such. I think its somewhat a case of misreporting what was said and then ascribing a motive to it.

It's also a bit excessive using the term "Clinton surrogates" so freely. An Obama supported is not an "Obama surrogate", nor is a Clinton critic an "Obama surrogate". But Herbert seems to use that type of qualification to define his Hillary surrogates.

Giving Herbert the benefit of the doubt, I think he was pointing to the blog comment either as evidence that the Kerrey "smear" was "working" or as evidence of the degree to which politics has created divisive stances (a general theme in the article), or both

It's also a bit excessive using the term "Clinton surrogates" so freely. An Obama supported is not an "Obama surrogate", nor is a Clinton critic an "Obama surrogate".

The comments to this entry are closed.