Bernie Sanders and “that photo”

posted at 12:01 pm on February 13, 2016 by Jazz Shaw

Here’s your oddball political story for the weekend, and one which probably wouldn’t even rise near the surface of the pool if it wasn’t in rotation on every cable news channel and most of the big newspapers. It’s a tale of mystery concerning a photograph which dates back more than four decades. It supposedly shows socialist presidential candidate Bernie Sanders addressing a group of young people conducting a sit-in protest in Chicago. It was part of the civil rights unrest of the era and students were doing such things all over the nation. There’s one problem, though… some people are claiming that it’s not actually Sanders.

If that were true I suppose it wouldn’t be all that shocking. In a jumble of ancient photographs it’s easy to misattribute one now and again, and nobody is denying that Sanders was out there protesting during that period. But clearly it’s a bone of contention, and as people have made accusations, the Sanders campaign felt they had to answer the charges. (CNN)

Bernie Sanders’ campaign manger said Friday the campaign is “100% confident” that a well-publicized photograph showing a man leading a sit-in at the University of Chicago in 1962 was, in fact, a shot of Sanders.

Four alumni of the school told Time magazine in November that the photo does not show Sanders but rather another classmate named Bruce Rappaport. But Jeff Weaver, the Sanders aide, told CNN’s Anderson Cooper on Friday that the campaign was certain the photograph, which has been used in promotional videos and on social media, was indeed of him.

Your first response may very well be to ask… who the heck cares? It’s an ancient photo of a sit in at a Chicago protest. Maybe that one picture was of Sanders or maybe it wasn’t. Either way, he was there and getting in the mix since he was arrested for the same thing during the same period.

But apparently it’s very important to some people. One of them is the Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart. He spent most of one afternoon and evening shooting out tweets linking to a recent column of his where he focused on nothing but the offending photo, insisting that the grainy picture shows a different protester entirely.

But that’s not Bernie Sanders in the photo. It is Bruce Rappaport.

Classmates of the two men started raising concerns about the discrepancy last year. According to Time, four University of Chicago alumni told the magazine in November that they believed the man to be Rappaport, also a student activist, who died in 2006. At the time of the story, the photo was still captioned as Bernie Sanders in the University of Chicago’s photo archive. But the picture’s caption has since been changed.

By the next day I saw Capehart tweeting that he had tracked down Rappaprt’s widow and some other expert and he was transcribing interviews with them. You’d think he’d finally found the missing frames of film pointed at the grassy knoll during the Kennedy assassination. This brings us back to the “who cares” aspect of the question. In an odd bit of irony, Capehart makes that same point himself if you read all the way down to the bottom of the article.

Sanders’s involvement in the civil rights movement and his commitment to equal justice are not in question. Another old picture that appears in campaign literature and video of student-activist Sanders with the university president is not in question. That most definitely is him. What’s at issue is Sanders’s misleading use of a photograph to burnish already solid credentials.

So after raising all this fuss over one photo which may or may not include Sanders during a period where everyone agrees he was present and working as an activist, Jonathan admirably shows some interest in telling the truth. But there’s another element of truth which is clearly not as interesting to the WaPo editorial board member. I brought up the issue of the John Lewis endorsement where he said Sanders wasn’t around, but that he met Hillary Clinton and her husband during those tumultuous years. I followed that up by asking him if he would care to weigh in on the fact that Lewis previously said he never met the Clintons until thirty years later. The response?

Nope. Not taking that bait.”

So documented history is now “bait” but an argument over a single, fifty year old photo is running news at one of the nation’s largest papers. Bernie being possibly credited for a single frame from a sit-in when he may have been at another protest event somehow tarnishes his liberal bona fides, but the fact that one of the most high profile living leaders of the civil rights movement apparently lied about the Clintons being around at all during that period is not news.

Congratulations, Secretary Clinton. You’ve got the full media press on your side now. Bernie should be knocked out of the ring in short order.

Original text edited to read fifty year old photo.

SandersProtest


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Bernie never had a chance. It’s her turn.

MT on February 13, 2016 at 12:04 PM

Lewis ruined the smidgen of credibility he had left.

Schadenfreude on February 13, 2016 at 12:05 PM

“Nope. Not taking that bait.”

…he’s just telling you to ST(Bleep)U Jazz…it happens each and every time a Left-Tard gets exposed as a hypocrite…you should be used to this, esp from Democrats with bylines…

…well done…

Pelosi Schmelosi on February 13, 2016 at 12:07 PM

Bait.

Smh. American journalism.

CwFTW on February 13, 2016 at 12:09 PM

Just look at those fvckin’ losers. Problem is, these are the same leftists and socialists that today populate all the bureaucracies in DC, now making six figures and more off the backs of the rest of us.

TXUS on February 13, 2016 at 12:11 PM

The Left lies with impunity.

Hillary lies by reflex and nobody seems to care.

If Cruz said he was in Dallas on a certain day in 1981, eating a hamburger, and they found out he was actually in Forth Worth, eating a cheeseburger… it would 24/7 coverage, the conservative sites would take the bait, and it would dog him for months.

mankai on February 13, 2016 at 12:15 PM

Is it Sanders or some other old Communist? The mystery may never be resolved.

Ringo on February 13, 2016 at 12:15 PM

I;m for Trump. However Bernie should not be using a picture if it’s not him.

And Jonathan Capehart has to live in his democratic bubble and his msnbc gig.

taking sides on the issue in his world is a ‘no-no’ for him. I wouldn’t do it either

gerrym51 on February 13, 2016 at 12:15 PM

So documented history is now “bait” but an argument over a single, thirty year old photo is running news at one of the nation’s largest papers.

Capehart’s no doubt had the Clintons do the same thing to him that they did to poor Mark Ambinder, in threatening to take away his access to the campaign if he doesn’t print the news the way they want him to print it. Plus, since this involves John Lewis, there’s also the possibility of a rogue race card being thrown Jonathan’s way by Team Clinton for questioning Lewis’ integrity.

So he’s not taking the bait ….. at least until the moment he truly thinks Sanders will win the nomination. Then he’ll join the other more committed progressive journalists in declaring open season on all of the misstatements and outright lies of Hillary and her supporters.

jon1979 on February 13, 2016 at 12:18 PM

The people in the picture aren’t listening to a woman because she might someday work for a black guy. Thus, all Bernie voters are racists (and prolly sexists) who deserve to burn in hell.

-Joan Walsh

mankai on February 13, 2016 at 12:19 PM

Just remember that Capehart is a troll, like most media opinionators are.

22044 on February 13, 2016 at 12:24 PM

Sanders calls himself a ‘socialist’ but he’s really a communist .. not that there’s much of a difference.

Either way Sanders is among the most radical crazies in this country and it’s insane this is where our electorate is … considering this fringe nutball as if he’s some sort of routine run of the mill choice. We can blame the leftward tilting electorate on Ted Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act, as well as on the decades of virtual open borders that in large part springs from the lackadaisical mindset that the ’65 immigration act caused.

anotherJoe on February 13, 2016 at 12:25 PM

a man leading a sit-in at the University of Chicago in 1962

Jazz measures:
It’s a tale of mystery concerning a photograph which dates back more than four decades.

Technically true, but dude, 54 years. Five decades plus.

LashRambo on February 13, 2016 at 12:26 PM

on a similar topic,

TONIGHT: REPUBLICANS RUMBLE IN SC…

Ugliest debate yet?

Audience Stacked With ‘Loyal Supporters of GOP’

THAT is what pisses people off, the stacking of the crowd with amnesty squishes and dough-nor$ is just a disgrace, cuz it does NOT represent the vast majority of the GOP voters.

Senator Philip Bluster on February 13, 2016 at 12:27 PM

No amount of blatant media bias is enough to deter or even slightly offend the liberal brainwashed base. The media’s presentation of their future criminal in chief’s campaign is a prime example.

Oxymoron on February 13, 2016 at 12:28 PM

Is it Sanders or some other old Communist? The mystery may never be resolved.

And that right there is probably all the coverage it deserved when the “discrepancy” was first noted.

Jazz Shaw on February 13, 2016 at 12:29 PM

Technically true, but dude, 54 years. Five decades plus.

I win on a technicality! SUCK IT, LANGUAGE!

Jazz Shaw on February 13, 2016 at 12:30 PM

The RCP polls show Sanders faring better against the Republican nominee than Clinton. He seems to be more able in turning out the Democratic base, despite the fact that he’s a communist, or maybe precisely because of the fact that he’s a communist. And although I think Menshevik Clinton is a better debater than Bolshevik Sanders, I think Hillary would be more easy to beat because she absolutely disillusions the progressives with her Wall Street corruption. Jazz, I’m curious as to whom you think would be easier to beat?

Jeffrey on February 13, 2016 at 12:33 PM

Rappaprt’s widow

Um…when did he die? 2010. And he was in the same class as Bernie?

So…how long does Bernie really have? Is Bernie going to outlive Rappaport by 15 years?

fossten on February 13, 2016 at 12:33 PM

Congratulations, Secretary Clinton. You’ve got the full media press on your side now.

“Now”?

Try “Always”.

Del Dolemonte on February 13, 2016 at 12:36 PM

From Bruce Rappaport’s obit…

The trend toward openness started around the late 1960s when adults who were adopted as children began demanding to know about their heritage, Mr. (Bruce) Rappaport noted in interviews.

The term “openness” is “unfortunately a scare word that sounds like some crazy thing . . . like `open marriage,'” Mr. Rappaport said in 1996. “For years we tried to call it `normalized’ adoption because it means approaching adoption the same way you do the regular part of your life.”

Mr. Rappaport’s adoption activism grew out of his job as director of a San Francisco Bay Area infertility clinic. When couples learned that further medical treatments made little sense, they often asked him where to turn next. He knew the odds of adopting quickly through a state or county agency were against them.

With the legalization of abortion and increased societal acceptance of unwed mothers, the number of people who placed their children for adoption dropped dramatically from the 1960s to the 1980s, according to the center.

Part of the problem was that young women raised during the feminist movement balked at having no say in their child’s future and at the secretive process of traditional agency adoptions, Mr. Rappaport said…

Huh.

Fallon on February 13, 2016 at 12:38 PM

I win on a technicality! SUCK IT, LANGUAGE!

Jazz Shaw on February 13, 2016 at 12:30 PM

Credit where credit is due, I suppose. :)

22044 on February 13, 2016 at 12:39 PM

ut the fact that one of the most high profile living leaders of the civil rights movement apparently lied about the Clintons being around at all during that period is not news.

…the Plantation doesn’t want to mess up what will historically be the first woman slave-owner…to become president!

JugEarsButtHurt on February 13, 2016 at 12:40 PM

How long before people figure out to meme this Ancient guy into the oldest photos around?

Like a cave drawing with a circle and a line to a stick figure saying “Berny Sanders” or Hieroglyphics of Horas with the same circle, or him at a Hitler rally.

Seems a low hanging fruit to me.

Skipity on February 13, 2016 at 12:44 PM

In the words of Monica Lewinsky’s impeached ex-boyfriend’s wife:

What difference, at this point, does it make?

Galtian on February 13, 2016 at 12:49 PM

CommieBernie was in Russia getting his red doper diaper upgraded at the time.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on February 13, 2016 at 12:49 PM

Libfree might be able to tell us.

darwin on February 13, 2016 at 12:54 PM

Technically true, but dude, 54 years. Five decades plus.

I win on a technicality! SUCK IT, LANGUAGE!

Jazz Shaw on February 13, 2016 at 12:30 PM

54-40 or Fight!

No, wait — that was a different presidential campaign…..

jon1979 on February 13, 2016 at 12:56 PM

I find it funny how in the Dem party the establishment the roots are fighting is the Media, while the establishment of the repub party is party leadership.

C-Low on February 13, 2016 at 12:58 PM

How long before people figure out to meme this Ancient guy into the oldest photos around?

Skipity on February 13, 2016 at 12:44 PM

Probably several months. People are slow.

anotherJoe on February 13, 2016 at 1:02 PM

Congratulations, Secretary Clinton. You’ve got the full media press on your side now.

Damn it feels good to be a Clinton.

Occams Stubble on February 13, 2016 at 1:04 PM

Technically true, but dude, 54 years. Five decades plus.

I win on a technicality! SUCK IT, LANGUAGE!

Jazz Shaw on February 13, 2016 at 12:30 PM

I file this under:

– those alive in the 1960s don’t want people to know how really old they are, and
– computing the difference between a 19xx year and a 20xx year is hard

Jazz writes:

but an argument over a single, thirty year old photo

Sigh. That photo, it was over 20 years old. At least 10 years old.

/my how time flies when you’re old

LashRambo on February 13, 2016 at 1:09 PM

Just look at those fvckin’ losers. Problem is, these are the same leftists and socialists that today populate all the bureaucracies in DC, now making six figures and more off the backs of the rest of us.

TXUS on February 13, 2016 at 12:11 PM

Right on, TXUS! Scum sucking pigs.

bazil9 on February 13, 2016 at 1:21 PM

And Hillary said she was a Young Republican and Goldwater Girl.

Of course, she does lie – a lot.

Drained Brain on February 13, 2016 at 1:28 PM

The desperation is strong.

rbj on February 13, 2016 at 1:31 PM

As the InstaProf once said, “Forget it, Jazz. It’s Capehart-town!”

pat buchanatar on February 13, 2016 at 1:35 PM

Queen Shrillary said she was under sniper fire in Tuzla. Liar.

SouthernGent on February 13, 2016 at 1:35 PM

some, hint hint, possible article material for later today—

Video: 1,400 American Workers Outraged as Company Informs Them It’s Sending Their Jobs to Mexico

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/12/video-1400-american-workers-outraged-as-company-informs-them-its-sending-their-jobs-to-mexico/

also, related—

Donald Trump’s Emotional TV Ad Slams Illegal Immigration in Pitch to South Carolina

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/12/3022731/

Senator Philip Bluster on February 13, 2016 at 1:39 PM

mystery concerning a photograph which dates back more than four decades . . .

well-publicized photograph showing a man leading a sit-in at the University of Chicago in 1962 . . .

So documented history is now “bait” but an argument over a single, thirty year old photo . . .

I am confused, when was the photo suppose to have been taken, 40 years ago, 54 years ago, or 30 years ago?

HugoDrax on February 13, 2016 at 1:44 PM

Speaking of Zimbabwean thugs

Schadenfreude on February 13, 2016 at 1:47 PM

I guess it doesn’t matter how big a marxist socialist nut bag someone is as long as they promise free shit to everyone.

bgibbs1000 on February 13, 2016 at 1:54 PM

Yeah, the “30 year old photo” thing was a bridge too far. I give in to the forces of facts.

Jazz Shaw on February 13, 2016 at 2:01 PM

So it was the early ’70s right? Were there any sit ins in 1962? I wouldn’t think so. The hippies had not come of age yet.

HugoDrax on February 13, 2016 at 2:10 PM

The dem total after just 2 states:
Clinton – 394 delegates

Sanders – 42 delegates

How do you like this redistribution of delegates, Bernie?

locomotivebreath1901 on February 13, 2016 at 2:14 PM

I win on a technicality! SUCK IT, LANGUAGE!

Jazz Shaw on February 13, 2016 at 12:30 PM

Careful Jazz, you might win me over if you keep talking like that.

Andy__B on February 13, 2016 at 2:14 PM

How long before people figure out to meme this Ancient guy into the oldest photos around?

Like a cave drawing with a circle and a line to a stick figure saying “Berny Sanders” or Hieroglyphics of Horas with the same circle, or him at a Hitler rally.

Seems a low hanging fruit to me.

Skipity on February 13, 2016 at 12:44 PM

Who’s supposed to start this meme? Grandma’s supporters won’t, because she’s only a presidential term and a half behind Sanders in age and they don’t want people to start thinking she’s too old for two terms. If elected, Trump will be the same age Sanders is now at the end of his first term, so same reasoning there.

YourNameHere on February 13, 2016 at 2:17 PM

So Bernie was a community organizer in ChiTown too? Shrillery is going to have to work harder to support her claim of being the next Obamandias.

MJBrutus on February 13, 2016 at 2:33 PM

Take that, Bernie! Besides, you just can’t beat Hillary being named for Sir Edmund of Everest fame.

BTW, that’s also a picture of me! I’m in the front in the white shirt. I’d recognize the back of my head anywhere.

No, really…

Kraken on February 13, 2016 at 2:43 PM

Hmmm… According to the comment section at WaPo, the University of Chicago has changed the info on the photo. I know, it’s Chicago but… is an update required? By WaPo?

Fallon on February 13, 2016 at 3:05 PM

Maybe Capehart should look into Jazz’s assertion, you know, to have an article ready when this one gets pulled.

Fallon on February 13, 2016 at 3:09 PM

The media is dishonest & in the bag for the Clintons. Anyone shocked? Anyone? Anyone?

I hope that whoever gets out of the primary doesn’t pull a Romney against her.

kim roy on February 13, 2016 at 3:19 PM

Looks like Larry David to me.

LashRambo on February 13, 2016 at 3:20 PM

We know the guy’s a Commie and certainly he participated in such things back in the day.

Be that as it may, few knew of or were dissuaded for voting for Obummer despite his friendship with Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Father Pfleger, Rev. Wright, Anita Dunn, Frank Marshall and on and on and on.

People have been taught in this country that Communism isn’t all that bad-especially if you call it Socialism (none dare call it Nazism or Fascism, though…that’s different…that’s baaaad).

Count all the Nazi/Hitler docs on TV and compare them to the number of Stalin, Mao, Fidel, Che, Pol Pot, etc. ones.

They (Leftists) have equated nationalism and the military with evil Nazism. Communists are presented as well-meaning internationalists and victims.

Dr. ZhivBlago on February 13, 2016 at 3:38 PM

It’s probably a conspiracy of the State Department, the Intelligence Community, and the vast right-wing cadre of Republicans in Congress smearing Sanders. Well, actually, Bernie was in many sit-ins and more.

billrowe on February 13, 2016 at 3:46 PM

Up next for Bernie – a ‘personalized’ tour of Ft. Marcy Park!

ghostwalker1 on February 13, 2016 at 4:08 PM

How long before Bernie starts getting photoshopped into other historical photos? Maybe with Kennedy at his inauguration? Or on the deck of a battleship with FDR and Churchill accepting the surrender of the Japanese? Or better yet, a picture with Forest Gump. So many possibilities.

iurockhead on February 13, 2016 at 4:08 PM

And this is Aunt Ruby with her prize Zinnias, and this is Granny Rappaport with Eunice’s’ cousins’ second daughter by her third husband who was married to Edith before the War, and this is some old fart preaching to the prep school choir who were protesting S. Africa or Wal-Mart or something that doesn’t matter enough to remember correctly.
They are all most likely dead now anyway, or soon will be.

thelastminstrel on February 13, 2016 at 4:33 PM

Shades of Orwell’s 1984.

He’s in it, if he’s needed to be in it.
He’s not in it, if he’s needed not to be in it.
As for whether he actually was there in the real photo…

At this point, what difference does it make?

ReggieA on February 13, 2016 at 5:26 PM

John Lewis’ statement was a bunch of rubbish. It makes no difference if Lewis didn’t meet Bernie Sanders. Lewis is showing the Democrats’ desperation to hold on to power.

grumpyank on February 13, 2016 at 5:52 PM

The Washington Post has been shilling for Democratic candidates since John F. Kennedy. I’m old enough to remember John Kennedy, and Hillary, you’re no John Kennedy.

grumpyank on February 13, 2016 at 5:54 PM

This is rich. Hillary supporters calling Sanders dishonest.

grumpyank on February 13, 2016 at 6:02 PM

Bernie’s support and activist support for socialism/communism starting in the late 50s is readily apparent. One photo is inconsequential compared to everything else. A definite supporter of statism for sure.

TfromV on February 13, 2016 at 6:15 PM

Where is the photo of Hillary scrubbing her server clean with a scouring pad????

albill on February 13, 2016 at 7:07 PM

Or Hillary doing a Lewinsky on Alinsky?

albill on February 13, 2016 at 7:10 PM

… concerning a photograph which dates back more than four decades.

For those who aren’t beholden to the 1960s, and if my math is correct, 1962 was over 5, that’s FIVE, decades ago.

That’s something to encourage people to think about if they’re considering voting for really old bernie or grand ma clinton.

Ruckus_Tom on February 13, 2016 at 9:27 PM

Not that I care, but if he was so active, there would be other pictures, right? Is this it?

virgo on February 13, 2016 at 9:58 PM

He’s Commie hack. Has always been. He’d blow Fidel faster than Obozo would drop trou and bend over and take it from a muzzie Iranian mullah.

Phuck him and Hillary and one one that votes for them.

Bubba Redneck on February 14, 2016 at 3:39 PM

*anyone

Fat fingers on a small keyboard.

Bubba Redneck on February 14, 2016 at 3:40 PM

Happy hopey hippies haggle over hooey.

Um…

Sir Edmund Hillary Rodham Clintoon.

hillbillyjim on February 14, 2016 at 5:22 PM

I give in to the forces of facts.

Jazz Shaw on February 13, 2016 at 2:01 PM

Which is why you’re making small money (comparatively at least) out of politics by writing about it, instead of making big money out of politics by running for office or lobbying.

Everyboldy says that virtue is its own reward…. but they never point out that it’s its own punishment, too.

GrumpyOldFart on February 14, 2016 at 10:49 PM

Just testing

LegendHasIt on February 15, 2016 at 3:55 PM