“The Associated Press is wrong,” Palin said. “The comments are about an association that has been known but hasn’t been talked about, and I think it’s fair to talk about where Barack Obama kicked off his political career, in the guy’s living room.”

========================================

Douglass K. Daniel of the Associated Press is not a journalist; he is a venal operative who serves as mindless stenographer of the Obama campaign. Let us read the article he filed today at 10:43 am EST in full, beginning with its slanderous title. A revised version is available at this URL.

I quote paid pamphleteer Douglass K. Daniel with embedded commentary:

Analysis: Palin’s words carry racial tinge

[This is not “analysis;” this is a tendentious misinterpretation of Palin’s words. And besides, what is a “racial tinge?” Does everything have a racial tinge? Should we brace ourselves for another Bob Herbert moment? ]

WASHINGTON (AP) - By claiming that Democrat Barack Obama is “palling around with terrorists” and doesn’t see the U.S. like other Americans, vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin targeted key goals for a faltering campaign.
And though she may have scored a political hit each time, her attack was unsubstantiated and carried a racially tinged subtext that John McCain himself may come to regret.

[Sarah Palin’s discussion of Obama’s deep and controversial ties to Bill Ayers is not “unsubstantiated,” and it is certainly not an “attack.” Indeed, she offers a factual analysis of the available data, data Steve Diamond and others have made available to readers of No Quarter. And nothing about Sarah Palin’s words contain a “racially tinged subtext,” unless, of course, you are a compromised journalist who must project racism on everything you encounter in order to repress the racist impulses you compulsively disavow in your vain attempt to conceal your racism. I challenge Douglass K. Daniel to cite one sentence Sarah Palin utters that mentions or even alludes to race. Too bad he will fail, as she does not mention Obama’s race at all.]

First, Palin’s attack shows that her energetic debate with rival Joe Biden may be just the beginning, not the end, of a sharpened role in the battle to win the presidency.

[Yes, this is just the beginning. Besides, she is a Vice Presidential candidate, and O’Biden, to be sure, has been waging a very negative campaign against John McCain.]

“Our opponent … is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country,” Palin told a group of donors in Englewood, Colo. A deliberate attempt to smear Obama, McCain’s ticket-mate echoed the line at three separate events Saturday.

“This is not a man who sees America like you and I see America,” she said. “We see America as a force of good in this world. We see an America of exceptionalism.”

Her reference to Obama’s relationship with William Ayers, a member of the Vietnam-era Weather Underground, was exaggerated at best if not outright false. No evidence shows they were “pals” or even close when they worked on community boards years ago and Ayers hosted a political event for Obama early in his career.

[I refer Obamabot Douglass K. Daniel again to the work of Steve Diamond and others at No Quarter on Bill Ayers and Barack Obama. And yes, Douglass, friends tend to hold political fundraisers for friends, especially when those friends were engaged in philanthropic projects since 1988. And no, Douglass, a discussion of the facts is not a “smear.” Go “fight the smears” at an Obama campaign office and not in the office of the Associated Press.]

Obama, who was a child when the Weathermen were planting bombs, has denounced Ayers’ radical views and actions.

[Thank you for repeating the prevarication Obama uttered during the Philadelphia debate when questioned about his relationship with Ayers by ABC News, Douglass.

Did the Obama campaign send you this statement in a memo you read before typing the article? ]

With her criticism, Palin is taking on the running mate’s traditional role of attacker, said Rich Galen, a Republican strategist.

[Yes, she is, and that is perfectly acceptable.]

“There appears to be a newfound sense of confidence in Sarah Palin as a candidate, given her performance the other night,” Galen said. “I think that they are comfortable enough with her now that she’s got the standing with the electorate to take off after Obama.”

Second, Palin’s incendiary charge draws media and voter attention away from the worsening economy. It also comes after McCain supported a pork-laden Wall Street bailout plan in spite of conservative anger and his own misgivings.

[Nothing about her charge is “incendiary.” Incendiary are the acts of Bill Ayers. Incendiary, properly speaking, is bill Ayers. Incendiary is a person who commits arson or a person who incites sedition. And an incendiary agent is usually a bomb. Bill Ayers is the one who incited sedition with his bombs. Read the reports, and learn the English language. And no, this is not a distraction, unless, of course, you are an Obamabot who only views discussions of the economy as tried and true manners whereby voters in states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Colorado, Michigan and Minnesota can be terrorized into voting for candidates who refer to them as bitter and xenophobic. And by the way, Obama also voted for the bill you characterize as a “pork-laden Wall Street bailout.” But thank you for reiterating all the claims made in the memo you received from the Obama campaign.]

“It’s a giant changing of the subject,” said Jenny Backus, a Democratic strategist. “The problem is the messenger. If you want to start throwing fire bombs, you don’t send out the fluffy bunny to do it. I think people don’t take Sarah Palin seriously.”

[Thank you for revealing that all Democratic operatives must resort to sexism and misogyny when referring to Sarah Palin, Jenny Backus. Perhaps you are jealous of Sarah. Or perhaps you are just another mindless Obamabot. And by the way, it was Ayers who threw “fire bombs,” not Sarah Palin.]

The larger purpose behind Palin’s broadside is to reintroduce the question of Obama’s associations. Millions of voters, many of them open to being swayed to one side or the other, are starting to pay attention to an election a month away.

For the McCain campaign, that makes Obama’s ties to Ayers as well as convicted felon Antoin “Tony” Rezko and the controversial minister Jeremiah Wright ripe for renewed criticism. And Palin brings a fresh voice to the argument.

[Yes, she does. And why is it that you and your colleagues refuse to discuss any of this, Douglass? Why must we repeat this again and again? Are you simply derelict in your duties as journalist, or do we have to send you memos you can simply reproduce in Sunday news articles in order for us to finally convince the traditional media to discuss Obama’s problematic affiliations? You have time to accuse Sarah Palin of racism, but somehow you do not have time to investigate Obama’s ties to Rezko. I guess you have priorities.]

Effective character attacks have come earlier in campaigns. In June 1988, Republican George H.W. Bush criticized Democrat Michael Dukakis over the furlough granted to Willie Horton, a convicted murderer who then raped a woman and stabbed her companion. Related TV ads followed in September and October.

The Vietnam-era Swift Boat veterans who attacked Democrat John Kerry’s war record started in the spring of 2004 and gained traction in late summer.

“The four weeks that are left are an eternity. There’s plenty of time in the campaign,” said Republican strategist Joe Gaylord. “I think it is a legitimate strategy to talk about Obama and to talk about his background and who he pals around with.”

[Because Obama’s deep and controversial ties to Ayers are demonstrable, Palin’s discussion of that relationship will be effective. To try to compare Palin’s desire to analyze the record with the advertisements of the Swift Boat veterans reveals once again that you are simply regurgitating the bilge submitted to you by the Obama campaign. Those ads were false, while Palin’s discussion of Obama is based on rigorous research. And no, these are not “attacks;” these are facts to be considered. Or is any attempt to vet Barack Obama a “smear” and an “attack?”]

Palin’s words avoid repulsing voters with overt racism. But is there another subtext for creating the false image of a black presidential nominee “palling around” with terrorists while assuring a predominantly white audience that he doesn’t see their America?

[And what evidence do you have that “Palin’s words avoid repulsing voters with overt racism?” Quote someone who attended Palin’s event, please. Or cite a specific passage from Palin’s speech in which overt racism is couched in metaphorical terms. Because you lack evidence for this slanderous claim, I recommend you strike it from the article. And no, a predominantly white audience does not serve as evidence for racism.]

In a post-Sept. 11 America, terrorists are envisioned as dark-skinned radical Muslims, not the homegrown anarchists of Ayers’ day 40 years ago. With Obama a relative unknown when he began his campaign, the Internet hummed with false e-mails about ties to radical Islam of a foreign-born candidate.

Whether intended or not by the McCain campaign, portraying Obama as “not like us” is another potential appeal to racism. It suggests that the Hawaiian-born Christian is, at heart, un-American.

[While Americans may or may not visualize terrorists as swarthy, this has no bearing on Sarah Palin’ words. Besides, she is not responsible for Obama’s Muslim problem. And regarding Obama’s status as a “Hawaiian-born Christian,” I refer you to this document. And by the way, Palin stated Obama does not share the audience’s version of patriotism; nowhere did she state that he “is not like us” as a result of his appearance. I recommend you read and reread the transcript of her speech until its full import and significance is comprehended. And no, I will not hold my breath.]

Most troubling, however, is how allowing racism to creep into the discussion serves McCain’s purpose so well. As the fallout from Wright’s sermons showed earlier this year, forcing Obama to abandon issues to talk about race leads to unresolved arguments about America’s promise to treat all people equally.

[Obama and his wife Michelle Obama are largely responsible for inserting the politics of race into the Presidential campaign. Just read these articles, Douglass K. Daniel. And no, Americans did not react adversely to Wright and Father Pfleger as a result of “unresolved arguments about America’s promise to treat all people equally;” they recoiled when they discovered that Obama aided and abetted the activities of a man who damned America, claimed America deserved to experience 911 and claimed white politicians could never empathize with African-Americans. Exacerbating racial tensions in order to benefit Barack Obama, Reverend Wright alienated white voters who would have otherwise embraced Barack Obama. And please do not tell me that Father Pfleger helped us resolve America’s legacy of race with these statement he made in the God Damn AmeriKKKa church in inner city Chicago:

And please explain how Obama’s use of the phrase “typical white person” helped heal racial divides.]

John McCain occasionally looks back on decisions with regret. He has apologized for opposing a holiday to honor Martin Luther King Jr. He has apologized for refusing to call for the removal of a Confederate flag from South Carolina’s Capitol.

[And what relevance does this have to Sarah Palin’s discussion of Obama’s ties to Bill Ayers? Or did the Obama campaign ask you to cite this in the article? We know Obamabot Jonathan Alter mentioned everything you cite in this paragraph on Charlie Rose’s 11 SEPT 2008 television program. Will the Obama campaign issue a memo accusing McCain of racism that rivals the one they issued about the Clintons during the South Carolina primary? Will anyone mention how that exacerbated racial tensions, or will we excuse it as a result of Obama’s putative racial status?]

When the 2008 campaign is over McCain might regret appeals such as Palin’s perhaps more so if he wins.