Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Fri 11 Jan, 2008 03:39 pm
please explain to me where the racism is in the "fairy tale" comment because I have read it over and over and can't find it.... since Obama has denigrated Hillary since day one, and because she is white and a woman is he a racist woman hater?
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Fri 11 Jan, 2008 03:57 pm
I didn't think it was racist at all. Not even a little bit. People who think it was are imagining things.
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Fri 11 Jan, 2008 04:28 pm
I didn't say his fairy tale remark was racist because, IMO, it wasn't. But it was rather vicious and particularly nasty. Now of course I haven't heard every word that has dropped from Obama's mouth about Mrs. Clinton but we're trying to stay away from attacking one another, are we not? But I guess when you're siccing your dog on someone, you can't exactly control where he bites or how hard.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Fri 11 Jan, 2008 04:35 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
since Obama has denigrated Hillary since day one


Granted I'm not paying close attention, but I haven't seen evidence that this is true.

Re: the fairy tale comment, imagine Romney saying that Hillary's campaign was the biggest fairy tale he'd ever seen.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Fri 11 Jan, 2008 05:08 pm
So far; the Sexists won IA and the Racists won NH. And yet, somehow, overall bigotry is down (as evidenced by the white man's plummet). Rolling Eyes Fairy tale? The truth is; it's a bald face lie, delivered with absolute sincerity by a magnificent liar. The simple fact remains: Hillary was pro war and Obama was anti war. No fairy tale here.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Fri 11 Jan, 2008 05:18 pm
Clyburn aint calling the Clinton's racist. He made himself clear without putting words in his mouth.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Fri 11 Jan, 2008 06:03 pm
nimh wrote:
Kickycan - that is scary and depressing...

But in a way it's good to know what you'd be in for if Obama will be the nominee. The shitstorm will be no less dirty than that which erupted around the Clintons when they first came on the national stage; to think otherwise I think is naive.

Here's a sobering assessment of what would be coming that I just read. It mentions the "e-mail barrages [in which] he is being portrayed as the son and stepson of Muslims from Africa and Asia, who worshipped in mosques and madrasas as a young boy", which you just posted an example of.

But it also previews other themes the smearing will centre around. For example how his pastor, who is "a close friend and spiritual adviser to the Obama family", will be "depicted as a raving black nationalist and a proud associate of Louis Farrakhan". Newsmax already warned that "if Obama is his party's nominee, his Republican opponent will [..] make use of Rev. Wright and his radical teachings as effectively as supporters of George H.W. Bush used Willie Horton's furlough".

Quote:
The Coming Attack on Barack

A Commentary by Joe Conason

Thursday, January 10, 2008

"They will try to Swift Boat me," said Barack Obama in the days before the New Hampshire primary, looking forward to the Democratic nomination that he still believes will be his, with a prediction both accurate and chilling.

Whether he can go on to claim the nomination is yet to be determined. Much more predictable is the nature of the campaign that would be waged against him -- and the fickleness of the national press corps if and when that ugly process eventually reaches its nadir.

The effective template for attacking a Democratic nominee was developed by former Republican political boss Karl Rove during decades of trench warfare in Texas and across the country. While Rove may only whisper advice from the sidelines next fall, his approach can be easily copied by lesser talents: Seize upon the Democrat's most attractive quality and sow doubts to undermine that appeal. With candidates such as John Kerry and Max Cleland, that meant tearing down their records as war heroes and raising questions about their patriotism.

With Obama, the obvious target is his inspirational life story. The task of the opposition operatives will be to twist that saga, to unearth facts or factoids that raise concerns about the candidate's background, and to make his cosmopolitan upbringing appear alien and even sinister -- and of course, to play the race card against him, either subtly or blatantly. These themes will begin to appear in the right-wing press, which is of course where the original Swift Boat smears first showed up four years ago.

Indeed, that process has begun, and is accelerating along with Obama's drive toward the nomination. Conservatives will briefly applaud him for defeating Hillary Clinton, the immediate object of their hatred, and then turn on him as the next target. Denigrating material about the front-runner -- whose popularity and skill they clearly fear -- will be ready for deployment very shortly, but will not be aired until his nomination is a certainty.

Meanwhile, certain themes are being tested on the websites of the extreme right. The basic concept is to suggest that Obama is somehow less wholesome than he appears to be, and to provoke bigoted responses. On these sites and in e-mail barrages, he is being portrayed as the son and stepson of Muslims from Africa and Asia, who worshipped in mosques and madrasas as a young boy. That is a proven falsehood surrounding a tiny grain of fact, but no matter. Repetition will make the poison.

Next will come questions about the Chicago church he attends, whose eccentric pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, is a close friend and spiritual adviser to the Obama family. In an article published on the Newsmax website just days ago, Wright is depicted as a raving black nationalist and a proud associate of Louis Farrakhan. He is prone to polarizing remarks about a wide range of topics, from Jews and Israel to the disappearance of Natalee Holloway.

The Newsmax article on the relationship between Obama and Wright displays at least one aspect of the campaign under construction on the right. Although such websites may seem marginal, they are not -- and more powerful forces are clearly indicating their interest in these same lines of attack.

Brad Blakeman, a former Bush White House aide who now runs Freedom's Watch, a political committee funded by major Republican donors that has aired several pro-war commercials, told Newsmax he was aware of the Wright connection.

"If your spiritual adviser makes outrageous statements, it's incumbent on you as a leader to denounce those statements," he said. "Silence is an admission that you agree with what your spiritual adviser pronounces."

Newsmax concluded that "if Obama is his party's nominee, his Republican opponent will rightly be able to make use of Rev. Wright and his radical teachings as effectively as supporters of George H.W. Bush used Willie Horton's furlough to help Bush win the presidency." In other words, be prepared for the attack ads to be aired by Freedom's Watch and other shadowy, well-funded organizations, just like the Horton ads put up by an earlier "independent committee" in 1988.

The unscrupulous right wing will do exactly the same thing to Hillary Clinton if she wins the nomination -- except that those smears will have to be reruns.


This has it exactly right. Read Rove's column from yesterday and note the racial allusions. Read Krauthammer today to discover how Barack is not really a nice person after all and how his appeal is built on nothing substantial etc. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/10/AR2008011003245.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

And there is this...
Quote:
(CNSNews.com) - Karl Rove told Cybercast News Service in an interview Wednesday that Sen. Hillary Clinton's New Hampshire campaign was helped when she responded in a smiling, self-deprecating manner when asked during Saturday night's televised debate why some voters had an issue with her "likeability" and that her rival Sen. Barack Obama only enhanced the positive impact for Clinton when he responded like "a smarmy, prissy little guy taking a slap at her."
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200801/POL20080109e.html

It has only begun. Clearly, Obama is now considered a real threat to be the nominee and so the right is bringing out the attack mechanisms to get negative notions into play (done later, more abruptly, would be more noticeable and jarring) and to, as Boehlert says, to pilot the range of possible attacks.

A traditional technique for spreading propaganda, positive and negative, is to place speakers in various places throughout a political or an informational environment. Four propagandists speaking in one news organ (for example) and spreading a particular message or idea has far less effect than if you position them around in different organs. In the first case, obviously that organ will appear as it is...biased and dedicated to promotion of a singular viewpoint. But the consequence of diversifying the locations from which they speak not only increases the size of audience but also gives the impression of a broad consensus towards the idea/message promoted. It's a simple technique and effective.

Now consider the hires of Gerson along with Krauthammer at the Post. And the hire of Kristol along with Brooks at the Times. And the recent hire of Rove to do a weekly. And count the others like them. They are political operatives, tightly aligned with party machinery and their task is not to inform but to achieve power for the party to which they are aligned. That is what they are up to and it is all they are up to.

Consider the WH meetings between the rightwing radio and rightwing TV/press over the recent period. Those meetings are secret and not discussed. There are no such WH meetings with air america staff, for example.

Obama or Hillary are about to be pilloried. Huge budgets and enormous marketing expertise will be brought to bear.

So probably the folks here really ought to stop helping this along.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Fri 11 Jan, 2008 06:09 pm
au1929 wrote:
blueflame1 wrote:
Civil Rights Tone Prompts Talk of an Endorsement
Susan Etheridge for The New York Times

Quote:



Yeah! that's the reason. Laughing


Easy to make wiseass innuendo. So, what's your oh-so-obvious answer - Clyburn's gonna support the black guy because he's black?

Deep.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Fri 11 Jan, 2008 06:13 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
yes indeed, now the Clintons are racists all of a sudden. What a laugh....


I wouldn't characterize them as racists, but as penultimate opportunists to whom using ugly suggestion is not a tactic that is out of bounds.

IMO it's a laugh to pretend anything would be too low in the Clinton's quest to reclaim that address on Pennsylvania.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Fri 11 Jan, 2008 06:20 pm
blatham wrote:
There are no such WH meetings with air america staff, for example.

Why bother? With just a little more effort and a slightly larger room, you could probably hold meetings with all of the Air America listeners instead.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Fri 11 Jan, 2008 06:22 pm
Snood
Did you figure that out all by yourself or did you have help.

Isn't it pecular that the Clintons who were supporters of civil rights and supported by blacks are suddenly not good enough. What happened did they grow horns?

Racism is racism no matter who practices it.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Fri 11 Jan, 2008 06:27 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
blatham wrote:
There are no such WH meetings with air america staff, for example.

Why bother? With just a little more effort and a slightly larger room, you could probably hold meetings with all of the Air America listeners instead.


Hell, even I wouldn't get invited. But an alumni, Rachel Maddow, is one of the sharpest new voices to appear on prime time TV yakk shows and may be up for her own hour show at MSNBC. And we've sent money to Frankin's campaign as I know you have too.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Fri 11 Jan, 2008 06:35 pm
Latest on the NH recount:

http://www.sos.nh.gov/recount%20press%20release.pdf

Quote:
RELEASED BY: William M. Gardner, Secretary of State of New Hampshire

SUBJECT: Statewide Recount of the Republican and Democratic Presidential Primaries

DATE: January 11, 2008

RELEASE TIME: Immediate

CONTACT: Secretary of State William M. Gardner, phone (603) 271-3242

Secretary of State William M. Gardner announced today that Albert Howard, a candidate for nomination for the office of President of the United States in the Republican Party Primary and Dennis Kucinich, a candidate for nomination for the office of President of the United States in the Democratic Party, have requested a recount of all ballots cast statewide. Mr. Howard and Mr. Kucinich have satisfied the requirements for initiating a statewide recount of the Republican and Democratic Primary.

Secretary of State William M. Gardner will estimate the cost of the recounts, which must be paid by the candidate(s) for the recount to proceed.

Secretary of State Gardner announced that the recounts will start Wednesday, January 16, 2008. The time and location for the start of the recount process will be announced after the estimate has been completed and payment of the estimated cost has been received.

New Hampshire law, RSA 660:7, provides that "any person for whom a vote was cast for any nomination of any party at a state or presidential primary may apply for a recount." RSA 660:2, IV provides that if the difference between the vote cast for the applying candidate and a candidate declared elected shall be greater than 3 percent of the total votes cast in the towns which comprise the office to be recounted, the candidate shall pay the fees provided in RSA 660:2, III and shall agree in writing with the secretary of state to pay any additional costs of the recount." RSA 660:6 provides that if the person requesting the recount is declared the winner after the recount or loses by a margin of less than one percent of the total votes cast, the fees for the recount will be refunded by the State.

Secretary of State Gardner reports that the last time New Hampshire did a statewide recount of the results of the Presidential Primary was in 1980.
Unofficial results indicate that Albert Howard received 44 votes for nomination in the Republican Primary and Dennis Kucinich received 3,901 votes for nomination in the Democratic Primary.

# # #

For further information please contact Secretary of State William M. Gardner at (603) 271-3242.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Fri 11 Jan, 2008 06:51 pm
au1929 wrote:
Snood
Did you figure that out all by yourself or did you have help.

Isn't it pecular that the Clintons who were supporters of civil rights and supported by blacks are suddenly not good enough. What happened did they grow horns?

Racism is racism no matter who practices it.

Au, did you think of any concrete subject yet that Obama hasnt been specific about?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Fri 11 Jan, 2008 06:52 pm
them. But perhaps the NH result underlined how the same thing also instinctively makes a lot of people queasy.

Mark Schmitt lays out both sides of the coin on Tapped:

Quote:
[Obama] is falling into the tendency that many "wine-track" candidates do of talking about his candidacy as if it were some sort of other-worldly cause: "something happening," ... "it's about you," etc. Howard Dean's "people-powered politics" had the same flaw. That kind of language is inspirational in the moment, but quickly makes a campaign seem vapid and vain even if it isn't. It leaves a listener open to the sense that you're the candidate of process, feeling, and personality, which allows the hard-work-and-experience candidate to claim the mantle of substance by comparison.

But Obama didn't get through 15 debates without substance. [..] He's got an elegant, expansive pitch-perfect take on foreign policy that's markedly different from Clinton's; he has good proposals on poverty, climate change, and a defensible health proposal. [..] And he's got an argument about how he will actually get these things achieved that is distinctly different from Clinton's, and to my ears, more persuasive.

Last night, Obama put five solid paragraphs of pure substance into his speech, moving from health care to international issues in a smooth passage. He should do that all the time -- the inspiration and movement and people power will still be there. They can go unstated now. And with Edwards probably a less-significant factor in the race, Obama also has an opportunity to move left onto his more populist, but also extremely substantive ground, without jeopardizing his promise to reach out to independents and Republicans, in pursuit of progressive goals.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Fri 11 Jan, 2008 08:49 pm
Obama is doing a lot of that, Nimh. The problem is that the news outlets ignore it when writing their articles and go for the inspirational stuff because they think that is what their consumers are interested in. It is mostly the local news media that writes about the whole story. Here's an example of it. It is also an example of Obama's successful one-on-one retail politics which Hillary is now starting to copy:

Quote:
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Fri 11 Jan, 2008 08:58 pm
Your citing of Obama's concession speech is another example. Unless you were in the room to hear the speech, hardly anyone heard the whole thing. We heard the first paragraph where he congratulated Clinton and the first sentence about something happening in America. Then we heard the pundants talk about how gracious Obama was.

Did anyone get to read or hear the entire speech?

Here it is, for those who didn't:

Quote:
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Fri 11 Jan, 2008 10:22 pm
eoe wrote:
Got news for you Bear. In just 24 wild hours, "Brother" Bill did manage to squander alot of personal support and I'm afraid that if his club card has not already been revoked for that 'fairy tale' comment amongst others, it soon will be.


I'm gonna venture a lil' prediction here. Some club card revoking is going to take place the first time Hillary's penchant for trying to take on black idiom and say things like "Ah don' FEEL no ways tired" speaking to black crowds, gets wide real time exposure in the media.

Hey, I gets to guess... everybody else does.
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Fri 11 Jan, 2008 10:48 pm
No she didn't! Shocked
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Fri 11 Jan, 2008 10:57 pm
eoe wrote:
No she didn't! Shocked
Actually, she did. But she was quoting James Cleveland... if that helps.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 341
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 06/20/2025 at 11:12:20