Lamont Supporter Runs Racist Ad Against Lieberman

[red states rule]

The Dems have now ran a racist ad against Sen Joe Lieberman. On the Huffington Post, a liberal blogger ran a doctored photo of Joe Lieberman in blackface.

Remember, this is the same Joe Lieberman the Dems wanted as Vice President in 2000.

The liberal media has ignored this story. I wonder what the coverage would be if a Republican would have done this to a Dem

http://newsbusters.org/node/6730
Hartford Headline Spins Blackface Photo for Lamont
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on August 3, 2006 - 08:33.
You're a Connecticut resident, a good citizen but not a political junkie. You scan the Hartford Courant - the state's largest paper - this morning and see the following headline:

'Lamont Spokesman: Blog Photo Offensive'

Quick: which campaign did something wrong, and which is rightly outraged? Based on the headline, you could certainly be forgiven for assuming that Lamont was the injured party.

As it turns out, the facts are just the opposite.

As detailed here, Jane Hamsher, a self-described 'progressive blogger' very closely tied to the campaign of Ned Lamont, yesterday wrote a column at Huffington Post containing a doctored photo of Joe Lieberman in blackface. The photo quickly made the rounds of the internet and was yanked a few hours later.

But this was the first day of coverage of the event by the Connecticut newspapers. You would have thought the headline would have been along the lines of the one in the Washington Post: Lieberman Assails Lamont Over Supporter's Blog Post. Yet the Hartford Courant's headline is virtually the diametric opposite. To be sure, the facts emerge in the body of the article, but even there the lead focuses on Lamont's condemnation of the photo rather than the offense to Lieberman.

A pro-Lamont current at the Courant?

By the way, for whatever reason, Hamsher has blackface on the brain. Her blog item of September 13th, 2005 contains yet another blackface photo. Hat tip to NewsBusters poster Caring White Guy.

Watching the first half-hour of the morning news shows on the broadcast networks today yielded no mention of the incident. Think Today/GMA/Early Show might have found time for coverage if it were a campaign insider supporting a conservative Republican, rather than liberal Dem Lamont, who had, er, tarred an opponent with a fabricated blackface photo?

Update - more on Lamont/Hamsher connection [from Outside the Beltway]: "Dan Balz points out in today’s WaPo, 'She is not on the campaign staff but has actively promoted Lamont’s candidacy and helped raise money for him through her blog.' Later in the piece, Lieberman spokesman Dan Gerstein notes that, 'She travels with him, she’s raised money for them and has become the primary mouthpiece for him in the blogosphere.' But even that substantially downplays Hamsher’s role in the campaign. She has, for example, produced a television commercial for Lamont. That featured Lamont. Tom Maguire has the details. View it on Flickr (via Malkin)."

 

[Avatar4321]

I think id like to know more about why this picture was racist. its nots really clear.

 

[red states rule]

I think id like to know more about why this picture was racist. its nots really clear.

Blackface is not racist?

 

[Annie]

I think id like to know more about why this picture was racist. its nots really clear.

Here ya go:

And Lamont did nothing to help himself today. Lots of links and more pics/documents:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005661.htm

Blackface diaries: Lamont and the nutroots
By Michelle Malkin · August 03, 2006 10:35 AM

US Senate candidate Ned Lamont of Connecticut, darling of the left-wing blogosphere, is now running as fast as he can from the nutball bloggers who have zealously promoted his campaign against Sen. Joe Lieberman from its inception. (Today's Vent gives the overview.) And he's lying through his teeth in his effort to rid himself of the stain.

Reeling from the idiotic blackface stunt pulled by his close blogger confidante, Jane Hamsher, yesterday, Lamont actually told News Channel 8's Jamie Muro this:

"I don't know anything about the blogs, I'm not responsible for those, I have no comment on 'em...Independent blogs, I can't say anything about it."

"I don't know anything about the blogs?"
​

This is a still from Lamont's first TV campaign ad. The guy sitting next to him is the biggest left-wing blogger in the blogosphere, Markos "Screw Them" Moulitsas.

"I don't know anything about the blogs?"

Lamont has his own blog...

lamontblog005.jpg

...with a nutroots blogroll that features Kos, Hamsher, and every other major left-wing blogger on the scene:

lamont012.jpg

Lamont's blogger blogged from the YearlyKos convention, where he pumped up attendees with "Nedrenaline." (And you thought "Joementum" was bad.)

As I pointed out yesterday, Jane Hamsher is more than a mere "independent" blogger sitting on the Lamont campaign sidelines. She filmed Lamont's first videoblog. She chauffeured Lamont and his staff. She raised money for him. She's still on his blogroll. And despite Lamont's claim that he doesn't control blogs and Hamsher's claim that she "answers to nobody," he told her to pull the blackface Photoshop yesterday--and she dutifully complied.

Danny Glover at Beltway Blogroll points out:

[L]iberal blogs such as Eschaton and TalkLeft have criticized the use of blackface in other settings. And even more ironically, Hamsher herself went ballistic last fall when first lady Laura Bush made a reference to comedian Eddie Cantor, who gained a following with his blackface routine.

"Does the first lady not know who Eddie Cantor was?" Hamsher wrote. "Or does she actually think it's appropriate to invoke a comedian famous for appearing in blackface when talking about minority students, and then crack wise about their erstwhile future as criminals?"​

But Lamont doesn't know "anything about blogs" and he's "not responsible for those."

The Hartford Courant reports that Lamont's campaign manager "asked if Lieberman would distance himself from some controversial supporters, such as conservative commentators Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity or Michelle Malkin." Are they really that stupid? I can't recall any of us raising money for Lieberman, organizing Blog Days for Lieberman, driving Lieberman to campaign events, filming video blogs for Lieberman, or publishing blackface Photoshops in support of Lieberman.

Jane Hamsher, on the other hand, has done all that and more for Ned Lamont. And at her blog, her minions are still throwing out stinkbombs. Typical liberal deflection: She does the blackface stunt, yet I'm "Michelle MalKKKin."

Lamont's Kool-Aid drinkers argue that Hamsher's attack on Lieberman has nothing to do with his campaign. But Lamont's allegiance with, and to, his blog promoters is central to his candidacy. Don't take my word for it. Lamont blogged it himself at the Daily Kos back in May, paying homage to his "heroes" in the blogosphere:

When no one else would step up to challenge Senator Lieberman and everything he represents, my family and I made the decision that the time was indeed right. I hoped that the fundamental humanity and decency of everything America stands for in its core values would call upon others as it had me to rise up and say no more. And when the final votes were tallied at the state's Democratic convention, our faith was vindicated. In the face of unbelievable odds and some pressure from the party brass, Connecticut Democrats called out for change. My belief in our party, our delegates, and in the people of my state has never been firmer.

I realize that our campaign would have been much more difficult without the netroots. I never had to make promises I did not want to keep to big donors because netroots citizens gave five, ten, twenty dollars at a time to my campaign with no strings attached. Before the mainstream media were taking us seriously, bloggers told my story with honesty and insight and compassion. The free exchange of comments and ideas in the blogosphere carried the tale and forced the traditional media to take notice. Ordinary people with video cameras, with petitions, with websites volunteering their time and their passion forged an army that no K Street lobbying money could buy. To all of you I am eternally grateful.

We cannot bring about change until we are willing to take up arms for a cause we believe in, and we will not carry the day until we can imagine that victory is possible. Each and every one of you is a hero to me today for daring to imagine that it is so.
​

***

Mark Finkelstein was watching the boob tube this morning:

Watching the first half-hour of the morning news shows on the broadcast networks today yielded no mention of the incident. Think Today/GMA/Early Show might have found time for coverage if it were a campaign insider supporting a conservative Republican, rather than liberal Dem Lamont, who had, er, tarred an opponent with a fabricated blackface photo?​

Dean Barnett guesting at Hugh Hewitt:

I’ll have much to say about the Joe Lieberman-in-blackface controversy in a bit. I’m still reeling, however, from the shock that the progressive netroots have jeopardized one of their preferred favorite candidates with a juvenile and tasteless act. They’re generally such mature and thoughtful people who show such reliably astute judgment.

Am I alone in seeing the dark magic of Karl Rove at work here?​

 

[Annie]

And the kos kids are putting their spin on Lieberman. Of course, Lamont has no idea of the kids, Daily Kos, or blogs. I swear, the whacked libs just don't know how prejudiced they are at the core:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/8/3/171136/0778

 

[red states rule]

The day the Dems put Howie Dean in charge, the Dems handed the car keys over to the kook left.

I do not agree with Lieberman on many issues, but he is right on Iraq. The kook left is willing to toss out 30 years of service over one issue

If Lieberman loses, what does this say about the Democrat party and Bill Clinton (who has stood by Lieberman)

 

[theHawk]

Don't you guys know? Democrats freed the slaves so they can make fun of them all they want. :soul:

 

[red states rule]

Don't you guys know? Democrats freed the slaves so they can make fun of them all they want. :soul:

Remember this classic from Howie Dean while talking to black Dems........

"Do you think Republicans could get the many number of blacks in a room this size? Only if they brought in the hotel staff!"

 

[KarlMarx]

Where is the liberals' rage at this?

Mel Gibson says "fucking Jew" and their knickers are in a knot. Someone portrays Joe Lieberman on a liberal website, which is not only racist but anti-semitic (since he's Jewish). Seems like a double standard.

Isn't it seem odd that a bunch of conservatives are upset over how a liberal is being treated?

Except for the fact that Senator Lieberaman, while liberal, is also a supporter of the war, is deeply religious and, in my opinion, follows his principals rather than the party line. While I don't agree with the man, I do have a lot of respect for him, he seems to be a decent man.

Maybe that's the difference? To the conservative, it's the principal of the matter, to the liberal, it depends on who it is....

 

[dilloduck]

Where is the liberals' rage at this?

Mel Gibson says "fucking Jew" and their knickers are in a knot. Someone portrays Joe Lieberman on a liberal website, which is not only racist but anti-semitic (since he's Jewish). Seems like a double standard.

Isn't it seem odd that a bunch of conservatives are upset over how a liberal is being treated?

Except for the fact that Senator Lieberaman, while liberal, is also a supporter of the war, is deeply religious and, in my opinion, follows his principals rather than the party line. While I don't agree with the man, I do have a lot of respect for him, he seems to be a decent man.

Maybe that's the difference? To the conservative, it's the principal of the matter, to the liberal, it depends on who it is....

Exactly---whatever scenario serves thier agenda better is the one they will defend. Zero principles except to self serve.