Obama '08?

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yeah, WorldNetDaily is where I go for the authoritative news. On everything.



You guys crack me up, honestly. Who cares about a comment that Obama's wife made? Nobody but rabid right-wingers who are struggling to find a line of attack to use this fall.

Cycloptichorn

Are you saying the WorldNetDaily article was wrong?

Does that even have to be said? They are amongst the most disreputable of all news organizations.

Cycloptichorn

So, are you saying that NONE of the info in the article is correct?
Are you saying that EVERY piece of info in that story was wrong?

Lets see, ok?

Quote:

In 2001, the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based nonprofit that describes itself as a group helping the disadvantaged, provided a $40,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN, for which Khalidi's wife, Mona, serves as president. The Fund provided a second grant to the AAAN for $35,000 in 2002.

True, and here is the listing from the Woods fund own annual report...
http://www.woodsfund.org/Folder_1042751691717/Folder_1042752170117/File_1042753151419

So, WorldNet Daily got that right.

So, unless you can prove that the article is wrong, there is no reason to doubt it.

I just think it's immaterial. Obama had nothing to do with any terrorism or anything of the sort.

I didnt say he did.


Look, these firms have all sorts of clients - one cannot be expected to have been majorly involved in every case that comes down the pipe, or to have drastic associations with all their activities.

So you will also take that same stance about McCain, if it was discovered that he sat on the board of something like the Woods Group?

In short, it's not pertinent to the question of whether he should be elected or not.

Cycloptichorn

You are evading the question and hiding behind unrelated distractions you now throw up to change the subject.

I applied exactly the same logic as you to precisely the analogous elements of the anti Obama case as you were defending in the anti McCain case. You respond with mere evasion and distraction.

What conclusion should a reasonable person draw from this?

I am also bemused at your implied assertion that opponents of Obama, or merely those with serious doubts, should have no standing or hearing unless they can demonstrate to YOU that they have "sufficiently researched" his positions. I suppose you mean the various position statements with which candidates paper their web sites and pamphlets. Do you have any historical information that might suggest the degree to which this stuff is actually predictive of what candidates (of both parties) actually do when in office? Your argument depends on the answer, and I doubt seriously that you have "researched" that.

supporters that their candidate's uplifiting but generally non-specific assertions of the need for "Change" are merely in his self-interest

georgeob1 wrote:

blatham wrote:

re lapel pin and proud of country

Martin, at Politico, echoes a concern which I'm trying to keep up front in folks' thoughts...


And note below how Kristol heads up his column referencing this 'they don't really love our country/they aren't real patriots' meme that the right is and will continue to pump out.

Note also how he weaves it together with an attempt to minimize or erase Obama's unique and broad appeal to Americans.... his charisma isn't really about you voters at all, it is, Kristol tells us in his title, "All About Him"... your attraction or devotion to this man, your Obamania, should be questioned because it's real function is to pump up his and Michelle's egos. These two are not, Kristol suggests, humble or much interested in anything but self-aggrandizement. Who does this remind Kristol of?

Quote:

Obama tends too much toward the preening self-regard of Bill Clinton, the patronizing elitism of Al Gore and the haughty liberalism of John Kerry?

Do you see anything inherently false or dangerous in all this Blatham? Do you consider that Kristol was necessarily acting in a nefarious way by raising the question of the element of self-obsession in the whole Obamania phenomenon? Or alternatively is this an entirely legitimate point for public discourse?

It's not that, it's that Kristol is prepared to attack whoever the Dems put up. He could easily have written the exact same column about Hillary. It robs his attacks of legitimacy, b/c it is quite obvious that the driving force behind them is partisan animus, not rational thought.

Cycloptichorn

Leading conservative operative William Kristol privately circulates a strategy document to Republicans in Congress. Kristol writes that congressional Republicans should work to "kill" -- not amend -- the Clinton plan because it presents a real danger to the Republican future: Its passage will give the Democrats a lock on the crucial middle-class vote and revive the reputation of the party. Nearly a full year before Republicans will unite behind the "Contract With America," Kristol has provided the rationale and the steel for them to achieve their aims of winning control of Congress and becoming America's majority party. Killing health care will serve both ends. The timing of the memo dovetails with a growing private consensus among Republicans that all-out opposition to the Clinton plan is in their best political interest. Until the memo surfaces, most opponents prefer behind-the-scenes warfare largely shielded from public view. The boldness of Kristol's strategy signals a new turn in the battle. Not only is it politically acceptable to criticize the Clinton plan on policy grounds, it is also politically advantageous. By the end of 1993, blocking reform poses little risk as the public becomes increasingly fearful of what it has heard about the Clinton plan.

...Slimy accusations that one is "soft on the Terrorists" or "unpatriotic" will be effective if people see the accused, in response, nervously trying to deny the accusations, trying to run away from one's own beliefs, defensively trying to comply with the demands of the accusers in order to make the accusations go away. By contrast, the accusations will be rendered worthless if the accused stands by one's own principles and convictions and aggressively seeks out the debate, turning the accusations around on the accusers.

Most Democrats have yet to learn that lesson. Obama's response here strongly suggests that he has. Although there is still a significant chance that Democrats will ultimately give the President most if not all of what he wants on the FISA bill, perhaps their ongoing refusal to capitulate quickly even in the face of all-out GOP fear-mongering -- along with Obama's refusal to do the same with regard to these patriotism attacks -- will demonstrate that (regardless of their "real beliefs" on war and surveillance) such capitulation is not only unnecessary but completely contrary to their own political interests.

Barring a crystal ball of some sort, we have little to go off of other then the candidate's words. I was responding to this:

Quote:

supporters that their candidate's uplifiting but generally non-specific assertions of the need for "Change" are merely in his self-interest

Obama has been quite specific. You just ignore any specifics he names, and then flutter your hands about when called on your failure to pay attention. It isn't even a matter of 'sufficient' research; I don't think you've done ANY on Obama's positions or platform whatsoever. And why bother? It's much easier to smear him as being 'non-specific' when you don't actually have the facts in the first place. Less dissonance that way.

Sorry that I mis-read part of your other post; I will agree with you that Obama is running against Republicans in general and his attacks are in fact partisan ones. But, that's to be expected; he's a partisan candidate running for office. Not an independent analyst and observer, as Kristol is presumed to be. So I take Obama's criticisms of McCain with a grain of salt, b/c he is talking about his opponent and naturally is going to portray things in a bad light.

I don't understand how you could compare a columnist with a candidate running for office as if they are equal.

"First he kicked his American flag pin to the curb. Now Barack Obama has a new round of patriotism problems. Wait until you hear what the White House hopeful didn't do during the singing of the national anthem," said Steve Doocy, co-host of "Fox and Friends" on the Fox News Channel.

"He felt it OK to come out of the closet as the domestic insurgent he is," former radio host Mark Williams said on Fox.

CNN Signs on with Rep. Kingston (R-GA)
I guess we shouldn't be surprised. Ben Smith, at The Politico, flags that today CNN's running a 'online poll' asking if Barack Obama has enough patriotism to be president. As Ben, with some understatement, put it's "it's odd to see the mainstream media drive a largely whispered question that none of his main, named critics -- Hillary, McCain, or the RNC -- will touch." Yeah, I'd say so.

That's how it works. Starts at right-swing smear sites and hoax emails. Then the AP's Nedra Pickler, who specializes in scooping up this slop and laundering it into the mainstream press, writes it up for the AP that runs across the country. And then picks it up and makes it a regular part of the campaign conversation.

I doubt some top exec at CNN came up with this or any name anchor. It's some producer in the bowels of the operation. But it amounts to the same thing because it's part of the culture and there's no accountability.

Get ready for more.

--Josh Marshall

Going to the Experts
Does Obama have a patriotism problem?

The AP's Nedra Pickler asks disgraced Republican dirty-trickster Roger Stone for his opinion. Stone you'll remember is the guy who got caught making threatening phone calls to New York Gov. Spitzer's (D-NY) elderly father and last month set up an anti-Hillary group with the acronym C-U-N-T..

Surprisingly enough, Stone thinks the answer is yes.

--Josh Marshall

On the question of how far will the modern republican party go to facilitate electoral gain, this 60 Minutes piece from last night gives a clear set of clues...
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/todays_must_read_283.php

"...... this is the saddest election I've ever worked in," said Ginger Grossman, a prominent Democratic organizer in Miami-Dade County, who says she hears countless Jewish liberals tell her they won't vote for Obama if he wins the nomination.

"It's outrageous,..... I know it's because he's black, or I feel it is," said Grossman, a Clinton supporter .....

Bush Pentagon
It would appear that we have another case where the Bush Pentagon, particularly the Office of Public Affairs is forcefully inserting itself into the civilian election process.

Bill Kristol Previews GOP Attack On Obama: He Thinks He's Better Than You
February 25, 2008 -- 11:30 AM EST // link //
Let it be noted that Bill Kristol's column is not entirely useless. Today's effort, for instance, neatly offers us a preview of what Barack Obama will face from the GOP attack machine and its media enablers this fall, should he become the Dem nominee.

Kristol manages the neat trick of wrapping up not one, but two highly dubious anti-Obama smears into his first few grafs -- the bogus flag-pin patriotism story and Michelle Obama's claim that she's really proud of her country for the first time.


That's to be expected, of course. But what interests me is the overarching theme he uses to tie them together: They both show, he suggests, that haughty and elitist Obama thinks he's better than you and the average Joe. We saw these exact same attacks lobbed relentlessly at Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004, of course...

Summary: Responding to a video clip of Sen. Barack Obama saying, "I'm going to blow my nose here for a second," followed by the audience cheering, Fox News Washington correspondent James Rosen then said, "That kind of spontaneous affection Chairman Mao only dreamed of." Rosen joined other media figures associating Democratic presidential candidates with communists.

Summary: While discussing a New York Times article on Sen. John McCain's relationship with a lobbyist, Bill O'Reilly aired a clip of McCain's attorney Robert Bennett defending McCain against the article's allegations, but did not disclose that Bennett represents McCain and was reportedly hired for the explicit purpose of dealing with the controversy.

The fact is I have visited the Obama web site and have read some of the material there. I have also listened to some of his speeches and watched a couple of the debates. I detect that the central - and by far most effective politically - focus of his rhetoric has been the uniquely uplifting character of the non specific elements in it. In short it isn't so much the details of "his plan" for (say) Health Care that has got him to where he is today as it is the overall quality of the "Change" message he has delivered so eloquently and with such effect.

How is this different from any other politician running for President?