On Reliable Sources, Cullum claimed questions about where Obama's "religion lies, where his loyalty lies" could "backfire on Oprah"
On the December 2 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources, while discussing talk show host Oprah Winfrey's endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) for president, conservative radio host Blanquita Cullum stated that "the problem" with Oprah's decision to campaign for Obama is "if they start trying to tie in things like this perception of where his religion lies, where his loyalty lies, does that backfire on Oprah?" Cullum added: "I have a tendency to think that she can bring in a percentage of the base that will not normally vote, but it's going to be iffy. It could backfire on her."
Cullum's comments followed a discussion about the criticism surrounding a November 29 Washington Post article about discredited rumors that Obama attended a madrassa as a child.
From the December 2 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources:
HOWARD KURTZ (host and Washington Post media critic): I got to break in here. You two can take this outside, hopefully without guns.
Now, Washington Post taking some heat this week for a front-page story. The headline -- if we can put it up -- "Foes Use Obama's Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him." The story said that the Democratic candidate has had to address assertions that he is a Muslim and attended a madrassa as a child. Obama aides sharply disputed the initial story suggesting that he was a Muslim.
Keli Goff, is it news to try to explore and investigate the source of these rumors?
KELI GOFF (political analyst): Sure. On the front pages though, I don't know that that was necessarily necessary. And I think that what some critics take issue with in this particular piece is the fact that it somewhat gave credence -- the lede and the headline seemed to somewhat validate some of these rumors.
For instance, CNN did a story on this, you know, back in January, and the headline was really simple -- it said: "CNN Debunks False Rumors about Obama Attending Madrassa." And that's not exactly what this headline does. It gives some sort of validity by putting it on the front page and exploring it as a legitimate criticism.
KURTZ: Right. And just to elaborate, CNN interviewed the top official at the school that was alleged to have been a madrassa. This is when he was in elementary school, when Obama was in elementary school. And he denied that it had ever been anything other than public school.
CULLUM: But Howard, what it raises -- OK, you can have all kinds of issues coming out -- it raises, where is the "yuck" factor? Where is the perception that we really question issues?
For example, how much will we tolerate whether they had mistresses, whether they had, you know, Rose law firms, all of that kind of scandal. Where is the real bias? Is the real bias that we are concerned truly about a candidate if they reportedly, allegedly, have a Muslim background? And the question is: How is that going to affect the turnout of the vote?
KURTZ: All right. Washington Post editors say this was actually intended to knock down the rumors.
Peter Baker, a reporter defending the piece by his colleague, Perry Bacon, said, "Somehow a story intended to debunk the false claims, trace their origin and explore the challenge they present in the campaign in trying to quash them spawned a furious eruption among liberal bloggers accusing the Post of spreading the rumors."
Let me move on now to Oprah Winfrey. I was up in New Hampshire this week and this got a lot of attention, Oprah at a campaign for Obama. Let's roll some of the tape.
[begin video clip]
JULIE CHEN (CBS News anchor): Oprah is so accessible. She's on the air every day. I mean, that's -- like who doesn't love Oprah?
[...]
DANA BASH (CNN congressional correspondent): She actually is somebody who has the ability to move mountains and change minds.
[...]
DAN ABRAMS (MSNBC host): Realistically, Clinton is a far more formidable force than Oprah. Yes, she's enormously successful and influential, and I know this is heresy. But I don't know that she will actually lead people to pull the lever for Obama.
[end video clip]
KURTZ: Keli Goff, I've got about half a minute. Why was it such big news that an African-American talk show host in Chicago would stump for an African-American candidate from Chicago?
GOFF: Because Oprah's not a celebrity; she's a brand. I mean, it's nice that people like Barbra Streisand or Ben Affleck, you know, want to share their political thoughts, but at the end of the day, people are paying them to be entertainers and to entertain them.
People look to Oprah not to entertain them, but to give her guidance on everything from what to wear, what to read, and possibly who to vote for. She's in a league of her own.
KURTZ: A huge story.
CULLUM: However, the problem is -- I mean, I agree with you on that, Keli, but the problem is, if they start trying to tie in things like this perception of where his religion lies, where his loyalty lies, does that backfire on Oprah? I have a tendency to think that she can bring in a percentage of the base that will not normally vote, but it's going to be iffy. It could backfire on her.
KURTZ: Well, Barbra Streisand endorsing Hillary Clinton, that didn't seem to be anywhere nearly as big a story.
Keli Goff, Blanquita Cullum, thanks very much for batting these issues around with us this morning.
















I for the life of me, cannot figure out what in the world Blanquita's trying to say!!
Chances are, though, it's something that she's reading verbatum in some sort of Heritage Foundation talking point sheet. I'm not sure she even knows what she's trying to say.
It's hard to figure out because it is so incredibly outragous. What I take from it is that she is saying that if people like her repeat the Obama lies enough that the public starts to believe them, then Oprah will have to explain why she backed a radical Muslim, even though he isn't.
This is circular logic taken to the extreme. All she has to do to prevent this from happening is to stop lying. But, of course, she wants this to happen, and it probably will as long as hacks like Kurtz allow this to continue unchallenged.
I meant Cullum, not Kurtz.
Isn't Blanquita spanish for "a little blank"?
Yeah ! I also noted the little Clinton dig with the rose comment.
I for the life of me, cannot figure out what in the world Blanquita's trying to say!!
She is saying that if it turns out to be true that Obama is a Muslim, it will hurt Oprah. (When in doubt about a meaning read the actual words.)
I have a tendency to think that she can bring in a percentage of the base that will not normally vote
Apparently she is also saying that Muslims (or Muslim Oprah fans) don't normally vote. I guess in her mind they are too busy making plans to destroy the U.S. to have the time, or the desire, to vote.
That WaPo title is outrageous ! It should have said "rumored Muslim ties". Without the adjective, they make it seem like the "Muslim ties" exist ! Or am I just not aware of them ?
Realtruthseeker, I had the same reaction when I read this:
CULLUM: But Howard, what it raises -- OK, you can have all kinds of issues coming out -- it raises, where is the "yuck" factor?
What the h*ll does that mean?
I was wondering that same thing !
".........thanks very much for batting these issues around with us this morning"
Oops, no batting around allowed, or at least not if there is even a hint of something remotely negative connected to any Democratic candidate.
Geez, what is the big deal here, it is this woman's opinion, and nobody knows the outcome of Oprah's endorsement so how can any opining on that be misinformation of any kind, or even furthering some agenda.
Once again, MMFA disagrees with an opinion and bam, it's here.
Tommy, read my above post. It is not "her opinion", it is her lying about something and then opining on the outcome of her continued lying. She is saying that if she and her kind continue to lie about Obama, more people will start to believe it, and then Oprah will have to explain herself for backing someone who has this fake accusation hanging on him. Oprah would have nothing to worry about if people like her and Kurtz would stop lying about something that has already been proven demostrably false.
I don't see where she is lying, she is talking about his opponents and how they might want to tie certain perceptions in with Oprah and how it could backfire on her......it may be kind of a weird take on things, but she isn't lying. She is speculating on future strategies.
The lie is the madrassa smear and the secret muslim smear. She is part of the group that is spreading those lies, so it is outlandish that she is now commenting on how those lies could hurt Oprah if they are repeated enough to take hold. There is an easy way for Oprah and Obama to not worry about that outcome, and it is for her and her ilk to STOP LYING.
I would love to see Oprah call these people out and squash the lies on her program. She reaches many more people than Reliable Sources.
"...does that backfire on Oprah?"
Only if the right wing slime machine continues to make "liberal" media appearances like this to keep reminding voters of it, not reminding them that the perception's been proven false, just that the perception exists.
Why can't Cullum call it what it is, a false perception?
If she were to say the exact same thing about Romney's Mormonism with respect to how some may perceive it, is that a lie too?
Of course it isn't, it's just speculating on political strategy.
The difference is that Romney really is a Mormon.
Nerzog, I understand that, but the discussion here is perception and how it's sometimes used to club one candidate or another, and usually unfairly.
It is not a PERCEPTION its a LIE. A lie that could DIE if they stopped reapeating it
It's a huge difference because people like Cullum are the ones originally implanting, and then perpetuating that FALSE perception. And then she has the gall to comment about it like it isn't her fault in the first place.
Tommy, I think the point MMFA is trying to highlight is that she even though she knows the rumors are false she can't bring herself to condemn them. She's giving us insight into GOP strategy -- question your opponents' patriotism, faith or sexuality when you got nuddin' else. That alone helps sway some of the electorate --especially those that rely on talk radio as their primary news sources.
I didn't say she was lying. I laid out the intent of her and the rest of the right wing slime machine very clearly.
Then I stand corrected, my post should have followed Jawille11's.
Tommy,
I still think "Mormonism" carries a different connotation than "Muslim" in the MSM. I think any mention of Mitt Romney's supposed Mormonism by this person would pretty much have the same impact of mentioning Obama's "Muslim past." Neither will generate any controversy in the MSM.
Personally, I think any candidates religion should be left out of politics.
Points noted.
I think any mention of Mitt Romney's supposed Mormonism
You probably should have omiited the word "supposed". Your point would be that discussion of Romneys self-proclaimed Mormonism would have the same effect as mentioning the false claim that Obama is a secret Muslim. Mormons are viewed by some Christians with suspicion but sadly Muslims are seen as our enemy.
Tommy - since you don't seem to understand lies when a Democrat is the subject, how do you feel about John McCain having an illegitimate daughter with a black woman?
Typically, you've lost me...........
Sorry, Tommy, I thought you'd be more familiar with the tactics of Karl Rove and push-polling. This is, after all, a political forum.
My point is, you repeat a false rumor often enough and some people are bound to believe it. I know you think this is 'OK' when it happens to an evil lib-rul, but it can also happen to people who you might respect, such as Sen. McCain.
In fairness, I have seen Tommy write some respectful things about Obama in this forum.
Thank you, I have respect for Obama and the way he has run his campaign so far.
It is one thing to push a false rumor, and it is quite another to speculate on how certain political tactics, maneuverings and celebrity endorsements and their relative impact will have on elections.
The latter is what this woman, Cullum, is doing. If you disagree with her analysis, that is perfectly fine......I don't agree with either, but it is her opinion.
No it isnt. IF she had said the FALSE rumor or the DEBUNKED talking point. If she had in ANY way addressed the FACT that the 'perception' as you called it that might hurt Oprah was based on an accusation shown to be FALSE, THEN that is what she would be doig by NOT noting the falsity she is in fact reinforcing the very lie we are talking about. She is contributing to it.
She is not addressing the validity of the perception, but the mere fact that it does exist.......why is that so hard for you to distinguish?
Why is it so hard for YOU to distinguish that if she is TALKING about a talking point that is KNOWN to be false without addressing the FALSITY of it that it reniforces the 'perception' that it is legitimate. Why is it so hard for you to see that is the POINT of not addressing the falsity of the talking point?
I agree Solon, but reading that comment made me dizzy.
I know what you mean. Sometimes I dont express my point all that well. That one was circuitous
Do you think she brought up this question of "loyalty" out of nowhere? She is furthering a lie and a rumor, without noting it as such. That's what the problem here is.
No it isn't. Opining on possible poltical maneuverings by one's opponents is not furthering any lie - it is exactly as Kurtz called it, batting opinions around. Sorry if that little exercise bothers some of you entrenched Democrats around here.
Tommy - I know you hate to be called a conservate or a Republican, so I will just call you what you are - an anti-Democrat.
Why can't you understand when a lie is a lie, and a false rumor is a false rumor? Any time you lend credibility to either, you are not supporting the truth.
I don't believe I have ever said I hate being called a conservative???
And you are missing the point of this woman's opinion.
Tommy, if I remember correctly, you were outed as a liberal some time ago :-)
as for the lovely Ms. Blanquita, she seems to be less a conservative than a money grubber:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/3225
Shhh Mary.....if word gets out, can you imagine?
:)
I have never listened to this woman and have no clue what she does or who she is besides a possible spokesperson for the evils of cosmetic surgery........(sorry, it was a joke)
Oh no we arent YOU are and it seems PURPOSELY
I am sorry you rightwingers without a shred of decency pretend that LYING about someone then speculating about how it will effect people as if the LIE were true is acceptable
Certain perceptions that are long debunked LIES that ought to be consigned to the dustbin of history. THIS is how zombie memes are made immortal. It doesnt matter its a LIE, it doesnt matter to Blanquita she is just going to imply the LIE that those like her told will hurt anyone that associates with Obama, this is a classic misinformation meme.
I don't disagree with you, but it is not lying or misinformation for someone to speculate that this may be used as a negative perception by Obama's opponents......and backfire on Oprah.
It's a fringe opinion perhaps, but that's all it is.
Yes it IS. It is UNLESS it is made plain the accusation has been shown to be FALSE. If she had done THAT you would have a point. She didnt. You dont.
Tommy, opinions are like @ssholes, everybody's got one. It doesn't mean I want to hear it over and over again.
It's only her opinion but it's long past the time when political pundits should be questioning anyones loyalty because of their religion.
It was wrong in 1960 and it's a thousand times more wrong today since we're supposed to have gained more maturity as a people.
No matter how you look at this, Tommy, it's not a fit topic of discussion for any broadcast. No American has the right to go on national TV and question the loyalty of another American without a shred of evidence.
She is talking perception. Is that out of bounds to discuss anymore simply because it's about religion?
Yes it is out of bounds.
When they questioned Kennedy's Catholicism they were worried that he'd use the beliefs of the Church to control his decisions.
It's the same with Romney and his Mormon faith.
In each case no one was questioning loyalty or the perception of whether those candidates would remain loyal to the US.
It's different with Obama because we are currently at War in several countries fighting Muslim radical who are using terrorism.
There never was any danger of the US going to war with a radical Catholic country.
I disagree. When pundits are "batting around" the upcoming election, it is not "out of bounds" to suggest that certain perceptions, even unfair ones, do exist in the electorate. To not discuss it is denying that is there. While I agree it's a ridiculous skewer at Obama with no basis in fact, the perception that some may have could have an impact, and backfire on Oprah - which is what the context of this discussion is centered on.
it is not "out of bounds" to suggest that certain perceptions, even unfair ones, do exist in the electorate
That the echo chamber/noise machine at work and you fell for it.
Start a lie. Repeat said lie. Have your talking head idiots repeat said lie/innuendo. Defend discussing lie/innuendo because it's part of the political process and everything should be on the table.
Am I wrong?
I disagree. When pundits are "batting around" the upcoming election, it is not "out of bounds" to suggest that certain perceptions, even unfair ones, do exist in the electorate
But it's wrong and dishonest to discuss them without mentioning clearly that they are false.
I reject your clever UNFAIR label. These "perceptions" about religion and loyalties are not simply unfair. They are lies
She is talking about the perception WITHOUT noting it is based on a FALSE talking point. She is doing so in order to REINFORCE the false talking point.
The name "Reliable Sources" has the same significance as Fox's motto "Fair and Balanced". At least Headline News calls their misinformation show "Glenn Beck".
"necessarily necessary"?
I don't think I've ever heard that before.
Anyway, this does raise an interesting point. Anyone paying attention knows that the Madrassa story is pure crap. Aside from that, how will Oprah's audience respond to her endorsement of a Democrat? I think it's safe to say that there are CroMaglicans who watch her show. Will they be turned off to the point of boycotting her? A question worth pondering.
Amazing. I'm reading this, get flustered and decide to read comics, instead, and see this:
http://news.yahoo.com/comics/uclickcomics/20071130/cx_tt_uc/tt20071130;_ylt=AjU0O37qW8ZgcnQjGwZamxIVvTYC
Hahaha !! Thanks for that ! You should send it to Blanquita.
Wait a minute, is that Pat Robertson in drag? Admit it, that would explain the rambling non sensical, "must hate clintons" statement.