No, He Can’t Because Yes, They Will
By Larry Johnson on February 16, 2008 at 6:51 PM in Current Affairs
Obama’s mantra, “Yes, We Can” is inspiring and heartwarming, but in the end is an empty phrase that will founder once the Republican political attack machine spins up. I realize that most Obamatons are so wedded to his vision of hope that any effort to point out the cracks in the foundation of the new Democratic Savior are met with fury and disdain.
If you think for a minute that the Republican party–who used Willie Horton on Michael Dukakis to devastating effect, who portrayed triple amputee and veteran Max Cleland as a bosom buddy of Osama Bin Laden, and convinced many voters that decorated combat veteran John Kerry was a fraud–will give Obama a pass come the fall then you are in serious denial.
But, unlike the attacks on Dukakis, Cleland, and Kerry, the ammunition that Obama has provided to his political foes is significant and deadly. But try telling that to Obama disciples. You get name calling and character assassination (just read the reaction to this piece). At the same time, Obama is treated with a reverence and fawning that I have never seen in my life for a political figure. What in the world was Chris Matthew’s talking about with his tingling leg adulation heaped on Obama:
During MSNBC’s live coverage of Tuesday’s primary elections, after the speech of Barack Obama aired, Chris Matthews breathlessly expressed his admiration…and extreme excitement for Barack Obama by saying “I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don’t have that too often.”
So, while Democrats engage in self-censorship and promote the worst kind of affirmative action pandering in promoting the myth of Obama, the Republicans are keeping mum and, like Brer Rabbit, begging not to be tossed into the briar patch and face the fearsome Obama. (Want to bet how many accusations of racism I will get for referring to Brer Rabbit?)
Obama’s untested achilles heel is his relationship with three men–Tony Rezko, William Ayers, and Rashid Khalidi. These names will become shorthand for Corruption, Terrorism, and the Destruction of Israel. Oh yes, I know. I am going to extremes. Well, let me lay out the facts and explain how the Republicans will likely use these relationships to bludgeon Obama’s Presidential aspirations into dust. My challenge to you Obama supporters is to explain to me and other readers of this blog how Obama will defuse these issues.
The Tony Rezko Problem:
There is a growing body of material in the blogosphere on this issue (looseheadprop has an excellent overview), but the mainstream media has paid little attention and most Americans know nothing of Rezko’s bribery and corruption trial. Not yet. But that will change starting 25 February 3 March, when Rezko goes on trial in Chicago. The best Obama can hope for is an acquittal or mistrial. He cannot deny his longstanding friendship with Rezko. A man who has played a significant role in raising funds for his political campaigns and a man who helped Obama and his wife get the home of their dreams.
But it is highly unlikely that Rezko gets off. He just got nailed for lying to the Judge about his alleged poverty and was promptly arrested for hiding millions of dollars overseas. And he is up against Patrick Fitzgerald. Pat Fitzgerald does not go to court unprepared and does not have a record of losing, particularly in Illinois. Remember, this is the guy who nailed Scooter Libby and the former Governor of Illinois. The boy plays to win.
When Rezko is convicted and, the details of the corruption and bribery charges are fleshed out and the public learns that Senator Obama got some of that dirty cash, do you really believe the public won’t care that the Democratic nominee for President is involved with a convicted felon? Hell, this is a political attack ad that writes itself.
The William Ayers Problem:
William Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist, though he is normally described as a distinguished education professor. One does not necessarily rule out the other, but he himself acknowledges planting bombs in U.S. Federal buildings. There is now undeniable proof of a longstanding relationship between Barack Obama and William Ayers. We are not talking about two guys who just happened to bump into one another on the street. We are not talking about a secret admirer (Ayers) who quietly sent $200 to an aspiring politician.
No, we are talking about William Ayers hosting a fundraiser for Barack Obama and actively working with him to secure Barack’s first electoral victory in Illinois. But wait, there is more. Barack and Ayers also served on the board of the Woods Fund. And they worked together to give money to some other folks, including a group with ties to the PLO.
What makes Ayers so toxic is his own written record equating U.S. Marines with terrorists. Look at the beating that John Kerry took for tossing his medals over the White House fence. Ayers did not toss medals, he threw bombs. Real ones. Bombs that exploded.
Do you think that Republicans will ignore Obama’s ties to Ayers? The two were serving on the same board in 2002. We are talking less than six years ago and the record will come out showing some questionable grants by these two characters. William Ayers, in the age of terrorism, will be Barack Obama’s Willie Horton.
The Problem of Rashid Khalidi:
So far, the press has paid little attention to Obama’s ties to Rashid Khalidi, Middle East Professor at Columbia University and PLO activist. An article in The Jewish Week from last year offers up this tantalizing tidbit:
Khalidi, now the Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University, and head of that school’s Middle East Institute, declined to comment on Abunimah’s recollections. But in an interview in Tuesday’s Daily News, he said he hosted the fundraiser because he and Obama were friends while the two lived in Chicago. “He never came to us and said he would do anything in terms of Palestinians,” Khalidi told the paper.
Nevertheless, one Hyde Park source close to Obama, speaking only on condition of anonymity, recalled, “He often expressed general sympathy for the Palestinians — though I don’t recall him ever saying anything publicly.”
Obama has made his pilgrimage to AIPAC (funny, but in his campaign against special interests and their grip on Washington he gives AIPAC a pass) and worked to position himself as a friend of Israel. But the relationship with Khalidi has not yet received the white hot media attention that tends to occur during the dog days of July and August, when the press needs a story. And guess who helped broker the appearance of Iran’s Ahmadinejad last summer at Columbia University? Professor Khalidi. New York Times had his reaction to the event:
Rashid Khalidi, a professor of Arab studies and director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia, said, “The tone from the host of an event was uncivil and uncalled for.
“The president of the university had every right to state his differences,” he said. “That was more than acceptable. But I believe it was embarrassing to the university, frankly, that they should decide to invite him and then treat him in this manner.”
Now, which Presidential candidate is calling for talks with Iran? You do not have to be Karl Rove or Lee Atwater to figure out how to tie Obama with Ahmadinejad using Obama’s friendship with Khalidi.
I don’t know what else is out there on Obama. Unfortunately, the worshipful, servile attitude of many Democrats and media personalities so far has hindered a tough look at Obama’s friends and associates and his judgment. But that will come. What should concern Democrats keen on taking back the White House is whether or not these issues will be fully vetted before Obama is installed as the candidate. My guess is no.
And what do Republicans think? I only have anecdotal evidence. I asked an old friend, who served in law enforcement (I’ll leave the particular agency out of it) for more than thirty years, about the William Ayers era. There are a lot of Federal agents who believe that Ayers is a terrorist who got away with his crimes and still owes a debt to society. My friend wrote the following to me today:
I think many of my friends believe Obama is beatable; however they concede that
Clinton can win. Therefore, the thinking goes, WE hope Obama gets the Democratic nod and THEN flood the gates with information later.
Feelings of hope and inspiration about Obama will evaporate when the commercials tying him to a convicted felon slumlord, an unrepentant terrorist who hates the troops, and a Professor of Middle Eastern Studies who has been a PLO official spouting anti-Israel rhetoric. Oh, YES THEY WILL! YES, THEY WILL.
You Shall Know The Truth…and The Truth shall Set You Free…
Give me some “HOPE”..Larry..Give me some “Hope..”
I believe you are entirely correct on what is to come should Obama become the nominee.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12366
The populace may be anti-this-specific-war, but the money is not.
This article doesn’t seem to have all the facts. It quotes Obama saying… the Republicans can’t say that I changed my mind on issues….on the war.
YET…he made one anti war speech in 2002 at an anti-war rally. Not so daring. Then in 2004, he said…If I had been in the senate with all of the informaiton in front of me, I don’t know how I would have voted. Right now, I share George Bush’s position on the war.
As it is often said, a vote for funding the war is a vote for the war. Obama said in speeches…I will not cast a vote for war funding in the Senate. Once he arrived in the Senate, he voted to fund the war.
When it counted to show opposition to the Irag war…he could have chosen to stand with Russ Fiengold to end the war and he didn’t
Since he has been in the senate… do you hear him making speeches…leading the way for others and take a strong stance to tend the war? No he didn’t.
Regarding the Iran resolution…at least Hillary voted….and Obama didn’t. Much to his character, he doesn’t show up for the tuff votes.
His record is opposite his rhetoric everytime.
I think you might have missed the point of Raimondo’s article which deals not with what a wonderful candidate Obama is but the kinds of hits and where those hits will come from should Obama appear to be winning the nomination.
Raimondo is not in favour of the war, and of the three remaining probable presidential contenders, Obama appears to be the least wedded to the war and the war party.
With “Hero” John Keating 5 McCain the most probable opponent, it is inevitable that once again the election for president will return to a refight of the previous losing war. As a 14 year old when the war officially ended, Obama does not have a military record in Vietnam to attack; so the next best thing is to try to stick old stateside radicals onto Obama.
I did a bit of research today on Bill Ayers. It appears that he turned himself in to the government in 1981, all charges against him were dismissed. Damn that Reagan.
CK,
Actally Obama is not the most anti-war, but I’ll stick on topic.
Here is just the BEGINNING of what is going to happen. The comments in this article are particulary indicative of what the START will be.
http://www.examiner.com/a-536474~_Trapped_between_two_worlds_.html
And here is a list of Obama’s bundlers in Illinois - notice all the Arabic names:
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/01/25/fact-check-obama-his-contributor-rezko-the-slum-landlord-business/ (Go about a third of the way down the page until you see reference to the Sun-Times listing of Rezko Bundlers Network.)
Most chilling was the Moderate Juan Williams of NPR Radio saying and I am paraphrasing here “His family is Muslim and that’s a problem. We are at war against Radical Muslims”
Keep in mind his Cousin Odinga wants to revive Sharia Law for Kenya.
While trashing Islam in some form or fashion, you can bet solid money that the vitriol on Kos and a couple of other blogs from Obama supporters, will also be made known.
In effect, not only will they be going after Obama, and Destroying Kos in particular, but also the credibility of Progressive Blogs in general, which hurts all of us.
And the fainting of a woman at each Obama event, leads directly to the “cult” charges which are becoming more frequent. You do not need much of an IQ to figure out how Rove will tie that back to Democrats are cultists.
Then there is Obama’s campaign financing and his illgal use of his HopeFund PAC money, as well as his spending almost a Million Dollars to buy Super Delagates (Rmember it’s not illegal if Republicans do this - only when Democrats do)
Obama identifies himself as African American Here are 3 links to what they are saying:
https://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16416
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=501&Itemid=1
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=502&Itemid=1
So not only has there been open hosility by Obama supporters for MONTHS against the rest of us, there is the appearance of cult-like adoration, there will come the destruction of the only real form of Media Dems have, the Democratic party itself will be seriously wounded, if not rendered irrelevent.
All of this WILL happen and that is why the rest of us are getting so angry with you guys. This could have all been avoided, if you had bothered vetting the candidates in depth at the beginning. But oh no, you had to fall for soaring yet empty rhetoric, and then all the kool kids were signing on - and the juvenile need to be accepted by “THE” group superceded any adult reasoning.
I think Larry is right — I also happen to think some of his other political bumblings on Iran and Pakistan will be used against him. Bush already said: “Obama wants to hug Ahmadinejad and bomb Pakistan.” (I saw it on CNN)
I don’t get his whole anti-war, pro-war, flopping around, Why if you are the anti-war candidate, make neocon-like statements advocating unilateral preemptive strikes by the US on Pakistan? (Obama did this more than once between 2004 and 2007) . These statements (see my sources below) were received badly in the middle east and worldwide. They lacked both diplomatic and strategic military savvy. In 2007 Pakistani radicals rioted and burnt US flags in the streets partially because of Obama’s comments. Bush, of all people, had to reaffirm to Pakistan that the United States respects Pakistan as a sovereign nation. This came when Pakistan officially complained about Obama’s stance. The USA is wildly unpopular in Pakistani even with moderates. It is clear that Obama did not help this situation with his diplomatic gaffes. The GOP/Rove machine will swift boat him to kingdom come.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amitai-etzioni/ obama-an-opportunistic-h_b_59645.html - 60k -
http://www.counterpunch.org/frank02072007.html - 88k
http://www.reuters.com/article/ domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801 - 84k
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/guests/s_520565.html - 30k -
muslimsfornadercamejo.blogspot.com/ 2004/10/barack-obama-update-hawk-from-illinois.html
hotair.com/archives/2007/ 08/01/messiah-hey-lets-invade-pakistan/ - 45k -
relentlessliberal.blogspot.com/ 2007/08/obama-hawk-and-dove.html - 63k -
Nellie
I said that to Raimondo, and many others, Obama APPEARS to be the “the least wedded to the war of the three candidates remaining.”
Semitic names are an issue to be faced.
His racial background is also.
His family background mom white dad not … coming awful close to the Mandingo moment so let’s make Obama into an islamofascist for the rubes.
And let’s get a Juan to do it as a liberal voice.
The internet has given a Kos and the internet will take it away and replace it with something else.
Do you think maybe if you succeed in demonizing Obama enough, that the rethugs won’t turn that success right back onto the pwogs. Look what the pwogs did to a black man.
I cry no tears if obama doesn’t win the nom, nor if Kos returns to the aether from whence it sprang, I will and you will also cry bitter tears if in the process of demonizing another dem you help elect a warmongering mentally deficient idiot like McCain and cut the coattails off the process of electing more and better dems.
You are old enough to remember that Americans always invest politicians with virtues and vices far beyond those of mortal man. So big deal that there is excitement for Obama. If it gets dems and others to vote for dems It’s a good thing.
Get a grip folks, the enemy is McCain and the Rethugs first.
He also gave John Kerry his rear end when Kerry needed help with a resolution to bring the war to an end. (Yet the doofus Kerry supports him … go figure.)
HOPE you’re all listening to C-Span. Lt. Gov. of Minnesota is REALLY socking it to Obama! I love it!
Very informative. Thank you.
For the most part, you’ve taken these words out of my mouth, Larry. The biggest fallacy Obama supporters seem to make is this one - that somehow Obama will be less divisive than Hillary Clinton. That’s utter nonsense. Bill and Hillary Clinton are middle-of-the-road politicians. They are thoroughly supported by and friendly with big business, including some that I quite frankly wish they weren’t friendly with. You’d think that would be enough to make them uncontroversial, at least for anyone who doesn’t belong to “the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party”.
Yet, they aren’t. Why? What have they done that’s in any way worse than anything Barack Obama, or most professional politicians for that matter, have done? Not a thing. Even his enemies concede that Bill in particular is the sort of person who can charm just about anyone, and make it seem that he understands your point of view. Those skills should make them less divisive, it seems to me, and not moreso.
Other than that there has been a well-funded effort to make the Clintons look bad, for reasons I can only guess at, I can’t think of a single reason why anyone would think those two are “divisive”.
I’m not a fan of the Clintons, but their enemies seem determined to change that.
BTW, another name that’s going to come up in GOP oppo ads on Sen. Obama is likely to be Yesse B. Yehudah (scroll down a bit). I still get an occasional visit by people looking up that name.
Great Links. Thank you.
Chucky (and Harpie): measured by sheer unrelenting quantity, your output is truly impressive. What you are overlooking is the fact that even smear jobs require a minimum amount of ideological and semantic camouflage to be effective. As in: the Evil O is either a terror sympathizer way to the left of McGovern (gasp! the Weather Underground!), OR a trigger-happy Reagan lover “just like GWB”, but not both. Trust me: less can be much much more. At the same time: please don’t stop. I LOVE cheap slasher movies… they are my guilty pleasure.
Guthman Bey -
Urkel Hussein Obama really isn’t that exciting. He’s just a major player in the corrupt Daley machine.
However, his incompetency is a thing to be feared.
“Ooops!I pressed the wrong button Urkel” is very scary!
Smears don’t have to make sense. If they did, then McGovern would have been President. All they have to do is appeal to peoples’ prejudices. All the things LJ mentioned will.
I voted for Hillary in Massachusetts. (Gore didn’t run; Edwards dropped out.) I appreciate much of what you have to say. But you do yourself a disservice with phrases like “recovering latent homosexual” and “affirmative action pandering.”
Just as I remind my friends who worship at the shrine of Obama and dis Hillary that she still may be the nominee, I urge Clinton supporters to realize that he may be the nominee. I’m all for substantive critiques. I’ve no problem with Krugman’s columns. But really, Obama and Clinton are much more alike than either of them is like McCain.
HAVE ANY OF YOU SEEN THIS OR HEARD ABOUT THIS?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFVtcdSYY
MAN ACCUSES OBAMA OF DRUG USE AND GAY SEX WHILE A STATE SENATOR.
I don’t find that video very credible.
How about “Obama’s Ties to Terrrorists” as a headline over a write-up about a 200 dollar donation from a University of Illinois professor who was in the 1960’s Weather Underground, and apparently such a criminal that he later became a tenured professor at a mainstream mid-Western public university?
Larry, respectfully, you might be encouraging the sort of tabloid horse puckey that you (thankfully) just pointed out that you don’t support.
Not sure, but I suspect Larry meant that headline to be an example of the kind of thing we can expect from the MSM if Obama gets the nomination.
How does becoming a tenured professor negate being a criminal terrorist?
That isn’t logical.
What are the specifics?
ah, yes, a criminal terrorist!!!!
he’s a tenured professor.
one is left with the impression that if obama farts in an elevator, Larry and Susan are going to announce that he has secretly always been a Colombian drug lord selling nuclear weapons to Syrian terrorists and engaging in man-on-horse sex with small children watching.
i mean, i don’t want to be unfriendly like that, but this site’s attacks on obama have just gotten SO over-the-top! reading this site sometimes is like watching Saturday Night Live lampoon desperate political hatchet men or something.
Obama can be easily criticized by anyone with an ounce of moral integrity and a mind and an attention span and a memory. However, I think the trouble with that is that his REAL failures are just SO CLOSE to the same REAL failures of Hillary that bringing up his real failures exposes a really vacuous choice we have this year, but doesn’t reinforce Hillary’s bid at all.
This is a really sad election. And I really am grossed out by just how much both sides have degenerated into dumb, angry mobs, so quickly.
Banquo why do you torture yourself so?
You are missing the point. These are attacks which the REPUBLICANS will make against Obama. It makes no difference whether they are fair or not. (Just look what they did to the Clintons, Gore and Kerry.)
I urge everyone to read David Ignatius’ column in today’s Wash Post. After writing positive things about Obama he decides NOW is the time to look more closely at Obama in order to avoid buyer’s remorse! Millions have already voted, even those who live in his region. Apparently Igntius does not care if they have buyer’s remorse. This is the kind of build-them-up just to tear-them-down game that journalists like to play, particularly with Democrats.
Please go to the site and leave a comment.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502962.html
I also wrote to the Post’s ombudman to complain. They need to hear from all of us that this is the kind of journalism that makes a mockery of our democracy. The ombudsman’s email address is:
ombudsman@washpost.com
Banquo,
Some clowns or cowards who ran from Kos to NQ believe that Obama is hiring people to faint.
Want to be an Obama Fainter? Sign up here! w/poll
by Kevvboy
Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:08:27 PM PST
Item currently running on Drudge Report:
FIRED UP AND FALLING DOWN: String of Crowd Fainting Incidents Hits Obama Rallies…
Just back from tonight’s Obama rally in Gobstop, Wisconsin, where 500,000 of the faithful gathered to chant “Yes We Can” in an extremely non-cultish manner.
I fainted three times, and was paid $125 for each faint. The third faint will earn a $50 bonus because I was close enough to the stage that Barack stopped his speech and narrated my faint until the EMTs got me to “wake up” again.
Would you like to be an Obama fainter? Young women are preferred because it increases the “Beatlemania” feeling in the hall and allows the candidate to show maximum caringness and hopeitude during the Revival Period. But there is room for all in the Fainting Tent: young men like myself are just as welcome! Who says Obama is sexist?
Sexy, sure. Sexist? Never. Even though, periodically, he gets to feeling a little up, and thinks some fainting adds to his appeal.
To join the Obama Fainting Club, send a contribution to the campaign and specify SNARK in the tagline.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/16/22147/0346/326/458343
Sounds like “Tent Revival Syndrome”.
Hallelujah! Amen!!
If his words are fake, why not the fainting spells? It the whole movement he is trying to sell and fainting women are a mighty fine prop. He always has the same reply for people who happen, just happen, to call out “I love you”. He always loves “you back”. Don’t know if these little things will be alll that charming after 9 months of them.
He (Ayers) blew things up, domestically, in the 1960’s?
Youthful discretion?
If you excuse those actions, it explains a lot about you.
Denial is a wonderful way to live life, isnt’ it?
You miss the point. Ayers is a terrorist who has not practiced for some years but has not apologized or repudiated his conduct. That relationship is inappropriate for someone who wants to be President.
More importantly is how this info will be used in the campaign. What’s Obama going to do? Argue that is was years ago and doesn’t matter? That won’t float.
LJ
Ayres was arrested after he turned himself in.
Charged.
Wasn’t convicted.
Charges were dropped by the Reagan administration.
His wife Bernardine Dohrn was also arrested.
She did less than a year for refusing to testify against a friend. She is now a professor of Law at Northwestern.
Sainted Ronnie and his AG dropped the charges.
Might not be the best of all possible worlds, but Ayers walked because of another republican screwup. Take it up with them.
Remember when the Bush lovers said he couldn’t have done anything wrong with Harken stock manipulation because the Justice Department investigated, and didn’t file charges?
They neglected to mention that the official doing the investigating was appointed by Bush pere.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
And that Bush was never cleared of the charges. They were just not acted on.
Nobody is going to bring it up in the general if Obama is the nominee. If Obama is the nominee, McCain’s surrogates will play the race card at the grassroots level furiously, trying to scare the hell out of white voters. McCain will attack Obama on the “experience” and “war hero” front. He will accuse Obama (falsely) of being a “liberal”. It will be the same Republican campaign as we always see. He will also try to play up his “straight talk express” credentials, as we have already seen with the public fundraising issue. But he is not going to pull a No Quarter and announce “Obama’s Ties to Terrorists”. That’s weaker than Rezko and you can see how much the Rezko issue (God, Hillary, next time pick a bad connection there are no photos of you shaking hands with, too) hurt him.
Have seen that, it’s probably a false flag. Something to cover the real scandals. The MN prosecutor there, if I’m not mistaken, was a major Bush enabler who helped Coleman cement his seat for a brief time by politicizing the prosecutor’s office.
I can’t say the same for Axelrod however. The name alone is enough to remind one of right wing uberchickenhawk ‘Hindrocket’ and Power Line/’Powerloins’ both were given some kind of elevated press credibility back into the Jeff Gannon née James Guckert days.
Hope you’re all reading the looseprophead post at FireDogLake that Larry linked to. Holy cow — I hadn’t seen it. It is the best summary of Rezko I’ve seen. And from a long-time attorney who knows his/her stuff.
LINK:
http://firedoglake.com/2008/02/06/nobodys-hands-are-perfectly-clean-in-politics/
If you read the comments to that article, you will see that someone from Daily Kos took issue with LPH’s idea that the law firm was dirty. Being that this was a central premise of the article, it leaves one thinking about the article as a whole.
Her stuff. IIRC, she used to work in the US Attorney’s office in NY City.
Mentioning the Ayers Fund, don’t many charitable organizations function as a front to launder money?
Thank you Larry, for posting on this. It’s breath of fresh air, really. I’ve lost track of how many places I no longer visit because this kind of stuff is not even allowed to be discussed.
I just spent the last seven years disagreeing with this administration’s version of reality only to suddenly find myself disagreeing with many Dem’s version.
I expect people to disagree on politics,on issues,on opinions. I am totally not prepared when we start disagreeing on reality. Reality is non-negotiable! Or so I thought. My mistake.
So yes, absolutely Obama will be attacked. Unfortunately he’s got a lot of baggage and we don’t necessarily know what all is in it. But just the parts that we do know can already be spun into some pretty ugly stuff, once the hounds are unleased.
It seems like people are allowing themselves to be led like lambs to the slaughter. “Yes we can” doesn’t win elections any better then “hope is on the way.”
What happens when Hillary is no longer around to blame everything on? She’s like a buffer for Obama and I think it’s gone to Obama’s head. Lord knows it’s gone to some of his supporter’s heads. I just read somewhere how he’s already faced the worst attacks possible from the “Clinton machine”, so he’s weathered the storm. Ahh gee people, open a window or something, I don’t think you’re getting enough oxygen.
kitty, I think a lot of us lefties/liberals/progressives are in shock to find that a good share of the rhetoric coming from Obama surrogates and supporters towards Hillary Clinton is just as dishonest, just as vitriolic and just as repulsive as what we have heard from the Right.
While spewing their Hillary-Hate they also cover their ears with both hands at the thought, the very thought that their “chosen one” might have a few flaws and/or problems.
I fear once reality sets in, as it will, what will hit the fan won’t be pretty, won’t smell good, and will cover their candidate with something that won’t wear well with the general public. It doesn’t even need to be true. All it takes is enough talking heads spewing the claims and we can all try to endure at least 4 years of President McCain.
larry
you might not have found that video credible but apparently the people at free republic are taking it seriously.
for the past month there have been posts on the video. wonkette has the video on today.
heres an audio link: interview with Sinclair.
http://trp.fileburst.com/TRP_2008.02.08_Larry-Sinclair-Interview.mp3
i just learned about this today. with a little research one can see a lot of people have been talking about this for some time.
Who is sitting on this story and why?
The whole point of your last piece is that the right will say anything. Well if you read the posts on FR you will see that they are attributing to Clinton this guy’s video. They are saying Clinton put him up to it.
To not confront this story now is asking for trouble. It will surface later after the convention.
Does the gay guy from you tube have ties to terrorists, too?
We know the media hasn’t responsibly examined Obama’s credentials — thanks for giving us a look at the man.
Wow, Hillary is by far the better and more electable candidate…I’m not sure why so many democrats are confused by that. Even with Republican strategists infiltrating and trying to throw the nomination to Obama, still if Democrats just recognized that when you are a nation at war you need a Commander in Chief with armed services experience. And, when you are nation with an exploding deficit and a disintegrating middle class you need someone with experience on how to restore the economy. Hillary is the only one who can win the November election…I wish Democrats would recognize that.
Actually, what you need is someone with superior reasoning skills, someone capable of superior reasoning, exhibiting such over a lifetime, say.
And yep, you’re right, out of the whole crew, Hillary is the best…
Thank you for expressing my thoughts so eloquently. The media is really disgusting me. I used to watch a lot of political talk shows, but I am totally turned off these days. They are supposed to be professionals, not showing support to any candidates, but the professionals seem to have lost their credibility. American politics is all about spin. BO cannot cannot win, just as Howard Dean could not. People are dreaming if they think the Republicans won’t question BO’s lack of stance on voting issues. They’ll attack his religious upbringing and his ties to corruption. They’ll make sure everyone knows that Barak Hussein Obama is not fit for America. You are right, Larry. Yes, they will!!
Former Deaniac here, and this is exactly right.
When Howard Dean “screamed” it fed the meme already out there (but dismissed, ignored and ridiculed by his supporters, of which I was one) that he was a hotheaded angry man.
When all the stuff about Rezko et. al. hits the fan, it will completely undercut the meme that Obama is a different kind of politician. Um, no he isn’t. He’s exactly the same as every other politician. AND he’s tied to “terrorist sympathizers” which will scare the beejesus out of righty-leaning Independents.
Of course, this will be mocked, ignored and ridiculed by his supporters. It already is. Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.
I really thought there would be no way the country would elect another Republican after what we just went through. The more I learn about Obama, the more I realize that it certainly can.
Yes We Can
A piece of trivia for the masses.
This slogan is copied from Sammy Davis Jr.’s autobiography Yes I Can
The Prevailing Assumption is that Baracks Chant of “YES WE CAN” is another piece of borrowed material ..It is the translation of Spanish Language Chant…”SI SE PUEDE”..first
used by the United farm Workers and at Pro Immigration Rallys ..
It was first aimed specifically by Obama at the Cilinary Workers
Union in Nevada…That Phrase in Spanish..is plastered all over the walls of the Unions Headquarters..
h
I musta screwed up.
Everybody seems to think that’s the origin. However, if I saw it on TV it must be true. That’s the fallout from Wag The Dog.
Bill Mahr carried the Obama - Sammy Davis Jr. link on his show on Friday.
Maybe the joke’s on Bill, but you tweaked my interest.
What we got here is a problem with mood.
The literal translation and that used by the UFW of the phrase is “It can be done.”
The nortenos and possibly the Spanish-challenged Anglo union organizers of the 1990 LA janitors strike are possibly the people who “colloquially” translated it into “Yes we can”, although the blame could also be cast on the equally Spanish-deaf LA media. The yuppies that spun the Obama slogan wouldn’t know either unless they asked their maids. In any case the present indicative form of the verb is podemos or podamos if it is imperative mood.
RFK borrowed it from the grape pickers, Cesar Chavez.
Chavez’s slogan was “It can be done”, not “Yes we can”
The subtext to my post is why is Mahr, who came out for Obama a couple of weeks ago, fiddling with the origins of Obama’s slogan this week on HBO?
Admittedly it is a very small point.
Obama’s and “The Shawshank Redemption”
Anyone know what Media houses are being 527′ed by RNC? Remember Karl Rove left with the Roledex intact.
See Preview:Heritage Foundation - Kimberley Strassel Wall Street Journal Editorial Board Member.
Here’s an Obama speech you’re surely going to love:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dboIpZ8ool8
Except it seems as though someone else is giving it.
So the Prophet Obama is a plagiarizer.
Whodda thunk it?
Guess who was Deval Patrick’s campaign manager?
That would be David Axelrod, the guy pulling the strings for Obama.
BTW, I don’t keep track of Deval Patrick, but from what I can gather, it’s seems as though he’s been quite the disaster.
Patrick’s Approval Ratings Take A Nose Dive
by Jon Keller
BOSTON (WBZ) ― An exclusive WBZ Fast Track survey shows Governor Deval Patrick’s job approval rating has taken a major hit. It’s down 20 points in the past month.
http://wbztv.com/politics/Governor.Deval.Patrick.2.585711.html
Hillary Clinton should make this comment after one of Obama’s speeches: “That sure was a great speech Senator Obama just gave. He recites it so much better then Deval Patrick did! No offense Deval.”
I am outraged that just by accident I have learned not just about the video I wrote about earlier but that a lawsuit by Larry Sinclair was filed in Federal Court against Obama, Axelrod, and Dean on February 11, 2008 alleging that they conspired to violate Sinclair’s civil rights after he released his video and made his charges against Obama.
When were the voters supposed to learn about this? After the November election?
“And he [Rezko] is up against Patrick Fitzgerald.”
And one more thing…
In case Fitz happens to develop links to Obama, don’t get no silly delusions about Fitz being discredited for bias. He’s the real deal Untouchable. Elliot Ness would be jealous.
You’re right; if Fitz could have been brought brought down, the repubs surely would have kneecapped him during the Libby or Conrad Black trials. But don’t sell the Obamatons short. Although many of them were enraptured by Fitzgerald during the Libby trial, they’ll turn on him like rabid dogs if their new idol is in danger. It might be fun to watch.
Just as they have all ready turned on Wes Clark, Joe & Valerie Wilson, Bobby Kennedy Jr. and on and on… According to Obama supporters all those people, as well as any other Clinton supporters or endorsers are doing it out of sheer self-interest in order to get a place in a perceived Clinton Administration.
Whereas Obama supporters and endorsers do it simply because they are pure of heart. And people do actually believe such drivel.
My first inkling of how bad the bots are came when they savaged Paul Krugman. Up until Krugman criticized Obama’s so-called health care plan, he was the toast of Orange State (formerly known as dkos). As soon as he dissected the plan and found it wanting, Krugman became persona non grata to many of his former fans. It’s just part of a pattern of demonization applied to anyone not sufficiently worshipful of the Chosen One.
The whole cult phenomenon is really amazing to watch and quite horrifying.
I think reading this site I am convinced that Obama does not have the only cult.
I just learned today that Kos front page poster, who goes by the DHinMI, is actaully Dana Houle, FORMER Chief of Staff for Congressman, Paul Hodes of NH.
What I’d like to know, is why Dana Houle is a FORMER, after less than a year on the job?
And I am beigining to wonder if Kos is not somehow trying to be a kingmaker, and is associated somehow with Obama and his campaign?
Patrick Fitzgerald is not a weak man.
It’s so refreshing to watch a man who is not only highly intelligent, but also ethical.
Having been in this intellectual desert the past 8 years, in terms of smart men, men who work within the parameters of US law, you know, as opposed to Karl Rove’s failed juke joint, Fitzgerald, (like Joe Wilson) is rain, cultural rain.
WE all sleep a little better at night knowing there are men who obey the law AND protect the government, most ably.
A chorus of “Can we do it?’ Bob the builder says “YES We CAN”. Its been a catchcry of British Aust NZ kids for about 8 yeas.
I’m pretty sure that The Washington Times already has a banner headline ready for a cold Wednesday November morning - “No, They Can’t!”
And below it, a big map featuring a LOT of red.
Heroism
http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/
Biography of a “hero”
http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/cin_unfit_2.htm
Documentation of “heroism” as collaboration.
http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/cin_declassified_landing.htm
Then there is the little matter of the Keating 5 and McCain’s direct involvement and profiting from the Savings and Loan mess.
His shabby treatment of the relatives of POW/MIAs over the years of his senate service.
As we move toward an election where the vietnam war will be fought for one last time. It is as worthwhile to avoid the McCain kool-aid as it is to avoid the Obama koolaid and the Clinton kool-aid.
McCain’s heroism is as a media created and directed narrative. He will remain a media favorite as long as the liquor cabinet on his tour bus is well stocked, and as long as he gives his off the record chats. So it would be well to remember that while the dems hammer out who will carry the standard for the party after august. This fictional hero is the one who will carry the opposition’s standard. Time to start sticking forks into the windbag and helping it on its road to self destruction.
Most of us can remember the attacks on Bill Clinton for his Vietnam war era choices. Those attacks will come back, repackaged against his wife. If Bill is front and center in her campaign they will be used, if he is downplayed in her campaign they will be used with a twist to fit the narrative of Clinton triangulation.
It is harder to use Vietnam against Obama if only because Obama was not even born when the first Eisenhower era “advisors” went into Vietnam and Obama was 14 and too young to enlist when Vietnam finally drew to its close in 1975. So if it is not possible to directly tie obama to vietnam, the next best thing for the republicans is to find some old lefties preferably ineptly violent ones and make them into bestest friends or close advisors to Obama.
You all saw it done to Kerry, and you all have asked yourself why didn’t Kerry fight harder. I don’t have an answer for why Kerry didn’t fight, nor do I have an answer for why the democratic party didn’t do more and do it more harshsly to the swiftboaters.
Well now the repbulicans will be presenting the nation with the rethug version of Kerry.
Example: a silver star award requires two witnesses.
For McCain’s silver star award there are no witnesses. His silver star is a fantasy award.
Kerry at least had witnesses for his valour, for McCain all there are are the tapes and broadcasts he made for his captors.
Dems cannot fight McCain by talking about his military service. That’s promised to backfire. He’s setting himself up to be the tough on terror candidate, the experienced military guy. His waterboarding vote proved that. And the rules are differant for Republicans, he isn’t viewed as flip flopping or caving in, he’s viewed as correcting his position and making a hard choice to protect the country.
They won’t go after Obama because of Vietnam, they’ll go after him because of his ties to an indicted Syrian business man. A man who’s company got a contract in Iraq to build a power plant.
Obama supporters have him up on a pedestol so high it kind of boggles my brain. But what happens when they discover he’s human? I’m frightened. I think by the time the Republicans have finished defining Obama for everyone, his own supporters won’t recognize him and won’t go to the polls. The higher your expectations, the greater your disapointment. In the end, the idealistic Dems will stay home in disgust. The Republicans will come forth in droves to protect us from the guy who will have been shown to be a horrendous liberal and a terrorist sympathizer.
I’m afraid you’re right. My only question is: how does this get blamed on the Clintons? Because you know it will be.
Maybe if the Clinton’s would stop with the “most polite campaign in history” stuff concerning old John Keating5 McCain it would help matters.
Maybe if Bill didn’t attempt to speak for GHWB as being willing to help a Hillary administration and having old GHWB lay the smack down on him the very next day.
Does the democratic party want to destroy a democrat or do they want to demolish the the rethug candidate and put a dem in the white house for the forseeable future?