Thin Skinned Obama Fans
By Larry Johnson on March 9, 2008 at 4:17 PM in Current Affairs
Believe it or not, I do have friends who are fans of Obama. I don’t understand it, but I don’t condemn them for it. Here’s a taste from a now retired CIA colleague:
I agree that Senator Obama has less experience than I would like, but Senator Clinton also has no outstanding experience “managing anything.” The one thing both of them have managed is this year’s political campaigns and, from my perspective, Senator Obama has done a lot better job in planning strategy, raising and managing money, and providing leadership.
Still, I’m not arguing about his experience or substance. I’m not disputing the value of Senator Clinton’s experience or substance. One would always like more of both. My point is that Senator Clinton’s tactics threaten to destroy the chance of any Democratic nominee to be elected president. She is proclaiming that Senator McCain has more experience than Senator Obama–not what one says if you care anything about the party you represent–but of course Senator McCain has vastly more experience than she does, so she is undercutting herself as well. What sense does that make?
Then there was this note from a journalist buddy with Chicago roots:
This Chicago Trib piece underscores my point about both Clinton and Obama — you feign shock that Obama is a politician and that his advisors obfuscate and confuse. Look at Clinton. I had four years of covering these people, with their parsing, incompetence, and blowjobs. I’m no fan of Obama’s weak foreign policy team (tho you should note that Richard Clark is a key advisor) but Hilliary’s claim of experience is patently bogus:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-experiencemar07,0,51719.story
So let me try to address their criticisms and concerns. First, the Obama supporters need to stop whining about legitimate criticisms of their candidates. It is true that John McCain has more experience with national security matters than Obama. He served in the military, he was an officer, and he commanded troops. That is just a fact. Accusing Hillary of slandering Obama for pointing this fact out is like blaming Hillary for causing sunburns because she recognizes that the Sun shines during daylight hours.
Obama and his followers are having a tough time responding to Hillary’s attacks. Well, if they can’t handle that pressure what in the hell will happen when the Republicans launch a full scale attack on Barack HUSSEIN Obama, closet muslim, coke head, communist sympathizer, absentee legislator, Rezko buddy, and friend of those who hate Israel? Let’s watch Obama tap dance and explain why his grandfather was a polygamous muslim, his dad a serial adulterer and muslim, but he’s not.
So stop bitching about Hillary raising legitimate questions about Barack’s experience and judgment. Those are valid points worth debating. If nothing else, it gives Barack and his group of advisers a chance to hone their message. Because you can count on this–come September the Republicans and their 527 allies will pound the dogshit out of him. James Wolcott has an excellent, elegantly written post on the delicate nature of the Obama disciples.
Then there is the “experience” factor. I have never claimed that Hillary Clinton is the equivalent of Dwight David Eisenhower. Nor do I assert that she is perfect and has always made the right decision. But she has several things in her favor that Barack cannot begin to achieve. She has traveled extensively overseas and she has represented the U.S. Government in official diplomatic exchanges. While these were not negotiations with North Korea or the Palestinians, it still put her in the position of understanding how to interact appropriately in a foreign environment and make an effective case. She understand why it is foolish to agree to unconditional talks with Iran (or anyone else for the matter). She understands that there is power to be wielded in making the offer for talks and ways to achieve the interests of the United States without painting herself into a corner.
What happens if Barack is President and Iranian President Ahmadinejad announces on 21 January his readiness to meet immediately with the U.S. leader and oh, by the way, will also send arms to Hamas to help them defend themselves against the Zionists? Since Barack is already on the record for unconditional talks, how does he back away without discrediting himself. This plays further into the developing impression that he says one thing but means another. And every nation in the world–friend and foe–will try to exploit that to their own advantage. A seasoned leader understands you don’t paint yourself into such a corner.
Then there is Barack’s “I’m not a bureaucrat, I’m a visionary” nonsense. For the love of Christ!! What does he think government is? We have already witnessed the mess that George Bush created in Iraq by not settling the turf battle between the Department of Defense and State Department. Even today you have both bureaucracies claiming that proconsul, L. Paul “Jerry” Bremer worked for the other. Lofty speeches don’t get policy implemented. When you deliver a national budget you are forcing a fight among the various government agencies who will insist that their priorities are the most important. What in the hell is Barack talking about, letting someone else sort out what is important.
Hillary Clinton, whatever faults you want to focus on, understands the bureaucracies and understands the infighting that inevitably accompanies the task of governing. She is not going to need a crash program to understand the difference between CIA and DIA. She understands the mission and capabilities of NSA. She knows the difference between the Department of State and the Department of Agriculture. This is pedestrian experience, but is critical experience that someone who aspires to be an effective President must have.
So whine away Obama supporters. Let those crocodile tears cut ravines in your cheeks. Mean old Hillary Clinton dares to challenge Barack’s failure to hold hearings on Afghanistan, his failure to visit Europe, his failure to enforce discipline on his foreign policy advisors, and his refusal to take command of the bureaucracies that make up the U.S. Government? Well excuse me, but I think those are valid criticisms that Obambi better be ready to confront. If he cannot take a punch from Hillary, how in the world can he aspire to stand up to the likes of the Iranians or North Koreans. I just do not understand.
Well, if they can’t handle that pressure what in the hell will happen when the Republicans launch a full scale attack on Barack HUSSEIN Obama, closet muslim, coke head, communist sympathizer, absentee legislator, Rezko buddy, and friend of those who hate Israel? Let’s watch Obama tap dance and explain why his grandfather was a polygamous muslim, his dad a serial adulterer and muslim, but he’s not.
Larry,
The above isn’t legitimate criticism and I told you that months ago when you starting throwing that mud here on NQ.
The public won’t care either. Poll after poll showed that people (even some who voted for Hillary) didn’t appreciate the negative attacks and distortions.
As to what he would do regarding Iran, he’ll attack them because the neocons won’t let Obama or any of the candidates out of the grasp.
The realistic are well of this.
Calling it as I see it isn’t whining. I’m sorry you see it that way.
Winners have no reason to whine.
Winners plan to make great ads and don’t succumb to scare tactics.
[fade in to sleeping girl stock footage]
Casey [voiceover]: “Hillary Clinton recently used stock footage of a happy little girl sleeping in bed to make a political ad, but tinted it blue …”
[fades to dark, scary blue like the Clinton ad]
[Casey, cont'd.] “…and used a gravelly voice to scare you into voting for her.”
[fade out ad, fade in Casey in brightly-lit room]
Casey: “That was me, eight years ago. And I’m here to tell you I’m not scared. You could even say I’m full of hope. Before I even saw the ad, I was a proud precinct captain on Barack Obama’s campaign.”
[Barack Obama walks up next to her]
Barack: “Let’s put an end to politics of fear that uses scare tactics to drum up votes, and to justify bad decisions.”
Casey: “And instead of relying on scary stock footage to get votes, Barack’s campaign will rely on the people who’ve volunteered for his campaign. Like me. I’m Casey Knowles…”
Barack: “…and I’m Barack Obama…”
Both: “…and we approve this message.”
Casey: “And not that other one!”
[Campaign logo fades in]
————————————————————————-
Isn’t that a great idea?
Many thanks to our Independent friend, Steve.
Here’s Steve’s blog entry.
Update: Here’s a link to the news story about Casey, courtesy of fellow Kossak, nisleib.
http://www.youtube.com/...
PS.
Disagree with you Larry but will still save a place for you in the foxhole. Smooch!
Cee,
We have different views but you are always a welcome guest. And I would never accuse you of having thin skin. You are tough and committed.
Larry,
Observing the man you quoted, and Scheuer, I’m struck by the ignorance each exhibits, (particularly for people who were former intelligence), exhibiting poor decision making processes, poor decision making skills.
Obama may have accepted money from a man who is suspected of illegal arms trading, was involved in money laundering for Saddam, and who was charged with the bribery of government officials in Europe. This man may also support terrorists.
Why would someone, particularly someone who was former intelligence, support him?
Same with Scheuer, you’ve pretty much explained why you think he’s a moron, a failure, and I accept that explanation, I see how he cannot defend his choices, he strikes me as confused, mainly.
Is it your opinion intelligence agents aren’t aware of their own biases, their own fears, and doesn’t this leave them, and us, vulnerable to their bad judgement in matters of national security?
Do you think this is common, you don’t exhibit this trait?
I understand all entities are comprised of different personalities, different levels of clearance, different departments run differently, but this is twice now I’ve seen former personnel exhibit traits I would think not compatible with high functioning positions.
It’s just an insight, I don’t mean to offend you.
Someone helped clarify it for me.
Auchi supports American enemies, and Obama takes money from him.
This is not OK.
Cee,
Your youtube link didn’t work.
(Btw, I love strong, feisty vimmen. ;-))
Wet,
I’m sorry it doesn’t work. I can’t locate it again.
“The above isn’t legitimate criticism “
Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt, Moonbeam.
CEE — The way that I read this segment of Larry’s posting, he was not claiming those remarks to be “legitimate criticism” as much as he was pointing out that the eventual nominee of the Democratic Party will be subjected to mean, nasty, vile, criticism without regard to the validity of that criticism. You know, just like the comments section on most Daily Kos postings, or watching COUNTDOWN on MSNBC.
One other difference is when the Republicans attack him that way, his whiney supporters won’t have anyone to comment to about how it’s unfair that gives a shit. I fully expect exploding heads among his supporters if he gets the nomination.
Excellent point that matters in the end. Trying to use my desire to make sure McCaine doesn’t win, won’t work on Republicans or middle grounders that aren’t committed Democrats. I know people who don’t like Obama but are leaning a bit more for McCain than Hillary. They don’t care about nuances, they are very prosafety, jobs and the basics.
When you have me on the theoretical “same side” and I’m the enemy for asking questions…what will the enemy look like…when they don’t ask questions, just fire at you?
In the recent events many righties are glad to hit two birds with one stone. They launched a photo on Obama, then Drudge claims it comes from Clintons campaign, (no evidence provided that it did) and voila…Full Infighting.
Sun Tzu would be proud.
And the stupid Obamaniacs don’t care if it came from Freepers, they hate Clinton and her supporters. They have Hope, Change, and wee bit of the Newly Converted Arrogance on their side. After all, They’re Right.
As I’ve said before, I’ve spent time in a well known “Progressive” organization, and DISSENT IS NOT ALLOWED. I used to defend the “left” until I realized there is no right and left, just the whole. I’ve had more luck converting Rightwingers to a world view than challenging the view of Leftwingers for years.
Jim,
Moonbeam? Does that help your case?
Would it help mine if I called you a silly mofo?
This needs to stop.
Rob,
The well began to be poisoned right here and now the MSM has started repeating the same crap.
Hillary wants Obama damaged and I’m starting to believe that she’d rather McCain win if she can’t.
I want someone to ask her if Obama would be a better president than Obama. I bet she’d swallow her tongue before admitting it.
Early on a few people (who no longer come here) made arguments on the issues as to why Hillary would be better. I agreed with a few of them.
Mr. Murder commented on Obama’s campaign chair. That is a legitimate issue. This rest of these charges are outrageous.
Now Kos and Olbermann are enemies because you don’t agree?
Where will you turn when this is all over? WorldNetDaily? Fox?
“Moonbeam? Does that help your case?
Would it help mine if I called you a silly mofo?
This needs to stop.”
No.
Now Kos and Olbermann are enemies because you don’t agree
They got the “memo” Cee. I don’t consider anyone an enemy. Olbermann’ bias is not uncommon in the MSM. The echo chamber he is adding to creates some sonic cancellation….
Let him rail all he wants for all I care…
And as Mr Johnson has said…F**K KOS> for the overt effort to silence dissent. Surely you would agree that a vocal opposition is crucial for this republic’s survival?
“Winners have no reason to whine”
Winners whine all the time. In fact they often gloat. They shame the losers often. A good winner does not, but wins gracefully. Obamaniacs have been very busy gloating on TV, on the web, and in person.
‘You’re only saying that because you’re losing’
is an example
‘She only wants the rules changed because she’s losing’
is an example
‘I bet she wouldn’t be saying that if she was the one with all the delegates’
is an example
’she should drop out of the race and let him have the nomination instead of tearing up the party’
is an example
Well, this isn’t over. We’ve seen that this is going to the Convention. And those of us who support the other candidate have seen the real face of the Obama change, the “end of the politics of destruction”.
Chris,
You’re only saying that because you’re losing’
is an example
‘She only wants the rules changed because she’s losing’
is an example
True. When Bill Clinton was winning the caucus states nobody complained.
‘I bet she wouldn’t be saying that if she was the one with all the delegates’
is an example
Already we’ve seen “them” turning to the likes of Fox news. Susan at one point suggested Karl Rove was actually really really smart because he “got it”!
The one positive i can get out of all this is my head spinning is really developing my neck muscles.
Fun stuff.
That was intelligent.
Obama doesn’t need some cutesy “gotcha right back” ad to answer the “Unqualified” charge. He needs to explain why he thinks he’s qualified to be President, especially in light of the fact that in November, 2004 he said that would take someone of real arrogance to think he could be elected to the Senate in 2004 and be a legitimate candidate for President in 2008.
The cutesy ad you describe is, however, exactly what I expect from the Obama campaign- doesn’t address the issue, but gosh, it is awfully cute, it makes me giggle. Yay! Obama must be qualified! He makes me feel warm and fuzzy!
For Obama fans, pointing out his weaknesses is a smear campaign. Everyone supposes to a turn blind eye on his lack of qualification, flip-flop on issues, no real policy, and “believe” in the change he promises. How dare Clinton criticize Obambi? I can’t believe how many intelligent people buy into the rotten apple Axelrod is trying to sell us.
enough with the balance, please.
[/unsolicited opinion]
you’re seeing his campaign strategy that began as being the alternative to a HIllary blow-out. He’s consistently run a negative campaign, by ‘interpreting’ what she really means and then feigning (or worse, believing his own hype) outrage. It’s called manufactured outrage, and it’s a way that men in corporations step ahead of someone else. it depends on that person having some lurking haters who want to see her fall flat on her face, based on some kind of envy, generally meaning someone who hadn’t the ‘right’ to her success. There are stories like she slept her way to the top, or she had some other unfair advantage, and the newcomer first poses as her victim, by interpreting her as being somehow unfairly against him and then showing outrage. Then everyone can feel this outrage, it’s quite bonding and it feels powerful, and then the one ahead becomes a target for unfair criticism. Which she “deserves’ as she ‘brought it on herself.’ This is one reason that women can see the media bias while some fellows and some girls who have never bucked the power system, can’t say they see it. Those who’ve experienced it, and we are legion, have no trouble recognizing the essential negativity of Obama’s tactics and call it for what it is. It’s about who you identify with, if you think you’re as good as the guys and they’ll compete fairly with you, making you a ’special’ woman you won’t see it, and if you see yourself as just another person trying to get ahead on an uneven playing field, then you easily see it.
I may be a tad stupid, but isn’t an election campaign suppose to express and show the differences between candidates abilities, plans and promises?
Sort of like expressing to the population why one should be given the job to run the country?
Now that there is no way of GWB re-entering the Whitehouse unless he pulls some scam on Terror to stay in and suspend the Constitution, there is no one with complete experience to move in, like you could have hiring a CEO from CBS to come work for NBC!
So you have to hire the person who has the hire credientials to hold the job and do it! Now if it was a job of a minisrty of Hope, Obama would be a shoe in, but it is a job of actually sitting down and getting the job done!
People on security, former high ranking Military support Clinton 32 to 2, guess they have some sort of experience in things!
The pressures are going to be enormous in this new job, we sure don’t need someone who runs away when it gets hot there!
Rumour has it Obama is going to go to Europe during the long break to the Penn vote, guess talking nothings means more to him out there looking good than sitting down and working out things on the NATO commitee before the spring surge the Talaban said was coming last fall!
Priorities huh, myself over the lives of others continues!
Larry, my friend, a feminist author and best seller and, ironically (or so it seems to be me) a big supporter of Obama, sent me this today:
“I am really feeling sad about the election, or should I say the war that is happening between the camps. why is this how we pick a president? who can fight dirtier? who can withstand being torn down and who can’t. it makes me sick that that’s what this historic campaign has devolved into. I realized I finally got to the point where I can say that if Hillary wins, I won’t vote for her. I’m not sure that Obama is strong enough or flexible enough to show more of himself and a different side of himself at this stage in the campaign. I don’t think he’s showing leadership right now and I think he has prior to this point. Mostly I feel disheartened at the scorched earth that will exist after this campaign. So many people have felt excited and wanted to be part of a revitalization of this country, and most of them will be jaded and cynical after this election is over. I think that’s such a waste. I feel very sad about it. ”
Interestingly, when Obama was winning and smelling like perfume, she imagined a world where we’d all be weaving daisy chains together. Now that he’s been through a few bump, she seems convinced it’s Hillary’s fault and is filled with distress.
This whining and threatening not to vote for HRC in the GE doesn’t warm my heart to Obama’s devotees, especially women. What do they think this is? As my father, a veteran of three wars used to say to me when I was little girl, “Toughen up! Life isn’t a bowl of cherries.” Obama isn’t yet a veteran of even the media’s thrashings. But he will be, like it or not.
so she accepted the scorched earth campaign against Hillary, inducted in the Womens Hall of Fame, by capitalizing on traditional sexist images of cookie baking, screeching, harpy attacks. But now…
be clear, Obama and his campaign are why I would not vote for him in November. It is not Hillary’s campaign or her supporters that had me come to this conclusion. It was his followers, his Axelrod, his snotty staff when I call his campaign.
You know, I’ve called Hillary’s campaign to complain about how things were run or attacks early in this that I said I wouldn’t appreciate or tolerate to get my vote. And though I did get some disconnected people who have no damn phone skills, they took my complaint and said thank you.
When I call Obama’s campaign, I get stupid debates that are on par with debating religion with a Scientologist. They refuse to acknowledge any wrong doing, any twisting of facts, and especially they fail to understand why I’m not all in the glow.
They bring their fate upon themselves.
If it were down to John Kerry vs. John Edwards, and John Kerry were to make similar comments about McCain and himself meeting a foreign policy experience threshold, would we see this uproar? No, we would not for two reasons: 1) people would see Kerry has a point and 2) Edwards is not as thin-skinned and could absorb that kind of “attack”.
NO. This is a historic election between a white female and a black male. That’s a big reason why there’s so much emotion in both camps (and supporters). I don’t see that being talked about much.
Absolutely agreed. Each side feels like their dreams are being stepped on.
Since I started out for Obama then upon research moved to Hillary I must disagree. I am thrilled for the country that a president will not be a white male (nothing against white man.) Now I’d like the president somebody who understands history and has experienced life, ups and downs, and has proven he/she can perform under pressure.
I voted for Senator Obama in the primary but if he & Goolsbee don’t start stepping back from their proposed 24% tax on cap gains, divs & interest & maintain the current 15% rate on atleast the first 25K the luv affair will be over! It will be break up time! I don’t say this solely out of self interest, (although primarily) what they are advocating will really hurt the entire middle class & middle class wannabes. What’s next? Taking away the damn 3K annual deduction for capital loss? Yeah, that’ll “simplify the tax code” (another one of his recent refrains) This is my deal breaker & I don’t think I’ll be alone in the November.
Ok, I’ll ask you.
Are you familiar with Rezko, and Auchi?
Obama accepted money from Auchi, and Auchi was Saddam’s former bagman, even suspected of supporting terrorist groups, through arms trading, and money laundering. (start with rezkowatch.blogspot, all of those charges are well documented.)
Now it is suspected Auchi paid for Obama’s house, through Rezko.
Given there is enough evidence here to question Obama’s integrity, and there is, the Chicago papers are all over this, why do you still consider Obama electable?
Not looking to start a fight, here, I really want to know what you think.
And if it’s a matter of “well, he’s not convicted,” I guess that’s your choice.
Something of interest, for Obamamanias!
Obama claims to have superior judgement, sp where did all that judgement go?
He can’t even place any blame on Clinton, because those who claim they have superior judgement should have known and been at th ready, so what happened Obamamaniacs?
I just don’t recall the last several primary seasons being a love-fest of any sort. My mind wanders back to South Carolina in 2000, when Bush and Rove cleaned Mccain’s clock in the ugliest fashion. Guess what? The republican party (sadly) did not fall to pieces in a simpering little puddle because the candidates were mean to each other.
As much as I abhor everything the republicans stand for, I have to hand it to them for understanding the the primary season gets ugly, and that once it’s over it’s time to hold hands (and sometimes noses) and come together for the eventual nominee.
But this is the era of thin skins and faux outrage. David Axelrod is out-roving Rove lately. No one can deny that Rove is brilliant, but that doesn’t make him any less of a jerk. How fitting that the product Axelrod is selling is similar to Rove’s… a “different” kind of politician. An “outsider.” A “guy you want to have a beer with.” A guy that lets his surrogates do the dirty work and has devotees, not supporters. A candidate whose supporters will not tolerate any criticism of their messiah. While Obama’s ideaology differs from Bush, the packaging is the same. And in the end, a mildly experienced, unexamined, media darling that makes one lousy president.
A guy that won’t get rid on anyone around him no matter what they do?
Just ask Rezko.
Legitimate attacks or not, Obama will be attacked. I think the ‘absentee legislator’ is a legitimate one myself. I would like to see an Obama supporter who criticizes Clinton’s tactics provide a list of Obama’s negative tactics. Otherwise, it’s is just another issue not to be debated.
He does respond poorly. I don’t think a ringing telephone is fear tactics. The dems avoid talking about national security and by calling a mild ad fear mongering, just makes dems look weak. A witty/snarky come back to a commercial on the Obama side is just another dismissal of the issue and the refusal to have a discussion. He is developing a reputation of being dismissive and it needs to be corrected. He could have taken on the issue of national security, but the only feedback from that ad I’ve seen is that the little girl has grown up and supports Obama. I care less who some little girl supports. It was CNN that said Obama has a glass jaw. If he doesn’t like being seen that way, he needs to change his message.
He is the one who needs to prove he has what it takes to lead, the one who needs to prove he has what it takes to respond in a position of strength, the one who has to prove he wants it bad enough and has something to bring. I haven’t seen it. Why can’t there be a discussion of Obama without saying the word ‘Clinton.’
Peter,
The issue of presidential candidates missing votes is as old as Methuzula.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE3D61738F934A25752C1A961948260
Mark Penn called this a negative attack ad. I think he’s wrong.
This is what I have said before…. it is impossible to discuss Obama on his own merits. Thank you for not mentioning the name Clinton, but I really don’t care how any other politician votes or what someone from an opposing candidate says about Obama. I am evaluating Obama on his record. When comparing hard work, Obama is not the candidate that comes to mind. You might find his speech acceptable. I find his dog whistling future and past (young and OLD) annoying. If he is so ‘unifying’ why are half the dems not voting for him? I don’t find him unifying at all. It isn’t convenient to his message so he wants to exclude FL and MI. Clinton surrogates have stepped forward to pony up $15m to cover the votes for these states while Obama’s surrogate dodged. He could step up and use this as a party building exercise as the evidence shows so far that the people supporting him, support him and not any other candidates. If his supporters are so interested in change, why aren’t they donating to the DNC, (RNC if they are Repubs) or to any other down ticket candidates?
Yet again, I ask these questions… what the heck does past future present mean? You better focus on the past, it needs to be dealt with. What is it he is absolutely committed to for the future? If he has been able to articulate this, I missed it. Please do not refer me to his website. I do not visit websites created by surrogates and polished by public relations people. If they can’t articulate their vision for the future, they are not someone I will vote for.
When someone asks about Obama, the response is nebulous. I don’t care what Mark Penn thinks of Obama. I care what I think of Obama. I do not have a clear picture of him and what I do have is negative. I looked at the candidates records more than 6 months ago and knew I would never vote for Obama. He has done nothing to change my position. I absolutely did not want to vote for Clinton as I had bought in to the right wing talking points. I kept studying records and focusing on issues, watching debates. When I made my decision, my response was “Crap, I’m voting for Clinton.”
Peter,
Since you’re new here… long ago I said that I didn’t trust Hillary.
End of story for me.
Barack Obama’s armor was the corrupt Daley machine. Lucky for him the press can’t fluff him enough.
So now that his best buddy’s Federal trial for kickback scams and his spiritual advisors rampant racism is disclosed to a national audience -
well some of the shine is gone.
And the Barack Obama Advisors Amateur Hour is no longer playing to rave reviews.
Watching Barack Obama flee a press conference had to be shocking to his supporters who had only heard the hope and change mantra.
Who knows what the answers to Rezko and NAFTAGATE will do to Obama’s faint hearted followers?
And I don’t care because I’m supporting Hillary Clinton.
The kiddies and the kooks can call the paramedics and move on to their next fad or drug.
“Barack Obama’s armor was the corrupt Daley machine. Lucky for him the press can’t fluff him enough.”
I acceded to that view when I was casting about as to whose “useful idiot” Obama was.
Now I am puzzling about how it may be just the reverse; that Obama is the armor for the Chicago Machine.
The Bush Administration has been trying to take down the Chicago Machine for almost eight years. Fitzgerald has been probing the outfit from city level to the governor. Bush’s last year could see a string of indictments which could land the Chicago lads in very interesting times.
An Obama Presidency, on the other hand, would land the fox in the henhouse with Obama’s pick for the AG. This campaign, therefore, could be the Machine’s power grab to take over the Democratic Party.
Then, on the other hand, we could have an October Surprise the like we have not seen since the Hostage Crisis.
Smilin’ Jim -
You’re exactly right. And pardons aplenty from Pres. Obama. There’s no downside for the crooks.
Such confidence that there will be “no downside for the crooks” IF there’s an Obama Presidency. Nostradamus would be proud…
Why?
They have the same business partners, that would be silly, and risk exposure.
All I can say is wow, they really can’t see.
Wow.
Larry, I’ve been down thread all day and finally got to read your level headed artical.
We have a US Republican Congressman making comments exactly as you point out. I understand the Congressman is not of a mind to retract these statements leveled against a US Senator. There will be alot more like them and retractions will be not be offered.
I was down wind all day looking at all the LLC’s and names and places that are most fiantly going to be “brought up”. The Contracts at O’Hare and others are going to implicate even people very close to the Jr Senator from Illinios.
They don’t call Chicago the “Windy City” city for nothing From what this kite can tell, Senator Obama is standing on a house of cards that will be blowing in the soon. In fact, I am not sure why the Governor of Illinos is still in office after looking at the open source stink I waded through today. The Governor, Emil “the godfather” Jones, Mayor Daley and number of others including the senator are in for a rude awaking.
Smilin Jim;
Right out of college “useful idiot” Obama…is certianly upwardly mobile and politicians are like joey’s in mama kangaroos pocket when climbing on to new political clouds 9’s.
Hey All
Check out this video from this little AA girl who supports Hillary. It about broke my heart. When you go to the site, hit the “Video of the Day” button
This is just so wrong.
hillaryspeaksforme.com
Larry, you’re an intelligence professional. I invite you to ponder this question: why are so many Democrats so “severely underwhelmed” by Hillary? What is your clinical, dispassionate take on that?
I get your points about why you are so strongly in Hillary’s camp, and against Obama. I’m not interested in that right now. I believe there is a very loud and clear message being relayed by a significant chunk of the Democratic Party (and the American people) about Hillary. A message is being sent. Is it being received? And if I were a hardcore partisan advocate for Hillary it would a) concern me greatly, and b) I would want to understand all facets of it……..if only to counter it effectively in the primary and possibly in the g.e. (gen. election.)
(LJ, I may post an article from a Joann W on Counterpunch and ask you to read that.)
Do you think it’s because they’ve been conditioned to want an empty glamour candidate, like Obama?
Why the hell do people think American Idol contestants are talented, they’re garbage.
What is good food, when all you eat is McDonald’s?
They don’t know.
And you can’t really give the current democratic leaders as examples, they are to me, delusional, corrupt, fuck ups. And to say underwhelmed, well, that’s your view, I would disagree. Maybe you should open your perspective a bit, try to really see, emotional bias can cripple.
If people truly want terrorism to end, want it not used as a weapon against then anymore, they have to face the truth about the corruption our government condones.
It’s not OK to take money from a man like Auchi, not for Bush, not for Obama.
And this is what it all goes back to.
And your post is disingenuous crap, to me.
Maybe you eat too much Mcdonald’s.
And that makes you fat, and stupid.
Simon, and what do you have to say about the current republican leadership? Are they delusional, corrupt fuck ups to use your words?
You bet!
Both can exist in the same space. Sell-outs are sell-outs regardless of creed or party affiliation. I’ve experienced this with Democrats in Texas.
The best I can answer your answer with though agrees with Simon. Conditioned responses are being played here.
1. Mom is the nag, Dad’s voice comforts.
We experience this in my house. My daughter says, “dad doesn’t get mad, let him handle it” and “mom you get so mad”. And the cycle completes. Truth is, I get as mad as mom, and am just as much of a problem when my temper blows. But as a man I’m allowed to be this way, its expected. I’m so damn thankful I have a very tough woman in my life. She makes me work my ass off to get a simple point across sometimes, but god bless it.
2. We’ve experienced 16 years of antiClinton propaganda. This was directed at both Clintons, but as Bill Clinton disappeared from the scene, Hillary was the same target. The propaganda worked on me for all this time until a few months ago when I was blessed by the critical thought on this site. Now I feel I’ve had some time stolen from me.
3. Simon put it well about our need to have a celebrity association. When Obama realized he didn’t have much credibility he already recognized he had “star power” and was not confined by humility to exploit it. As my friend here once said, “sexy factor” always counts more than credibility.
4. Manufacturing Consent:
Walter Lippman wrote well in his book Public Opinion on the nature of public consumption of media. He postulates that we have self-centered desires that can be pitched to. By knowing what buttons to push, you can control the opinion to maintain “common interests”.
Noam Chomsky and Ed Hermann elaborated on the theme with their book, Manufacturing Consent. In it, they cut up many of the ways we are reinforced with “necessary illusions”.
well, I could go on and on….but I’d have to eventually turn it in for my thesis.
As an amateur propagandist, dabbling in film, audio, and graphic work, I exploit biases to get my point across. I have studied the propaganda we are very familiar with from WWII and the Cold War. The images are gross exaggerations of our worst fears mixed with an ounce of truth to get you to buy it. It isn’t hard to do.
John Pilger’s great documentary, “faces of the enemy” covers much of how this works. While examining well known propaganda he compares it to a man who killed his neighbors over the believe they were the Communists. He had really worked up a hatred based on false notions. The more these false notions become real to him, he finally acted.
Additionally, Lippman covered the fact that the news we get is picked for us. We don’t easily have access to information that is in raw form. It is sifted and filtered even by bad editors before we see it. Then we don’t even want to pay the value of good news. He concluded: “For a dollar you may not even get an armful of candy but for a dollar or less people expect reality/representations of truth to fall into their laps.”
How much do you pay for online news? Mine comes simply because I pay my ISP to get to Google. I then use Google News to go over the latest events, but this isn’t complete. I don’t have a subscription to LexisNexis…(will take one if someone helps me) but I love to research old articles especially so I can read things as they were written in their own time instead of anachronistically.
So, those who want a brighter day…who are more concerned with glowing revelation and change flock to a messiah figure. I saw that years ago in the New Age movement when they all flocked for the Harmonic Convergence…weeks later it was all over and they had to get their asses back to work in the real world.
Don’t sell me a dream, just fix the fucking world up a bit so I can just dream on my own, and let me be.
Regarding item number 2…. I bought in to the anti-Clinton campaign also. In response to another person, I stated that I actually said, “Oh crap, I’m voting for Clinton.” I reviewed records, positions and watched the debates, watched rallies on CNN. I discovered she wasn’t evil incarnate and came to the conclusion “I just have to do it.”
You finally wrote… Don’t sell me a dream, just fix the fucking world up a bit so I can just dream on my own, and let me be.
Here, here. BTW, my soul is just fine.
I was also one of those that bought into the propaganda. It wasn’t until I actually did some research of my own that I too realized that Hillary was the most qualified candidate. And the one with the most heart and grit.
Don’t sell me a dream, just fix the fucking world up a bit so I can just dream on my own, and let me be.em>
Omogod. I love this
Jay,
Here’s the reality. Total votes cast in Democratic primary elections to date give Hillary 247,349 more votes than Barrack. So while there are a significant number of Democrats who favor Obama, Hillary has won more votes. Part of Hillary’s problem is the media is certainly creating the impression that Obama is far ahead. Just ain’t so.
The caucuses skew things. You don’t get a full representation of the Democratic voters. In many cases you also get independents and republicans crossing over.
All of that said, I am astonished at the level of hatred the “progressives” direct at Hillary and Bill. The leftist end of the Democratic party just can’t accept that most Americans don’t want to follow them. Ironically, they see Obama as their best hope yet, all of his talk apart, he will toss them overboard if it suits his purpose.
Totals up to date in the primaries
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/candidates/#val=1918
Clinton
13,008,337
Obama
12,841,278
I’ll calculate the caucus votes too.
Total Delegates
Obama
1588
Clinton
1468
Pledged Delegates
Obama
1378
Clinton
1223
Popular Vote
Obama
13,007,968
Clinton
12,415,286
Popular Vote (w/FL)
Obama
13,584,182
Clinton
13,286,272
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
Ever wondered why no one has given you a position of responsibility?
Take a clue from someone who has.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/PA_Gov._Hillary_has_states_with_0309.html
Jim,
Keep scrambling.
Hillary is still losing no matter what she does.
Prove that “underwhelmed”comment. Democrats in the large states HRC is winning aren’t “underwhelmed”. Your’s is just some more Obama noise that signifies nothing. Face it, Obama is in no way a good choice for Democrats. HRC is fighting the good fight, something that Obama will have to do if nominated, but shows no capacity to do.
Also, it seems to me that Obama is winning in states where Republicans, Independents and One Day Democrats are allowed to vote.
So, the notion that Obama is attractive to more Democrats is not true. Otherwise why did he run ads in Nevada and California urging Repbulicans to vote for him? It was beacuse he needed to dilute the life-long Democrats who overwhelmingly supported Hillary.
“Senator Obama has done a lot better job in planning strategy, raising and managing money, and providing leadership.”
If Obama is so much better at strategy and providing leadership, how is he losing so many big states with all that money and the full support of the mainstream media? Also, a large part of is success has been from the African-American voting block. How much leadership did he exhibit in getting those voters?
People may not like Senator Clinton’s approach to the Democratic primaries of putting so little effort into the caucuses, but she is making a point. What would the level of conflict have been like in some of those caucuses if Senator Clinton had put maximum effort into them?
“The Only Way to Fight the Clintons” by Joann Wypijewski is one of the best articles I have read this (long) primary season. I consider her one of the best people writing about politics today.
Even though it is a little long I would recommend it to y’all. She interviews people and lets them speak. She offers her analysis. I believe understanding the Clintons and the reaction they arouse is one of the most critical tasks of an informed citizen. And specifically, here I am not talking about the right wing hatchet jobs, I am talking about why the Democratic base is torqued off with her or Bill or both. And what role did the Clintons had in creating this?
LJ, I would recommend it to you.
http://www.counterpunch.com/wypijewski03082008.html
You know Wethornet,
I have LIVED through the Clinton experience and times. Say what you will, the absolute garbage thrown at them makes me marvel they still have ANY desire to serve this country. Not knowing your age, you may not recall the FEEL and optimism of the country during the 90’s, as opposed to the constant miasma of doom we have had the last 7 years.
After GWB, I personally was appalled at the lack of vetting done on Obama, and undertook the task myself. What I have found through solid research, I can say I would never have anything to do with him as a person - period. He is dirty, corrupt to the core, and other than their exremely narcissitic selves, the Obama’s have absolutely nothing for anyone, expcept those that allow them to continue living well beyond their means.
Larry, the former intelligence, and Military officials are pretty hard headed and very pragmatic. And although I do sometimes double check something thats hard for me to accept initially, I have learned over the last couple of years, I have NEVER caught these guys in a lie or deception.
The Greeks used to say CHARCTER determines lifes path - or as we say CHARCTER does matter.
These intelligence officals I trust with my life, Obama I do not trust with the time of day.
wethornet -
I thought the article was just another hit piece albeit lengthy.
Here’s some info. for ya:
Newt Gingrich and his Contract with America and endless bullshit from Ken Starr.
Some of us lived it. And we were way better off during Bill Clinton’s Presidency.
Now to steal someone else’s name for him - Teak’s probably - Sen. Hope/Dope thinks it should be a big kumbaya.
Which is Reason #50 not to vote for him.
It’s a serious job. It requires a serious effort.
Ted Stevens & Co. won’t be singing Obama’s praises in the Senate.
Now to steal someone else’s name for him - Teak’s probably
??? What I do?
But the larger point is how they got away with it.
Wet,
Because Bill had a D after his name. The same thing will happen with Hillary who is JUST AS HAWKISH as McCain.
Won’t negotiate.
Will accept lies to preemtively attack other countries.
I do recall when Obama spoke up about unjust sentences,(I think they should get the same sentence and stay in the clink) Hillay was quick to rebuke him.
http://jackandjillpolitics.blogspot.com/search/label/Disparity%20in%20Drug%20Sentencing
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2614
From
Why Obama, Not Clinton?
http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/why-support-barack-obama-not-hillary-clinton-comparison-compare-records/