How Barack Obama played the race card

[chance1]

Of course, you neglect to mention that Sean Wilentz is a close family friend of the Clintons. His specialty is 19th century American history, and this piece is more like the boilerplate of 19th century campaigns than modern journalism.

smoking gun

love it

 

[MystikWizard]

How is your assumption that Clinton-supporters are voting based on gender-preference any different than the assumption that Obama-supporters are voting based on racial preference? Or, for that matter, an assumption that McCain supporters are voting based on a gender AND racial preference for white males?

Because as a Black Man, Obama has phenomenal support even amongst White Men and the Youth Vote amongst even Whites. Therefore, these individuals aren't being called into question. I can't speak the same for Blacks, obviously. You and I know there are Blacks that are out there that are voting based on Race, and I don't agree with that, either.

But if you look at Hillary Clinton's support, an overwhelming majority is coming from ... well ... women. And I hope you aren't going to deny that there are a ton of Feminist sympathizers in the Gay Community, because you and I both know there are. You can't deny that Gender is coming into play here.

Gender nor Race is any reason to vote for a Presidential Candidate ... and it boils my blood because it is going on. But as a White Man, who is a Republican nonetheless, I am supporting a Democratic Candidate this go round. And one that is a Black Man named Barack Obama.

Show me a Female Candidate running that has integrity and has demonstrated sound leadership in office, and I'll consider voting for her. Because we aren't getting that from the Clinton Camp.

What about the implied gender-bias behind your assumption that anyone who would support a female candidate must not be voting on the issues? Or the race-bias implied by some of the disparaging characterizations of "duped" Obama supporters?

Because the Hillary supporters on here within the Gay community have yet to explain good, sound, legitimate reasons why they are supporting Hillary Clinton. The "experience" argument is bullshit and everyone knows it. None of you can tell me what she did as First Lady. Don't feel bad. Nor can the rest of the country. Therefore, that so-called experience can't be considered if we don't know what it is ... which the Clinton Camp refuses to release.

Her character is deplorable. She's run a horrendous attack campaign. Yet when confronted with this, you and your kind ignore all of this and pretend like her or her husband have done no wrong. Therefore, since you can't legitimately explain, nor wish to defend any of this ... the only logical assumption is that you are joining the Feminists and are voting for Hillary because of Gender.

The rest of us know it's going on. What's hysterical is those that wish to deny it.

 

[khushibagh]

I find it hard to believe anything published in The New Republican.

 

[Lostlover]

Because as a Black Man, Obama has phenomenal support even amongst White Men and the Youth Vote amongst even Whites. Therefore, these individuals aren't being called into question. I can't speak the same for Blacks, obviously. You and I know there are Blacks that are out there that are voting based on Race, and I don't agree with that, either.

But if you look at Hillary Clinton's support, an overwhelming majority is coming from ... well ... women. And I hope you aren't going to deny that there are a ton of Feminist sympathizers in the Gay Community, because you and I both know there are. You can't deny that Gender is coming into play here.

Gender nor Race is any reason to vote for a Presidential Candidate ... and it boils my blood because it is going on. But as a White Man, who is a Republican nonetheless, I am supporting a Democratic Candidate this go round. And one that is a Black Man named Barack Obama.

Show me a Female Candidate running that has integrity and has demonstrated sound leadership in office, and I'll consider voting for her. Because we aren't getting that from the Clinton Camp.



Because the Hillary supporters on here within the Gay community have yet to explain good, sound, legitimate reasons why they are supporting Hillary Clinton. The "experience" argument is bullshit and everyone knows it. None of you can tell me what she did as First Lady. Don't feel bad. Nor can the rest of the country. Therefore, that so-called experience can't be considered if we don't know what it is ... which the Clinton Camp refuses to release.

Her character is deplorable. She's run a horrendous attack campaign. Yet when confronted with this, you and your kind ignore all of this and pretend like her or her husband have done no wrong. Therefore, since you can't legitimately explain, nor wish to defend any of this ... the only logical assumption is that you are joining the Feminists and are voting for Hillary because of Gender.

The rest of us know it's going on. What's hysterical is those that wish to deny it.

Took the words out of my mouth.

The thing is, I have TONS of respect for Hillary. So many accolades. So much intelligence.

But such a cold heart. Such a shady person that will say anything to be elected.

For all the feminist sympathizers here, well, it's just sad. The media likes to portray gays as women and feminine. Well what I've seen here gives credence to such ignorant statements.

Defending someone just because she's a woman. Never mind that had a helping hand in this generation's biggest disaster (Iraq) or that she's flipping and flopping over NAFTA.

Barack is a cleaner, more polite, more honest and less baggage having Hillary. But gays on here are still attached to Hillary at the hip.

About 50% of the gays on this board thought Hillary won the debate last night. MSNBC with a larger pool of voters had Obama with a 70% advantage for the debates.

Gay supporters of Hillary are just not in touch with reality.

 

[Twisted06]

Took the words out of my mouth.

The thing is, I have TONS of respect for Hillary. So many accolades. So much intelligence.

But such a cold heart. Such a shady person that will say anything to be elected.

For all the feminist sympathizers here, well, it's just sad. The media likes to portray gays as women and feminine. Well what I've seen here gives credence to such ignorant statements.

Defending someone just because she's a woman. Never mind that had a helping hand in this generation's biggest disaster (Iraq) or that she's flipping and flopping over NAFTA.

again you repeat yourself

such a cold heart. do explain that to me and why shes a shady person.

the media portrays gays as woman cuz of how many of them act like woman.

i guess your forget how some of the states benefited from nafta ? like uh texas for starters

 

[Lostlover]

again you repeat yourself

such a cold heart. do explain that to me and why shes a shady person.

the media portrays gays as woman cuz of how many of them act like woman.

i guess your forget how some of the states benefited from nafta ? like uh texas for starters

Supported the Iraq war. Then late last year calls it "Bush's war". Now she wants soldiers in Iraq home within 60 days (flip flopping and poll watching --> no integrity).

She can't have it both ways. She lacks integrity with such drastic changes in opinions.

I haven't said either way about NAFTA. I'm not in the workforce. I am ignorant on the topic to have an opinion.

But I DO KNOW that Hillary has taken credit for NAFTA and has disowned it all within a very short period of time. She's trying to light both ends of the stick and it's so obvious. She's speaking in Ohio now so she's against NAFTA. But maybe in Texas she won't mention NAFTA because NAFTA hasn't been as detrimental to Texas as it has been with Ohio.

On the issues with gays and women in the media: No, no. Paris Hilton's biggest supporters are gays and teenage girls. So are Madonna's. So are Britney Spears. The list goes on. This die hard support for Hillary is just an extension of that.

 

[Twisted06]

Supported the Iraq war. Then late last year calls it "Bush's war". Now she wants soldiers in Iraq home within 60 days (flip flopping and poll watching --> no integrity).

She can't have it both ways. She lacks integrity with such drastic changes in opinions.

I haven't said either way about NAFTA. I'm not in the workforce. I am ignorant on the topic to have an opinion.

But I DO KNOW that Hillary has taken credit for NAFTA and has disowned it all within a very short period of time. She's trying to light both ends of the stick and it's so obvious. She's speaking in Ohio now so she's against NAFTA. But maybe in Texas she won't mention NAFTA because NAFTA hasn't been as detrimental to Texas as it has been with Ohio.

No, no. Paris Hilton's biggest supporters are gays and teenage girls. So are Madonna's. So are Britney Spears. The list goes on.

i guess you just chose not to listen to her at all when she speaks then. shes against the war now yes because of the way it turned out. things were promised from bush and he didnt deliver his promises. and if you havent noticed a majority of the people who voted in favor of the war are against it and refer to it as bushes war. but you fail to see that because your paying attention to one person youve expressed enough that you dislike extremely.

and again she hasnt disowned nafta. you fail to miss it when she said she would call for a time out and have the talks over again on how to make every state in american benefit from nafta. i really dont call that disowning it all together as you worded it.

and look at past elections. every president during the election season has said what the people in that state will want to hear. your in it to win it, of course your not gonna tell the truth because the truth may not get you the win you seek. your acting like this is a first for any politician to act the way she is.

 

[Lostlover]

i guess you just chose not to listen to her at all when she speaks then. shes against the war now yes because of the way it turned out. things were promised from bush and he didnt deliver his promises. and if you havent noticed a majority of the people who voted in favor of the war are against it and refer to it as bushes war. but you fail to see that because your paying attention to one person youve expressed enough that you dislike extremely.

and again she hasnt disowned nafta. you fail to miss it when she said she would call for a time out and have the talks over again on how to make every state in american benefit from nafta. i really dont call that disowning it all together as you worded it.

and look at past elections. every president during the election season has said what the people in that state will want to hear. your in it to win it, of course your not gonna tell the truth because the truth may not get you the win you seek. your acting like this is a first for any politician to act the way she is.

THAT'S THE PROBLEM! She's against it now because of the way it turned out! That's not a good reason to be against a war that never should have started.

If the Iraq war was a rosy and easy as Bush thought it would be, Clinton would be calling herself a war time president who makes "bold decisions." It's so obvious to people that see through her bullshit. Her two faced-ness is SOOO obvious.
Remember bin Laden?

 

[Twisted06]

THAT'S THE PROBLEM! She's against it now because of the way it turned out! That's not a good reason to be against a war that never should have started.

If the Iraq war was a rosy and easy as Bush thought it would be, Clinton would be calling herself a war time president who makes "bold decisions." It's so obvious to people that see through her bullshit. Her two faced-ness is SOOO obvious.
Remember bin Laden?

before i say anything to respond to you. im gonna look up the record of the senate who voted yea and nay to the iraq war. so you can see hillary is not the only one who voted yea and now wishes she could take her vote back but as for right now i need some sleep. so addios

 

[MystikWizard]

THAT'S THE PROBLEM! She's against it now because of the way it turned out! That's not a good reason to be against a war that never should have started.

If the Iraq war was a rosy and easy as Bush thought it would be, Clinton would be calling herself a war time president who makes "bold decisions." It's so obvious to people that see through her bullshit. Her two faced-ness is SOOO obvious.
Remember bin Laden?

Ditto. Hillary does what is best for Hillary's political career. Not for the country.

She didn't leave Bill Clinton after the Lewinsky Scandal because that would mean giving up the powers of being First Lady. She voted for the Iraq War because she sensed the country wanted a War. Therefore, even though she was privy to more information than quite obviously the citizens of this country, she went with it ... and has supported the Iraq War ever since. Up until now, of course, when she has a chance at being elected. Then, of course, the tide changes. She's had plenty of time to change her mind on it, but not until recently has she denounced the War ... when she began running a Campaign for President of the United States. Where was she from 2003 on?

And apparently it sits well with her supporters that she voted to label the Iranian Guard a Terrorist Group, as well. For all the Bush bashing from the Hillary supporters, her voting record sure aligns to his goals. Once again, I suppose poor Hillary was duped. But hey, Hillary's a Woman right, gay supporters of Hillary? So, let's give her a Free Pass on this one, too. After all, saying otherwise is no way to treat a woman. Right, NickCole?

Originally Posted by Lostlover

For all the feminist sympathizers here, well, it's just sad. The media likes to portray gays as women and feminine. Well what I've seen here gives credence to such ignorant statements.

LostLover hit the nail on the head. Voters within the Gay Community who are voting based on Gender are giving the Gay Community a horrendous name. Because it is you voters who are falling right into the typical Gay stereotype. What is it that only you Clinton supporters are seeing that the rest of the country ... Republicans AND Democrats ... apparently aren't seeing?

Again, LostLover is correct. Those members in the Gay Community are detached from reality and are living in a Fantasy World with your Feminist Agenda. What would be nice is if those within the Gay Community would actually rise above the stereotype and take the high road by supporting someone with far more character and integrity ... which obviously means nothing to you, since Hillary is a Woman and that is all that apparently matters.

For those that wish to defend Hillary as the nominee and take a stand that this has nothing to do with Gender, then I want you to do a couple of things.

First, take Hillary's political career ... all her past votes, all her fundraising scandals ... everything ... and put it in the body of Chris Dodd, (for example) or any male candidate, for that matter. For all intents and purposes, Hillary is also dropping the last name Clinton, as well ... for this exercise. Now, admit to me that all of the candidates, you would still be looking at this male candidate is still your #1 Candidate for President.

Second, defend all of her questionable votes, and explain them in a convincing manner. Why did Hillary vote for the Iraq War. Why did she vote against the Levin Amendment, if she was so much against the use of Force? Why did she continually vote to fund the War up until she began a run for the Presidency? And why did she vote to label the Iranian Guard a terrorist Group?

Next, I want you to explain with a straight face how Hillary can be a candidate for the Middle Class and how she can portray herself as such ... after taking the most money from Corporate Lobbyists of all the Presidential Candidates on both sides.

Explain to me why it sits well with you that Hillary has taken the most money again, of the Republicans and Democrats, from Defense Contractors ... especially given her past voting record?

Why does it sit well with you that FOX News is holding Fundraisers for Hillary Clinton and why even Conservatives like Ann Coulter say they would vote for Hillary Clinton?

Explain to all of us why Hillary's so-called "Experience" as First Lady should be taken into consideration when we, the voting Republic, still do not know what exactly that "experience" entailed. Furthermore, if you have the knowledge and wish to defend Hillary on the Experience front, tell us all exactly what she accomplished as First Lady, since apparently you are privy to information the rest of us are not.

Start giving legitimate explanations to some of these issues ... then maybe you won't be accused of being Feminist Voters who are voting based on Gender.

 

[TierraSimms]

Ditto. Hillary does what is best for Hillary's political career. Not for the country.

She didn't leave Bill Clinton after the Lewinsky Scandal because that would mean giving up the powers of being First Lady. She voted for the Iraq War because she sensed the country wanted a War. Therefore, even though she was privy to more information than quite obviously the citizens of this country, she went with it ... and has supported the Iraq War ever since. Up until now, of course, when she has a chance at being elected. Then, of course, the tide changes. She's had plenty of time to change her mind on it, but not until recently has she denounced the War ... when she began running a Campaign for President of the United States. Where was she from 2003 on?

And apparently it sits well with her supporters that she voted to label the Iranian Guard a Terrorist Group, as well. For all the Bush bashing from the Hillary supporters, her voting record sure aligns to his goals. Once again, I suppose poor Hillary was duped. But hey, Hillary's a Woman right, gay supporters of Hillary? So, let's give her a Free Pass on this one, too. After all, saying otherwise is no way to treat a woman. Right, NickCole?



LostLover hit the nail on the head. Voters within the Gay Community who are voting based on Gender are giving the Gay Community a horrendous name. Because it is you voters who are falling right into the typical Gay stereotype. What is it that only you Clinton supporters are seeing that the rest of the country ... Republicans AND Democrats ... apparently aren't seeing?

Again, LostLover is correct. Those members in the Gay Community are detached from reality and are living in a Fantasy World with your Feminist Agenda. What would be nice is if those within the Gay Community would actually rise above the stereotype and take the high road by supporting someone with far more character and integrity ... which obviously means nothing to you, since Hillary is a Woman and that is all that apparently matters.

For those that wish to defend Hillary as the nominee and take a stand that this has nothing to do with Gender, then I want you to do a couple of things.

First, take Hillary's political career ... all her past votes, all her fundraising scandals ... everything ... and put it in the body of Chris Dodd, (for example) or any male candidate, for that matter. For all intents and purposes, Hillary is also dropping the last name Clinton, as well ... for this exercise. Now, admit to me that all of the candidates, you would still be looking at this male candidate is still your #1 Candidate for President.

Second, defend all of her questionable votes, and explain them in a convincing manner. Why did Hillary vote for the Iraq War. Why did she vote against the Levin Amendment, if she was so much against the use of Force? Why did she continually vote to fund the War up until she began a run for the Presidency? And why did she vote to label the Iranian Guard a terrorist Group?

Next, I want you to explain with a straight face how Hillary can be a candidate for the Middle Class and how she can portray herself as such ... after taking the most money from Corporate Lobbyists of all the Presidential Candidates on both sides.

Explain to me why it sits well with you that Hillary has taken the most money again, of the Republicans and Democrats, from Defense Contractors ... especially given her past voting record?

Why does it sit well with you that FOX News is holding Fundraisers for Hillary Clinton and why even Conservatives like Ann Coulter say they would vote for Hillary Clinton?

Explain to all of us why Hillary's so-called "Experience" as First Lady should be taken into consideration when we, the voting Republic, still do not know what exactly that "experience" entailed. Furthermore, if you have the knowledge and wish to defend Hillary on the Experience front, tell us all exactly what she accomplished as First Lady, since apparently you are privy to information the rest of us are not.

Start giving legitimate explanations to some of these issues ... then maybe you won't be accused of being Feminist Voters who are voting based on Gender.

WOW, WOW, WOW! I'm a female, and I even agree with these statements. I guess because I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton on February 5th, I'm all the sudden antifeminist because I'm supporting Obama. I must say after his primary cycle I have seen more than ever numerous members of the GLBT community (that I'm apart of since I'm bisexual) have some major issues and a lot of it does have to do with sex and race. It's shameful at best.

 

[Backlum-Chaam]

Because as a Black Man, Obama has phenomenal support even amongst White Men and the Youth Vote amongst even Whites.

And as a woman, Clinton has strong support among Latino men, Asian men and gay men. Or do only straight white men count? Does Obama's youth-vote merely imply age-preference toward the younger candidate? If individuals who cross racial lines to support Obama "aren't being called into question", then why are males who cross the gender line being called into question for supporting Clinton? You've struck a double standard and a false comparison.

But if you look at Hillary Clinton's support, an overwhelming majority is coming from ... well ... women.

And if you look at Obama's support, an overwhelming proportional majority is coming from... well... blacks. In fact, a higher percentage of the black community is voting for Obama, than the percentage of women who are voting for Hillary. We both agree that this is problematic. So why would you trot out the gender version of this trend to bolster your argument, when Obama's momentum is even more vulnerable to the same criticism from a racial perspective?

And calling men "feminist sympathizers" for supporting Hillary is like calling whites "black sympathizers" for supporting Obama. It says a lot more about your personal hangups involving women's rights than it does about the motivations of the voters whom you're attempting to denigrate.

Because the Hillary supporters on here within the Gay community have yet to explain good, sound, legitimate reasons why they are supporting Hillary Clinton. The "experience" argument is bullshit and everyone knows it.

Circular logic. You can't pretend that Clinton supporters aren't providing reasons other than gender to vote for her, and then refuse to listen to those reasons when they are given. One could just as easily dismiss your reasons for supporting Obama as "bullshit", which - by your logic - would prove that you are merely a "black sympathizer" who votes based on race.

I actually agree with your assessment of Hillary, which is why I support Obama. I think it's interesting that you assumed otherwise (using broad generalizations like "you and your kind"...) just because I raised questions about what I saw as a divisive double standard. These are the types of assumptions I was talking about.

So not only are you willing to bash half of the Democrats in order to support a Democratic nominee, you are also willing to bash other supporters of the same nominee by jumping to superficial, binary conclusions about the politics of anyone who disagrees with you. That's hardly the spirit of unity that Obama is trying to champion. If I refused to acknowledge or respect the substantive reasons my opponents support Hillary, why should I expect them to respect my reasons for supporting Obama? It's that "gutter-fight" mentality that lost Tuesday's debate for Hillary. She sacrificed the high ground, and paid a price. If we're serious about supporting Obama's call for unity, we should take his cue and rise above such tactics.

 

[tmb1]

well like i stated in another thread i have no idea how the delegates r split up. i know about that as much as i know about nuclear science. its all greek to me lol

i dont know how u can say impossible. if i knew how the delegates were split id go do the math. but there r several states left that have over 100 delegatels by several i mean 4 or more and some of them she is WAY ahead in.

Let me help you understand why she doesnt just have to win but win by huge margins to even have a chance to get even with Obama in pledged delegates. The math is nearly impossible in the real world. Please read the whole thing to get the gist of it.

http://commentsfromleftfield.com/2008/02/finding-the-path

 

[NickCole]

THAT'S THE PROBLEM! She's against it now because of the way it turned out! That's not a good reason to be against a war that never should have started.

It's a fully legitimate reason to be against it now, and in fact it speaks to a great strength of the most successful leaders: her willingness to change direction when information emerges that a current policy is failing.

This "flip flop" nonsense is propagandistic mumbo jumbo made up by Rove & Co to take down John Kerry, but in fact it's utterly meaningless. Everybody who's successful in a position of power changes direction when they discover they're going the wrong way.

 

[NickCole]

In the traditional use of the word Feminism, you are correct. However in this particular case, that is not what you and Nick are doing. You are voting based squarely on gender, and it is obvious to all. In your cases, you are discriminating against Obama, a man, in favor of a Woman ... solely because of Gender. Because it is your preference to have a Woman President. And that is where I and others take issue. Sex should not enter the equation, but you sure are making it an issue.

It's amazing the fantasies you make up in your own mind and attach to me.

Show any evidence at all, with direct quotes from me, that what you say has even a hint of validity.

I've voted for men and women, blacks and whites, Jews and gentiles, gays and straights, Republicans and Democrats, rich and poor, young and old. I vote for the candidate I determine has the best qualifications for getting the job done.

Hillary Clinton's experience makes her far and away the most qualified to be our President at this time, whether she's a man or a woman, black or white, Jewish or gentile, gay or straight, republican or democrat.

 

[NickCole]

Of course, you neglect to mention that Sean Wilentz is a close family friend of the Clintons.

I also didn't mention that he has degrees from Columbia, Oxford and Yale. Because it's not particularly relevant. His arguments stand solidly on the points he makes.

His specialty is 19th century American history, and this piece is more like the boilerplate of 19th century campaigns than modern journalism.

No, 19th century American history is something he knows a lot about, but he knows a lot about other things as well, including modern journalism.

What he wrote is spot-on. Nobody here has refuted it with anything approaching sound argument. Merely dismissing it as you have only indicates you can't refute it on its merits.

 

[NickCole]

THAT'S THE PROBLEM! She's against it now because of the way it turned out! That's not a good reason to be against a war that never should have started.

And, incidently, Obama spoke out against the war but he wasn't in the Senate and didn't vote on it.

Then later, when asked how he'd have voted if he'd been in the Senate, he said he didn't know.

And he's voted the same as Hillary has, regarding Iraq, since he's been in the Senate, despite saying, before he was in the Senate, that he wouldn't.

Furthermore:

As a candidate for his Senate seat in 2003 and 2004, Obama said repeatedly that he would have voted against an $87 billion war budget that had been requested by President Bush.

"When I was asked, 'Would I have voted for the $87 billion,' I said 'no,' " Obama said in a speech before a Democratic community group in suburban Chicago in November 2003. "I said 'no' unequivocally because, at a certain point, we have to say no to George Bush. If we keep on getting steamrolled, we're not going to stand a chance."

Yet Obama has voted for all of the president's war funding requests since coming to the Senate ...

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/22/obama_defends_votes_in_favor_of_iraq_funding/

When he's not in power to do something he says one thing, then when he has to cast a vote he does the opposite.

What does that tell us about what he's saying he'll do as President versus what he would do as President?

I think Barack Obama is dishonest and untrustworthy.

 

[NickCole]

Of course, you neglect to mention that Sean Wilentz is a close family friend of the Clintons.

I don't know Sean Wilentz and had no idea if he knew the Clintons or not -- as you can see from my earlier post I assumed your assertive statement meant you know for sure that it's true.

But it turns out you're wrong.

Sean Wilentz says that not only isn't he close friends with them, he barely knows them at all. He says he "may have spent two hours with [Bill Clinton] in my life and ... Hillary even less, maybe three minutes."

This is Wilentz appearance on Tucker Carlson's show:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23377803#23377803

 

[Zingerific]

How very nice of you to point out I was wrong in blue, NickCole.

I did see Tucker Carlson yesterday, and noted what Wilentz said. My source was inaccurate, but in all fairness to me, you should note that I was accurately quoting my source.

I stand by the rest of my post. On television, he came across as much more rational and reasonable, but I still maintain that his New Republic piece came off as boilerplate yellow journalism, and it surprised me to see that sort of shilling from a respected academic.

 

[NickCole]

How very nice of you to point out I was wrong in blue, NickCole.

I did see Tucker Carlson yesterday, and noted what Wilentz said. My source was inaccurate, but in all fairness to me, you should note that I was accurately quoting my source.

Yes you did accurately quote your source.

And I'm sorry that my pointing it out in blue seems like something against you, which I now see. I did that because I had, in an earlier post, conceded your point and I wanted the second post to stand out. But I did it clumsily and, again, I apologize it seemed like I was digging at you.

I stand by the rest of my post. On television, he came across as much more rational and reasonable, but I still maintain that his New Republic piece came off as boilerplate yellow journalism, and it surprised me to see that sort of shilling from a respected academic.

Maybe if you read it again you'll see it differently. Try to ignore my boldfacing -- I think that's what may be making it seem like yellow journalism. His article is the opposite of boilerplate yellow journalism.