The Power of Citizen Journalism
Post News ($)»     Post Blog»     Upload Image»     Groups»     Events»     Alerts»     How do I ...»
Email Print Share

Email this article

Recipient email:
Your email:
optional
Message:
optional

article imageDid Clinton Adviser Slur Indianans or Is This A Dirty Trick?

Posted May 2, 2008 by  Susan Duclos in Politics | 16 comments | 2209 views
Next in Politics
Related News
Advertising
In a political season that has been strife with scandals and political dirty tricks, the question of the day seems to be, did a Clinton adviser, Mickey Kantor, call Indianans "worthless white niggers" or is this a another dirty political trick?
[Update] Had to replace the video with a shorter version because YouTube removed the other one.

Mickey Kantor served as campaign chairman during Clinton's 1992 run for the White House and is an informal advisor to Hillary Clinton for her campaign.

The clip shows James Carville, George Stephanopolous, and Mickey Kantor conferring over polling results for Indiana

The recent kickup in the news and blogosphere is the question of what he says on this video and the fact that now, via Huffington Post, he claims the video itself is doctored and is planning legal action.

After having listened to the video a dozen times, it is clear that he said "those people are sh*t", referring to Indianans or pollsters , that much is easily heard and he even says excuse me when he remembers that the camera is running, but the rest is debatable at the very least.

The clip is from The War Room and is 15 years old and according to Cantor, the statement never took place at all and he goes on to say, "Indiana was not even on our radar screen. And I was talking about the polling and not the people... If you look at The War Room, this is not the way Carville or George interpreted my statement. This is frankly libelous."

Kantor said he was in the process of contacting "the best" libel lawyers to approach YouTube.com about the process of removing the video from its site. He suggested that The Huffington Post, too, should not print even his defense, as it would be an advancement of a non-story.

"I don't need to be defended," he wrote. "When you write it, what you are doing is extended the libel."


By the very link to the Huffington Post piece, you can see they went ahead with the story anyway.

This clip has only been out since this morning and already it has made the rounds through the blogosphere and promises to become another firestorm.

Furthermore, the director of The War Room, D.A. Pennebaker, also says the clip was doctored, but added as an update to that Politico piece, they say they spoke to the editor of the video who said that he "enhanced, but didn't alter, the audio in the second portion of the video."

The original copy of the 1993 film The War Room, to which this clip was taken from (found at the 4:40 mark) can be found at YouTube.

Listen to one, listen to both, compare them, listen again and judge for yourself what was said, what wasn't, if it is real or if you feel it is doctored.
article:254152:31::0
2 subscribers
Subscribe To This Thread[?] :
  • avatar Posted May 2, 2008 by  Helena Handbasket
    #1
    Listen to one, listen to both, compare them, listen again and judge for yourself what was said, what wasn't, if it is real or if you feel it is doctored.


    I'll do that and comment afterward Susan.
  • avatar Posted May 2, 2008 by  Susan Duclos
    #2
    @ Helena Handbasket
    I'll do that and comment afterward Susan.


    Thanks Helena. I have and have my own opinion here, but would like some other takes before giving it.
  • avatar Posted May 2, 2008 by  Helena Handbasket
    #3
    Kantor said ... "it doesn't matter those people are shit" ....

    I do not see or hear any indication of artful editing. None whatsoever.
  • avatar Posted May 2, 2008 by  Susan Duclos
    #4
    @ Helena Handbasket
    Kantor said ... "it doesn't matter those people are shit" ....

    I do not see or hear any indication of artful editing. None whatsoever.


    Yes, I heard that part in both versions. looks like YouTube is going to keep me busy as they remove videos...but once out there, it cannot be hidden for long huh?
  • avatar Posted May 2, 2008 by  Susan Duclos
    #5
    UPDATE- I found the longer version again and it is working----for now!
  • avatar Posted May 2, 2008 by  Chris V. (cgull)
    #6
    It is very hard to say but even if he didn't the second one, the first one looks offensive for people in Indiana.
  • avatar Posted May 2, 2008 by  Susan Duclos
    #7
    @ Chris V. (cgull)
    It is very hard to say but even if he didn't the second one, the first one looks offensive for people in Indiana.


    I totally agree, the first is clear in both versions, the original and the enhanced.

    The second comment, well, I would like to hear more about how the editor "enhanced" it instead of taking it face value.

    Political season is nasty and I would question the person on his enhancing techniques.
  • avatar Posted May 2, 2008 by  Helena Handbasket
    #8
    Kantor catches himself immediately after the first remark. He apologizes. He doesn't say anything offensive immediately following the apology when he leans in to his colleague and lowers his voice. A foot in mouth moment better known as what he really believes when he forgets the camera. In my opinion.
  • avatar Posted May 2, 2008 by  Susan Duclos
    #9
    @ Helena Handbasket
    Kantor catches himself immediately after the first remark. He apologizes. He doesn't say anything offensive immediately following the apology when he leans in to his colleague and lowers his voice. A foot in mouth moment better known as what he really believes when he forgets the camera. In my opinion.


    Yes, the first one made it clear what he thinks, but the second one leaves questions about why he would lower his voice except to make sure his words aren't caught, but with that said, it is a big leap to assume what exactly he did say.

    It could have just been because he was saying a curse word and didn't want it heard in audio or it could have been the slur....but without knowing how the editor enhanced his audio, no one can really say for sure what he really said in the second part.

    The first part is clear enough though to give an idea of his attitude about Indianans.
  • avatar Posted May 2, 2008 by  Helena Handbasket
    #10
    The first part is clear enough though to give an idea of his attitude about Indianans.

    I believe so.

    Sent you an e a moment ago pertaining to this article Susan.
  • JennHW Posted May 2, 2008 by  JennHW
    #11
    This is from a documentary made a long time ago - the War Room. It's in Part 9. This is way back when Carville had some hair. Sadly, these comments wouldn't get noticed generally. It's just now that Indiana matters to Hillary Clinton, it's more significant. I have no reason to think it has been doctored.
  • avatar Posted May 3, 2008 by  Susan Duclos
    #12
    @ JennHW
    This is from a documentary made a long time ago - the War Room. It's in Part 9. This is way back when Carville had some hair. Sadly, these comments wouldn't get noticed generally. It's just now that Indiana matters to Hillary Clinton, it's more significant. I have no reason to think it has been doctored.


    Thanks for your take Jenn. I wouldn't go as far as to say they were or weren't as of yet, as I stated above, I would just like to know what methods of enhancement the editor of this video used.
  • BabyGirl1 Posted May 3, 2008 by  BabyGirl1
    #13
    Whether the editor enhanced or not, his actions, even without audio, show that he obviously said something he had no business saying. And obviously in regards to the people of Indiana.
  • avatar Posted May 3, 2008 by  Susan Duclos
    #14
    @ BabyGirl1
    Whether the editor enhanced or not, his actions, even without audio, show that he obviously said something he had no business saying. And obviously in regards to the people of Indiana.


    Well the first comment, which seems pretty clear, should have been enough, so whatever the second comment was or was not, you are right, it probably wasn't complimentary.
  • avatar Posted May 4, 2008 by  Helena Handbasket
    #15
    Kantor ... to apparently qualify his first remark .... goes on to say .....

    "how would you like to be worthless white niggers?"

    Kantor's opinion of the folks of Indiana seems pretty clear to me, and it is immortalized on video. Nineteen hundred plus hits Susan. People need to know whether it is 1992 or 2008.
  • Hargrove Posted May 4, 2008 by  Hargrove
    #16
    Compare the difference between how CNN handles a gaffe from Barack vs a slur from Clinton's surrogates. For Barrack, the "bitter" comment goes on til now. For the Clinton camp, CNN announced that the tape was a fake. Now you know that they don't know that it is a fake, but what's truth got to do with anything. They immediately went to work to help Hillary with damage control.

Add a Comment

You have to Login or Register to comment


Email:
Password:
Remember meForgot password?