Simple answer:  a lot

He’s not a Democrat—he’s someone who hates Bush and what the Republicans have become.  If it weren’t for Bush fucking everything up, he’d still be a happy Republican.

Well, Jesse, you will find Pandagon a different place than when you left.

I’ve never heard Larry Johnson before but from his bio he sounds like a Grade A Wackjob.

I wonder how much Larry got paid from Hillary campaign. $30-40K? Is it a contract job?

Man, CIA people can be so obvious sometimes.

The obviousness makes the comments section on that page all the more sad.  I still can’t comprehend how people can be so irrational and I guess I never will.

It’s common trick. Sort of like believable April fool trick. It’s there because some people want to believe it to be true.  (Common CIA agitpro trick. You should see what they print in latin america or asia.)

I wonder how much Larry got paid from Hillary campaign. $30-40K?

Beats selling Amway out of the back of the mini-van.

He was unstoppable when he played with the Runnin’ Rebels, and you really can’t say much bad about his career with the Hornets either.  I suppose appearing in Space Jam was kind of a mistake.

He certainly has taken to the role of useful idiot.

First, welcome back, Jesse.  I read Pandagon way back in the day when you first took Ezra on (didn’t I see a picture of him sleeping on your couch once?), and it’s good to read you again.

On to this thing.  Just from reading the comments at the LJ site, this issue seems white hot and toxic.  As someone ignorant of the underlying details, I’m wondering why this thing has focused on a tape, and why the story can’t be unwound to simple demonstrable / deniable questions.

1.  Was there ever a forum as described?
2.  If YES to 1, was it at Obama’s church?
3.  If YES to 1, did Mrs. Obama attend?
4.  If YES to 3, did she make remarks similar to those described?
5.  If YES to 1, did Farrakhan attend?
6.  If YES to 1, was the event taped by anyone?
7.  IF YES to 5, does anyone claim to have such a tape?

So many shouting about the tape, while most of the story can be fleshed out or denied by principals and witnesses without it.  The tape seems to be an artifact with magical powers, to change everyone else’s vote but the person discussing it.

Controversial statements are alleged to have been made by Mrs. Obama.  It seems that she could deny them, own them, explain them, or apologize for them.  Focusing on the tape focuses on plausible deniability, a “Show me that I said it and I’ll tell you whether I said it” standard. 

In short, the Rathergate standard (where Bush did not have to address the accuracy of a document because it was not the original document).

I guarantee Larry Johnson (and a few other bitter-enders) will be a Republican within a year.  “I used to consider myself a Democrat, but thanks to 9/11 the 2008 primaries I’m outraged by Chappaquiddick angry black people.”

Controversial statements are alleged to have been made by Mrs. Obama.  It seems that she could deny them, own them, explain them, or apologize for them.  Focusing on the tape focuses on plausible deniability, a “Show me that I said it and I’ll tell you whether I said it” standard.

Here’s the problem:  we’re talking about people who think it’s “controversial” to point out that African-Americans have been treated horribly throughout our history and that not all of the problems in that community were magically solved when Martin Luther King marched in Memphis.  They think it’s completely unhinged and bizarre for someone to wonder aloud if the same government that gave us the Tuskegee Experiment could turn around and do the same thing with AIDS less than 10 years after Tuskegee was publicly exposed in 1972 and finally shut down after running for 40 YEARS without a peep from anyone.

Did Michelle Obama appear on the same stage as Louis Farrakhan?  Given Chicago politics, and specifically black Chicago politics, probably.  Hillary Clinton has appeared with and been supported by Rev. Al Sharpton numerous times.  Did she do it because she wants to “kill whitey”?  No, she did it because, like it or not, he’s an important figure in New York city politics, just as Farrakhan is an important figure in Chicago politics.

So running around like your hair is on fire because OMG MICHELLE OBAMA APPEARED WITH LOUIS FARRAKHAN IN CHICAGO puts you firmly in concern troll territory.

Mnem,

As much as people dislike or disagree with Sharpton, he’s not the same thing as Farrakhan. Farrakhan is a virulent anti-Semite, and if he can be stuck to Obama, then Obama will lose Florida.

If Michelle made comments about “whitey” then that will be extremely damaging among white working class voters in crucial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. I think regardless of the insistence among Obama supporters that “Michelle isn’t the candidate,” if video of her making such comments did get out, it might actually be sufficiently destructive to sway enough of Obama’s supers into the Clinton camp to throw her the nomination. 

As for this guy, I don’t know much about him. The “my unattributed friends saw the tape, but I didn’t” schtick suggests the tape does not exist and he is trying to create a rumor that there is such a tape.

As much as people dislike or disagree with Sharpton, he’s not the same thing as Farrakhan. Farrakhan is a virulent anti-Semite, and if he can be stuck to Obama, then Obama will lose Florida.

Jesse “Hymietown” Jackson has been caught making anti-Semitic remarks as well, but that doesn’t mean that Jackson is not vitally important to Chicago politics.  Pretending that all Farrakhan does in Chicago is stand at a podium and make anti-Semitic speeches is pretty much what I’d expect from you.

So let me get this straight: Obama is a crypto-Islamic, black-power nationalist who is being controlled by Louis Farrakhan through Tony Rezko. 

They’ve been trying to stick Obama to Farrakhan since he ran against Keyes. I love the Rezko thing—though: Rezko and Farrakhan conspiring to control Obama. Fricken Hilarious. Rezko has raised far more money for Bush and Hastert then he ever did for Obama, and Rezko would meet with anyone who could help get a contract or permit.

There’s a big difference between Jackson and Farrakhan.  Jackson’s “Hymietown” gaffe is the kind of thing you denounce at the time and ultimately forgive. Association with Jesse Jackson wouldn’t cost a Democrat the Jewish vote.

Jesse and “Hymietown” are no longer listed in the Anti-Defamation League’s materials, but there is still a lot of detailed information about Farrakhan, because his organization is basically a hate group.

Farrakhan, on the other hand, has praised Hitler and called the Jews “bloodsuckers,” and accused them of controlling the slave trade and the media. He’s also publicly bashed gays and referred to whites as subhuman.

NOI is essentially a racist nationalist group, and like white supremicist nationalist groups, its agenda implicitly calls for the extermination of the Jews because they are a part of none of the racist nations.

Farrakhan and NOI may have done good things for blacks, and they may be powerful in Chicago. But that doesn’t matter. If it becomes evident that Obama is tight with Farrakhan, Jews who have been longtime democratic voters will vote for McCain in November, and, in Florida, that’s electorally significant.

But that doesn’t matter. If it becomes evident that Obama is tight with Farrakhan . . .

I find this whole discussion a bit disturbing. Obama has spoken out against Farrakhan’s views on several occasions; yet, so many people keep insisting that somehow he’s tied to the Nation of Islam. There seems to be an assumption that Obama’s words belie some hidden conspiracy. There’s no doubt that there is a racial tinge to this—would we keep questioning a white politician’s denouncements of the KKK or Aryan Nation? The implication, of course, is that an African-American has some inherent racial agenda, which is so terrible, that it must remain hidden.

There’s a big difference between Jackson and Farrakhan. ... Farrakhan, ...
Farrakhan and NOI .. If it becomes evident that Obama is tight with Farrakhan

What, exactly, does Obama have to do with Farrakhan?

What about whether Obama is tight with Harry Bellafonte? Or Mike Tyson? Does it leave you wondering about the possibility of how they could hurt Obama’s campaign?

To return to the original question, ie What the fuck is wrong with Larry Johnson?

He shares a barber with Moe Howard.
http://www.threestooges.com/bios/

If it becomes evident that Obama is tight with Farrakhan, Jews who have been longtime democratic voters will vote for McCain in November, and, in Florida, that’s electorally significant.

Speaking as a Jew, a longtime Democrat, and a native Floridian (though I don’t live there now), I’d still vote for Obama if he had close ties to Farrakhan. Because I care about, you know, the entire country and the hell it would become if we have 4 or 8 more years of the same. Seriously, do you really believe that Jews are incapable of critical thinking?

I have no idea, but the idea that one of the country’s oldest and richest white shoe lawfirms would assign someone who doesn’t know how to watch herself in public to supervise their summer associates kind of boggles the mind.

I also think that most of your idealogues who’ve adopted argot from when they were five or six probably don’t get two ivy league degrees, but that’s just me.

Cris:

He was unstoppable when he played with the Runnin’ Rebels, and you really can’t say much bad about his career with the Hornets either. I suppose appearing in Space Jam was kind of a mistake.

Funnily enough, that’s exactly the Larry Johnson I thought of first, too. And having briefly perused the linked post that is at issue here, I can quite confindently say that I’d be far more inclined to listen to the political opinions of Larry Johnson the basketball player than those of Larry Johnson the crypto-Republican.

From the people that brought you “Women Will All Vote for Hillary Clinton”, “Black People Will All Vote for Barack Obama”, and “But Black Women Have a Difficult Choice This Primary Season”.  We proudly present “Jews Won’t Vote For Barack Obama”.  Coming soon to theatres, the news, your inbox, the internets, the bus stop, and your bedroom window.

Why not make it a double feature and watch “The Bitter Clinton Supporter” too.  Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering whale; to the last I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee.

Here’s the problem:  we’re talking about people who think it’s “controversial” to point out that African-Americans have been treated horribly throughout our history and that not all of the problems in that community were magically solved” [by MLK] -Mnemosyne

Why should voters who think in that way be kept ignorant of facts that would affect which candidate they support?  Once again, the magical artifact tape wouldn’t change Mnemosyne’s vote, but perish the idea that the information it might contain be made available to the hoi polloi.  In fact, the mere facts of the story must remain unknown.

So running around like your hair is on fire because OMG MICHELLE OBAMA APPEARED WITH LOUIS FARRAKHAN IN CHICAGO puts you firmly in concern troll territory.

Really?  Even asking whether the event occurred or the details of the panel means my hair is on fire?  If by that you mean a hysterical response, I’m not the appropriate target for that one.

But I’m uncertain how calling me names (or LJ names, as many have done here and on his site) would end the controversy or resolve the simple questions I posed out of my own ignorance.

Judging by the wide play on the Intertubes and the ferocity of the comments, this story is unlikely to go away, and could be settled by the Obama campaign (boiled down to what did she say in a public forum, if she attended).

Attacking those who want to know the story as evil, stupid, ugly, dishonest, or just too ignorant in their views to be trusted with facts is not helpful.

Judging by the wide play on the Intertubes and the ferocity of the comments, this story is unlikely to go away, and could be settled by the Obama campaign (boiled down to what did she say in a public forum, if she attended).

Yes, can the Obama campaign prove that Michelle Obama did not make the comments allegedly recorded on a tape that does not appear to exist? And if not, how can we possibly vote for Barack Obama?

Sweet Zombie Jesus, I can’t wait for the primary to be over.

If it becomes evident that Obama is tight with Farrakhan

Funny how we get from “Michelle Obama once appeared on stage with Farrakhan in this video I’m not going to show you” to “Obama + Farrakhan = BFF OMG!”

Why should voters who think in that way be kept ignorant of facts that would affect which candidate they support?  Once again, the magical artifact tape wouldn’t change Mnemosyne’s vote, but perish the idea that the information it might contain be made available to the hoi polloi.  In fact, the mere facts of the story must remain unknown.

Why should voters be kept away from unverified urban legends about a videotape that people claim a friend of a friend of theirs has seen and, though they haven’t seen it themselves, their friend assures them that their friend says it’s a really big deal?

If we’re going by that standard, don’t forget to boycott Procter & Gamble:  they’re all Satanists, you know!  My friend’s friend’s friend heard it on “Oprah” and totally has it on tape! Also, you can’t vote for Hillary Clinton since everyone knows she had her enemies killed.

Really?  Even asking whether the event occurred or the details of the panel means my hair is on fire?

Given that you’re so ignorant about Chicago politics that you’re convinced the mere fact that Farrakhan and Michelle Obama might have once appeared on a political panel together means that the entire story is true and she went off on a rant about “whitey,” there’s definitely some hysteria here.

Don’t worry, Nat Turner is not coming to get you.  Just go lock yourself in your panic room until you calm down, ‘kay?

Sorry, missed this one first time around:

Judging by the wide play on the Intertubes and the ferocity of the comments, this story is unlikely to go away, and could be settled by the Obama campaign (boiled down to what did she say in a public forum, if she attended).

Yes, because no one ever repeats the urban legends about Liz Claiborne, Tommy Hilfiger, and Richard Gere now that they’ve been thoroughly debunked.  Everyone knows that as soon as people are told an urban legend is false and that there is no videotape or other evidence, they immediately accept that and move on.