Obama Campaign Denies Michelle Obama Used “Whitey” Word: Sets Up Website To Battle Internet Smears

Democratic presumptive Presidential nominee Barack Obama’s campaign fired a double round at Internet partisans who spread unsubstantiated information about him: it flatly denied his wife Michelle ever used the word “Whitey” at a church — and it has set up a website to directly answer Internet and media allegation mongering usually spread by websites and operatives who have political axes to grind.

It’s an impressive response since Democrats are traditionally accused of being political wusses who let negative stuff linger “out there” until it’s too late and has become cemented in the national psyche as conventional wisdom. At the root of it are several political and journalistic issues: (1)the use of sensationalistic allegations spread via political operatives, emails and on weblogs until the allegations snowball, are parroted by talk show hosts and then re-parroted by partisans and partisan blogs until the national media has to pick them up, (2) whether weblogs will continue to evolve as essentially extensions of political candidates used to promote and undermine candidates.

A fact of life: some weblogs often contain allegations that would NEVER survive vetting on a daily newspaper, newsmagazine, or in a broadcast news meeting for even five minutes. But because weblogs are independently owned and operated, in terms of journalistic ethics it’s the wild west and any reputation is a target. AP’s Nedler Pickler writes:

Democrat Barack Obama’s campaign said Thursday that Michelle Obama never used the word “whitey” in a speech from the church pulpit as it launched a Web site to debunk rumors about him and his wife.

The rumor that Michelle Obama railed against “whitey” in a diatribe at Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ has circulated on conservative Republican blogs for weeks and was repeated by radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh. The rumor included claims of a videotape of the speech that would be used to bring down Obama’s candidacy this fall.

“No such tape exists,” the campaign responds on the site, http://www.fightthesmears.com. “Michelle Obama has not spoken from the pulpit at Trinity and has not used that word.”

And, indeed, the new website is quite specific in meeting rumors head on. Here’s a list of links where it lists the politically motivated “Smear” with specific (naming names of bloggers, activiests and talk show hosts who are spreading the allegations) charges and “Truth” (which in each instance debunks the allegations being spread):
–The allegation that Michelle Obama uses the word “whitey” on a tape.
–The truth about Obama’s birth certificate.
–The allegation that Obama is a Muslim.
–The allegation that Obama’s books contain racially inflammatory material (detailing qutoes taken out of context and “quotes” that are made up).
–The allegation that Obama won’t say the pledge of allegiance or put his hand over his heart.

Reading through this site, an independent voter is again struck by how American politics has nurtured and grown a segment of partisans who seem uninterested in truth or specific policies. Their main goal seems to be to try and discredit the character of the person daring to challenge their chosen candidate at the ballotbox. It’s the angry, rage-filled battle attacking someone and raising that person’s negatives that counts, rather than actual policy issues.

Will Obama’s website matter? Yes, for media types and those voters who go on the Internet and research issues.

But it’s notable that many of these false allegations appear in emails or on websites and even if they’re disproven, the sources that spread them will not usually run corrections. They move onto the next allegation that can be thrown out there and spread.

Which is what they’ll likely do.

The issue here isn’t Obama, but the 21st century’s evolving politics and the role the new communications plays in it.

If nothing else, the new Obama site lifts a rock and shines a light under it.

And what you can feel and smell crawling out from underneath the rock isn’t pretty.

UPDATE: The anti-smear site is being accused of smearing an alleged smearer.