From what I understand, the caption was changed because the widow said it was her husband. So how is this Hillary smearing Bernie? I really don't understand how this got to be such a big deal. I never saw anyone claiming he wasn't there.

It is only circumstantial that this is planned or coordinated by hillaries campaign.

Whether Capehart is coordinated or not is not proven nor did i post it. What is proven is that his story was false and his argument fallacious.

As a journalist and pundit he should be called out until he stops doubling down on a proven false claim. The wife is just flat out wrong regardless of what she believes when she looks at an old photo.

From what i understand Time and the U of Chicago now realize their mistake.

or anything you mentioned. I'm still not clear on how Hillary was supposed to have orchestrated all this.

It seems based on the fact that on one day there were hits on bernie from a few directions on one of his strengths. His civil rights record as a student activist.
This is just coming into a heavily african american primary.

However that is just circumstantial. It is based on a perception of politics. Since it is not proven connrction. I care more about the players.

Lewis has clarified his remarks in the right way. Time has clarified inat least a decent way citing the photographer the photos and the clothing. The u of chicago has changed the caption back to sanders as it was for 50 years.

.

Capehart is not doing the right thing. He is doubling down on a false malicious claim after being corrected. He is the only actor in this play dong this.

I was trying to ask a general question. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. The thing is not everyone pays close attention to everything all the time, and I wish more people kept that in mind, but I realize things get really crazy during primaries, especially on DU. Look what happened to Skinner when he innocently came in and asked questions. I did the same thing at the time. I thought, "Well, Rappaport's wife and friends say it's him, so maybe it is?" Regarding Capehart, I agree that he isn't doing the right thing, but I think it's possible he agrees with the wife and thinks the photographer is mistaken, and isn't aware of that unconscious bias that's tilting him in that direction. I'm not sure there's anything nefarious there in intent.

He is a public figure and a pundit who has been on numerous tv shows. Such public figures have a duty to listen to corrections to his facts and to correct his aird claims. Every other player in this sad drama is doing it.

It is a little more than just he was wrong. He keeps digging the hole deeper and continues to dig in after the brain has to tell him there is a problem.

I think the level of vitriol being leveled at him is probably triggering a hefty defense mechanism right now. He's caught up in the crazy. I'm not defending, but explaining. That combined with the fact that Rappaport's wife still thinks it's him which isn't helping.

The pic of him standing indicates he's clearly "the leader". This was also the first northern "sit in" during that era. It matters that Bernie Sanders gets his civil rights credentials right or he's "lying" (which gasp! happens to be Hillary's problem - credibility)

So any info that discredits his claim to have been who he says he was is swiftboating. No different than smearing John Kerry.

We've learned from Kerry's decision to "ignore" the swift boaters that way is a sure path to disaster.

So yeah, massive pushback to ensure Sanders isn't swiftboated now.

Imply that Bernie exaggerated his involvement in the civil rights movement for political gain- that he andor the campaign lied about this picture to make him(self) look good. It's swift boating.

Now, because this is primary season, I know what i'm risking here. But if the shoe were on the other foot, and this had been a picture of a young Hillary captioned with another person's name, I really have a hard time believing that the same thing wouldn't have happened here. And I also really have a hard time calling this a swift boating. This in no way is the same thing as what happened to Kerry. Calling it a swiftboating is nuts. I'm sorry. In fact, this is all drawing attention to his activity at the time.

I accept your take, but I disagree. This was being used by the media to attack him. Capehart is still doubling down (and from what I understand has a partner who is a strong Hillary supporter.

I don't know if this came from the Hillary camp- but it was absolutely intended to smear Bernie, and I think it's disingenuous to claim otherwise.

Where was this used by the media to attack him? He has a partner who is a Hillary supporter? How is this proof that Hillary or anyone to do with her campaign orchestrated this? If anyone is swiftboating, it's the people who are claiming she has anything to do with this. There is zero evidence of this.

picture.

do people think it is alright to troll Capehart on DU?


I get the disagreeing with him but posts like this just come off as trolling a person. It's really ugly.

He wrote a hit piece and went on network shows to promote it. He was corrected by the photographer who had ABSOLUTE proof that Capehart was promoting a false story. Absolute proof from the primary source of the photo with supportinh forsenics.

Capehart doubled down on his story. As a journalist and pundit he should be called out over and over until he stops promoting a false smear.

Capeheart is a good person as good liberal and a good ally to the left.

So was Dan Rather. HE was accused of reporting a hit piece as well.

and here on DU they are doing the very same to a left wing ally.

Capehart may be everything you said. If he is he should stop doubling down on a claim yhat has been disproved.

Danny lyon is also a liberal. However he is more than that. He is a world famous photographer who you are now throwing under the bus to try to defend a pundit who threw a political attack on the basis of something that has been proved incorrect.

Ther would not be the same problem if Capehart did not claim outright the picture was not bernie and actually had any contrition when he should have found out he was mislead or wrong. Instead he has doubled down on the claim. Do you support this?

That is not something an authentic liberal would do.

And he still hasn't admitted his error, if that's what it was.

treated Dan Rather during the GWB AWOL Scandal. Look at what they did to Rather. People here on DU are calling for him to be fired.

The man is a liberal, he is an ally -- he is not the enemy. The venom I see here about him is very disturbing.

He tried to ruin the reputation of two good men and is doubling down on it.

He deserves to be fired, he might have been good at his job once upon a time but this proves he's incompetent at best and purposely smeared a Democratic candidate at worst.

I think this is an important point.

So in this scenario we're still the ones who stood up for Kerry against the swift boaters.

Leave Capehart alone!!!'

The guy is a political hack whose family finances depend on his husband getting a job in the HRC administration yet he doesn't disclose. He needs to be fired..

We're supposed to forget all about what he did to Anita Hill and allow him to slime Bernie because he's "one of us" now?

Fuck that.

Rovian tactics need to be called out even more when they come from our side.

Capeheart's no "ally", he's a partisan hack.

once you have Time Magazine and the University correcting the record, Capehart should stop digging.

At this point this is not about the Clinton Campaign, but a historical record, and honestly in reporting

Capehart is an opinion writer, it helps when your opinions are based on fact, and when you are caught being wrong, you should retract. Believe me I understand that this is the hardest thing to do in journalism. But at this moment he is doing damage not to Sanders, not to Clinton, but to Jonathan Capehart.

At this point he is reaching for the industrial sized backhoe though. And none of us is trolling him on DU.

Capehart is hurting his credibility. Just the fact he didn't even talk to the person who took the photo for his original story is a failure of Journalism 101.

Doubling down when you are caught doing it is even worse. I say let people be upset or whatever. There is no reason to protect a lying liar.

The nose and ear both look more like Bernie than Bruce's ear and nose.

How vague promises of a better future are not worth compromising your reputation and ideals.

That article he wrote had no apology whatsoever, worthless troll with no sincerity.

Memories can fade and become idealistically false. We remember what we want to remember. The photos and documentation are accurate. That's what Capehart should be writing, not a weaselly excuse for his own hack propaganda.

and careful notes.



In the age of the iphone at times we feel truly replaced.

Assuming the wife is just wrong or wistful, this is the intellectual aspect of this whole affair. Memories are cloudy. What is unusual about this story is that there is an actual photograhic record and other photos that provide forensic proof.

This is unusual but explains why we can say absolutely that Capehars claim and continued claims are wrong. His motives are just circumstantial although facing proof adds problems with believing he is innocent

Assuming the wife is just wrong or wistful, this is the intellectual aspect of this whole affair. Memories are cloudy. What is unusual about this story is that there is an actual photograhic record and other photos that provide forensic proof.

This is unusual but explains why we can say absolutely that Capehars claim and continued claims are wrong. His motives are just circumstantial although facing proof adds problems with believing he is acting mistakenly but innocently.