RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Barack Obama, Establishment Man

What’s wrong with this picture? Barack Obama runs as the “outsider” fighting against the “special” interests. Barack claims:

“I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists — and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not get a job in my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president.”

— Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA, November 10, 2007

Okay. Then if he is the candidate of change fighting Washington, why did a majority of the Washington, DC and the government employees in the surrounding suburbs and those pesky lobbyists and their spouses and employees, vote for Barack? You see, I believe that people act in their own interest. So, when the folks who live inside the beltway, vote in large measure for Barack, then maybe he is not what he claims to be.

The Obama cult is a phenomenom. A weird phenomenom. People are enthralled with the idea of Obama and know nothing about his past, his performance, and the scandals that will bring him down. And, smack dab in the middle of the enablers, are most of the TV and print journalists. Very few are writing or reporting the kind of tough stories they unleash on Hillary on a regular basis.

My neighbor, who is a prominent Republican lobbyist, was commenting the other day on the inspiring nature of the Obama campaign. He was repeating the positive vibe. I then asked him about issues such as Rezko and the disconnect between his rhetoric and how he actually votes. He was surprised and shocked. He said, “I haven’t heard any of this.” Obviously he’s not a reader of NoQuarter. But he is a politically astute, well-informed guy. When he heard the true story of Obama’s past (including Obama’s Kenyan ties and muslim relatives). He flipped.

Let’s face it. The establishment media have a habit of doing this shit. They happily went along with selling the Bush Administration bullshit and lies about the threat of terrorism and the need to invade Iraq. Oh sure, some, like Sy Hersh pushed back, but his efforts were overwhelmed by the likes of Michael Gordon and Judith Miller, Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, and the Washington Post. There were clear voices warning beforehand that the intelligence was fixed and that the war was not needed, but the press played along with the Bush propaganda machine and persuaded a majority of Americans that war with Iraq was the only solution for keeping us safe.

And don’t start in with Obama’s so-called opposition to the war. One damn speech really doesn’t count. What counts is what he has done since coming to Washington. He hasn’t joined the likes of Russ Feingold in pushing for an immediate withdrawal. He’s played the politically safe game. I do not fault him for that. My beef is he thinks, rightly so, that most of the voters are too fucking dumb to realize that he is blowing smoke up their ass. Say one thing and do another.

Yeah, Obama is Mr. Anti-Washington. He is surrounded by Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Patrick Leahy. If you believe that those guys represent “changing the way business is done in Washington,” then you will believe anything.

We will know next week if Hillary can recover. I give the Obama camp credit. They organized and spent resources in Virginia and Maryland and thumped Hillary. Hillary’s campaign was awful in Maryland and Virginia. Obama’s folks made an effort to personally visit and speak with every registered Democrat. Hillary did not. Obama’s folks called every registered Democrat (or at least tried to) to ask for their vote. Hillary did not. This explains in part, I think, why Patti Doyle, the campaign manager, was fired. She is incompetent. I hope for the sake of the country that Maggie Williams has time to right the ship and get Hillary back on top.

In the meantime, we have to watch the equivalent of a papal coronation, as the media and fans exhult in the Obama Messiah, the black Jesus come to save us. But sometime in the next four months, the excitement will fade as the reality of who Obama is comes out.

Consider this simple example. How do Hillary and Obama handle foreign contributions?

Hillary requires every contribution from overseas to be made as a check and must be accompanied by a copy of the passport or green card that corresponds to the name on the check. This part of her fundraising is kept separate from that raised within the borders of the United. States

Obama, does not segregate his foreign money and has no controls in place to verify that the contributors are in fact legally entitled to contribute to his campaign.

Now I know Obamaphiles will simply bend over and stick their head in their neighbor’s ass and proclaim the putrid aroma as the heaven-sent breath of God. They will say this means nothing and is just carping.

Well, what happens a month or two down the road when the vetting of those contributions–whether by Hillary’s camp, the Republicans, or the FEC–occurs and it turns out laws were broken? If Obama is so brilliant, then why does he not understand that he needs to avoid these problems and avoid giving his opponents ammo? That tells me he ain’t all that bright. He does not have to worry about those details because, HE IS OBAMA.

What we have, ladies and gents, is another Establishment Man. Easily manipulated by the father figures he desperately seeks and gratified by the adulation of the masses, he is buying into his “man of destiny” nonsense. Many in the public are seized with this religious, worshipful madness. Unfortunately, Obama, conquering hero is riding in the parade and soaked in the praise of frenetic crowds. He has received very little pushback so far. But it will come. And Obama would be wise to heed the following advice:

For over a thousand years Roman conquerors returning from the wars enjoyed the honor of triumph, a tumultuous parade. The conqueror rode in a triumphal chariot, the dazed prisoners walking in chains before him. And a slave stood behind the conqueror holding a golden crown and whispering in his ear a warning: that all glory is fleeting.”

  • Pingback: fraude Stratumseind Eindhoven

  • Mark

    For every starstruck Obama supporter there are many others who like him b/c he 1) would be a break from the Clinton drama of the 90s 2) seems to be a stronger general election candidate 3) spoke out against the war in Iraq whereas Hillary voted for it 4) speaks convincingly of trying to create a workable coalition of Dems/Independents and even liberal Republicans 5) has an inspirational biography 6) gives great speeches, among other things. Everyone has their own reasons for supporting a candidate.

    I think the media has an interest in creating this sort of Obama mythology, and it seems like Larry and some of Obama’s detractors on this site have fallen victim. All they have to do is show a couple videos of screaming women, and now every supporter is painted as some sort of cultist. You sound just as unhinged in denouncing anyone with the audacity to vote for Obama as some sort of maniacal idiot, as the people who are fainting at the rallies. It’s almost as you guys are arguing that there is no reason for anyone to actually oppose Clinton, and by extension, anyone that is opposing her is obviously deranged.

  • Mike Howell
  • vee

    I will vote for McCain over Obama any day. Watch the video exchange between Leon Harris and Obama in part 3 of the ABC 7-Politico interview before the Virginia primary on politico.com. Once again we see that Obama is still a willing participant in the “Bill Clinton is a racist” smear. The conversation is about the Clintons playing rough. It begins with “what happened in South Carolina,” comment by Leon Harris. You never hear about the Obama campaign memo pushing the racist theme. It appears now that Joseph McCarthy is alive and living in the African-American coalition. I will work against electing a racist no matter what the skin color.

    • ritamary

      No doubt the race card was played by the Obamazoids. How long will that work crying racism anytime someone questions their idol?

  • Pingback: Outrageous Behavior: Obamadroids in Action : NO QUARTER

  • Ingrid

    Larry,
    just switched from dailykos, where hell broke loose after you posted there. Have been quiet for a long time. Do not know what to make of Obama. Of course, I like him, love his wife, but I still do not know what his issues are.
    As a German (70 y old or young whatever) I am reading newspapers + blogs of my country. As a matter of fact, a lot of people just love ‘the Clintons’. I like Hillary, and the way they portray her in the media is disgusting.
    Larry, please forgive the nasty dailykos-people.

    Question: Which candidate is trying to stop hunger in this country + the world?
    Which candidate is going to fix the ‘constitution’?
    I have many more questions.
    Thanks for reading

  • paul_lukasiak

    What I find interesting about Larry’s post is that he is doing to Obama what the Obamaniacs are doing to Hillary — citing the right-wing talking points about the other candidate.

    The difference is this — Hillary has already been defined, and the recycling of right-wing talking points about her damages the party. To most voters, however, Obama is still pretty much of a blur — and while what Larry writes won’t get much play, those same themes will be hammered on day and night by the Right Wing Slime Machine and find their way into the mainstream media if/when Obama gets the nomination.

    I personally feel the Kenya thing is a faux-scandal but that won’t keep it from becoming an issue if Obama is the nominee — and that the Rezko land deal is a genuine scandal that isn’t going to go away — and will be the jumping off point of endless media speculation a la Whitewater (and every development in the Rezko indictment will be page one news). We’ll also be hearing a lot about irrelevancies like the pastor of Obama’s church, and every right winger will be referring to him as Barack Hussein Obama.

    Larry’s neighbor may be an idiot — but there are a lot of idiots out there who know nothing about Obama except that he is ‘inspiring’, and the likelihood of the GOP slime machine defining him in their terms is very high.

    • Mike Howell

      paul-lukasiak -

      His name is Barack Hussein Obama. Republicans are referring to him as Osama Obama. Even Ted Kennedy slipped up and called him Osama at one point.

      • Shirin (not an Obama supporter!)

        Oh, that is SOOOOOOO relevant to his record, and his ability to do the job! Everyone who is harping away at this point should be very, very proud that they have been able to look beyond superficial and irrelevant rubbish like his record as an elected official and hammer away at what is really substantive and pertinent.

        Or is it just laziness?

    • ritamary

      The points you have put forth are exactly the reasons that I object to Obama! Obama did not have Ken Starr investigating him for years to determine which scandals are real and which aren’t.

      And I think the Tony Rezko connection will turn out to be way more real than Whitewater, Travelgate, etc. ever were. And Obama will have no time to clear his name during the general election. Has everyone forgotten 2004? The Swift Boaters told nothing but lies but the smear worked.

  • Mel

    It becomes amazing how people care so deeply in a persons words, and even more amazing how they believe them blindly!

    True Sen. Obama was involved in the transperancy change, but if you look at the manner how it was done, the writer of such a law knows how to beat the law as well and use it to their advantage!

    Sen. Obama has taken in money in huge amounts with contributions below the $200 limit for registering the donation! He also pools money from his funding off-shore with the rest of his funding!

    And this not enough, why is it alright to pay the $160,000 in prior campaign dirty money back with money raised for his Presidential campaign money? This is a slap to the face of those people who put up money towards hopefully their choice of the next President, not to pay for someones prior bad acts! Does this change a crooked politician into a good politician, when his political career is based upon him achieving his present status by the works of dirty money?

    Then there is his justification as to why he is the better one to go against McCain, this one really makes me laugh! In his Super Tuesday speech he says he is better on the issue of Iraq “because I did not vote for the war” well that is true, neither did 350 million other Americans who were not in the US Senate at the time the vote took place! When confronted realistically by Russert in 2004, Obama then said if he was US Senator at the time of the vote “I do not know how I’d of voted”! Thus making everything a smoke and mirror show!

    Then to go on saying he was against gun control to the people of Idaho during a speech there 2 weeks ago, meanwhile his record shows he voted for gun controls 15 times while a State Senator makes you have to believe his only “change” he brings to Washington is in his own mind!

    Theone and only thing ever proven by Sen Obama is he is self serving through his ability to give good speeches, his ability to lead is more that of a Pied Piper than a leader of people! Follow if you will, because you know not what awaits you by following him!

  • BernieO

    I have heard several journalists say now that Obama is the front runner, the media will start being more critical of him. I don’t know if I buy it since their hatred of Hillary is so profound and their crush on Obama seems pretty strong but even if they do, how unprofessional is this? They seem to think there is nothing wrong with not telling the public what we need to know to make an intelligent choice about an underdog unless he pulls ahead! (I am not referring to Obama here, just any hypothetical candidate.)Think about how bizarre this is. They obviously have no qualms about setting voters up to be disillusioned.

    I have also heard other journalists like Gloria Borger say that the media likes to build up a candidate then tear him down, as if this were perfectly acceptable. No wonder our country is in trouble.

    • CK

      The job of the media is to sell soap, pills, cars, dotcom domains or whoever else forks over the money to buy the eyeballs. The job of the media is not to inform or educate you, it is to get you to watch the filler between the advertizements.
      In “news” if it bleeds, it leads. Car crashes, house fires ( preferably with dead babies ), whatever happened that is starling, and bloody is what leads. Same same in political “reporting” if it bloodies someone it leads. If there is not enough bloodiness to keep the asses glued to the recliners and the eyes glued to the screen, then the reporters jobs is to create blood where there was none.
      GLoria is correct and it is perfectly acceptable because it sells eyeballs to the advertizers. It has been ever thus through the history of newspapers going back well before John Peter Zenger.
      It is not bizarre, it is the bazaar in action. It is giving you what you show your willingness to digest. It is uncomplicated in plot, an inch deep in character analysis and a mile wide with titter and titulation. It suits the customers ( those that purchase advertizing) because it delivers the preferred product ( you ).

      • Bill Keyes

        Thank you CK maybe these idiots on this blog will finally wake up and realize the MSM is in it solely for the

        MONEY MONEY AND MORE MONEY

        THEY DONT GIVE A FUCK ABOUT FAIRNESS EQUAL TIME OR ANY OF THAT CRAP THEY WILL MAKE MONEY POUNDING ON HOWEVER GETS THEM THE BEST RATINGS

        I believe February is Sweeps week. For you ignorant of the way TV works, twice a year Feb and Nov there is a magic book written that is the Bible for the sellers of TV advertising. After it comes out with the demographics and ratings etc, it dictates what they can charge for the next six months for advertising. So this leads to intense competion in these two months as and CK said

        If it bleeds it leads

        so if Hillary is getting her ass kicked to the curb, it will be Obama all the time, if she makes a “comeback” she will be the chosen one and Obama will be getting all the vetting etc that you ppl think is so important.

        As Walter Cronkite used to say “thats the way it is”

        And by the way the massive telecom dereg that has led to THE MINISTRY OF PROPOGANDA AND STATE RADIO TV AND PRINT NEWS was passed during the Clinton watch.

        So get a life and stop the whining about about what the talking heads say!!

        • CK

          @Bill
          The folks here are not idiots. They are fans, they have “skin in the game” a “dog in the fight.” They believe that this time will be different. That someone not beholding to anything but the voters will be innagurated and the ills of the country will be set right. They know that their candidate is pure, honest, transparent, righteous, not beholding to Big Oil or Big Media or Big Pharma of Big labor or Big Military Contractors,or AIPAC or ATA, or PRC or the Kuomintang. They believe in someone outside themselves. They have been fed the stories of Jack and Bobbie, Lyndon and Hubert, the weak Carter, Tricky Dick, Senile Ronny, always and forever there was someone ( preferably dead ) who was pure and good and american and if there was one once; then there can come another to lead, to inspire, to wonk, to adjust the dials and make the world obey and the economy perform and give everybody ponies and low interest and high wages and perfect health and healthy diets.
          And it has been like this in every presidential campaign going back to John Adam’s. It just gets a bit more intense when a generation is ending its run in the limelight and being replaced by its offspring. I am reminded of an afternoon in the agora in Athens when ol Socrates first pointed out that “the children were revolting.” They always do, and they always are. Thank heavens for it, elsewise life would be without much of its flavour.

          • simon

            I’m not speaking to YOU, CK, as you told me you would no longer acknowledge my existence, but if I were speaking to you, I’d say I only want the least corrupt candidate, eyes wide open.

            The least corrupt, and the one willing to act in the better interests of the politically disenfranchised, because if you truly do right by them, balanced, of course, you can’t go wrong in terms of governing this country.

            Which means a healthy, productive country, and not having to hold you breath, and your stomach, with every crisis, because the people in charge are smart enough, and brave enough to understand and identify problems, correctly.

            It’s a lot easier I think, to watch intelligent workable solutions implemented as opposed to observing, as a citizen, continual damage minimization, the result of horrifically BAD, flawed decision making and policy (Iraq,Bush, Cheney, Addington, FISA, everything else).

            So we wait for the next President, and now they wanna force OBAMA on us, Obama and Rezko and Auchi?

            Oh, brother, Bama Bush, middle east connections and all, how thoughtful.

          • alexei

            Well, the Silent Generation will now have their President if Obama is nominated. No changing of the guard this time.

        • simon

          And by the way the massive telecom dereg that has led to THE MINISTRY OF PROPOGANDA AND STATE RADIO TV AND PRINT NEWS was passed during the Clinton watch.

          So get a life and stop the whining about about what the talking heads say!!

          You even pay attention?

          Sexism is wrong, tabloid news, personal bias sold as news, as fact, is wrong, a negating of the public trust, out of greed, and fear, is revolting, those who lie to the public SHOULD be held accountable, witness MSNBC, but, other than that, you pay attention to those morons?

          Why?

          Why would you even have the slightest regard or respect for those people?

          I read the New Yorker, and Vanity Fair, Harper’s, the Atlantic, the Economist, Rolling Stone, Time, Newsweek, and a couple of right wing web sites, as well as the usual democratic blogs, for balance. Local papers for local information, but there is so much bias, and fear. I like the LA Times, I hope they don’t make too many cuts. And art, I’ve been into Russian abstract expressionism, lately, so a lot of interesting critique, writing, analysis, on the blogs.

          And sites like this one offer very interesting analysis, always making me think, which is the point, to think. Susan and Larry do a great job with their commentary, and links, and a couple of people at MYDD do,also. So I gain a greater perspective, I hope, which should be the job of a real journalist, educating the public, but they all want to be Rush Limbaugh.

          You’re right, it’s all money, and fame, the need for approval, it isn’t Murrow.

          You think they’d have some pride.

          And books, of course, any and everything. The more obscure blogs are wonderful for finding music fans, as into (now) obscure vinyl as I am, as a fan. It’s great to be able to gush about a musician or a song and not analyze.

      • alexei

        Yes very cynical but true. So, I ask you, will Obama now be brought down or will the Hillary bashing continue? Or both.

        • ritamary

          Obama will be brought down after he gets the nomination. The corporate media is owned by Republicans.

        • CK

          Depends on how the media reads the tea leaves.
          A McCain brain fart or two and the gloves will come off about him. Might just have started today with his vote to OK torture.
          Of course the media will go on a tear at whichever dem gets the nod. They will walk a bit easier about Obama for a while because having made the accusation of racism a poison they will not want to drink it if they can avoid it. As for Hillary, nope the media will not give the Clinton’s a pass. But the thing is that the hillary bashing is starting to have about as much effect as white noise. It is expected and being ignored.

          • rjj

            They will walk a bit easier about Obama for a while because having made the accusation of racism a poison they will not want to drink it if they can avoid it.

            That implies an automatic assumption that ANY attacks or criticism are racist. They will object to his being green [(inexperienced) as opposed to Green (environmentalist)]. Harumph. Harumph. Harumph. These are critical times. The stakes are too high to place these weighty matters in the hands of a novice. Would you trust your mother’s emergency surgery to a medical student when there is a qualified and experienced professional to do the job? blah. blah.

            • CK

              Whether the attacks to come on Obama are racist or not, they will be spun as racist by whoever the democratic rove equivalent is.
              If Hillary is the nominee then the undercurrent will be that any attacks are sexist. Sexism is a less frightening poison to have to face than racism right now.
              It would be sexist of me probably to point out the appearance and attire and mental power of the many female anchorettes on Fox, CNN, MSNBC, or the obligatory female co-anchors on local TV. One could google Alycia Lane as an example. The dems have in their wisdom chosen to present two candidates who expose all the slimy parts of the Television mentality and thus the slimy parts of the american entertainment necessity.
              Yesterday I heard the first Mandingo reference applied to Obama by some bloviator on local radio. I expect to hear more of those references.
              If the attacks come at just the right time in the program, the advert that follows will feature a black actor portraying a doctor and trying to sell white viewers ED pills.

  • John

    The new narrative in the media- I’ve heard it at least eight times on five different shows in the past 72 hours- is that Hillary’s banking on wins in PA, Ohio and Texas is a “Rudy Giuliani strategy, and look how well that worked for HIM.” I’ve heard this on Bill Press, Randi Rhodes, Rachel Maddow, Olberman and POTUS.

    Here’s the problem- it negates the fact that Hillary has won many states vital to victory in November already. It’s Operation Let’s Pretend Hillary Has Lost Everywhere.

    Ed Schultz asked “imagine if Hillary had won in MD and DC and VA, would the Clintons be saying that they weren’t important? No, they would be saying ‘its over.’”

    Uh huh. And imagine if Obama had won Massachusetts and California on Super Tuesday. ED SCHULTZ would be saying “its over, Clinton needs to get out.” So would the entire Hillary-hating media machine. Instead, you’d be forgiven if you had completely forgotten that Hillary had won those states.

    And imagine if Obama had won Michigan and Florida. Do you really think the media and Air Obama Radio would be gnashing their teeth at the Injustice of seating the delegates from those states? PLEASE!!!

    • CK

      Do you really imagine that McCain or Huckabee is going to take Mass, NY, NJ, Ill or California this year against any dem? ( McCain will be lucky to carry Arizona and whatever state his running mate is from and maybe a few gulf coast states MAYBE).
      Wisconsin Primary, Hawaii Caucus Feb 19
      Texas ( hybrid primary and caucus), Ohio, Vermont, Rhode Island Primaries March 4th
      Wyoming Primary March 8
      Mississippi Primary March 11
      The the long pause until
      PA primary April 22
      North Carolina and Indiana primaries May 6
      West By God Virginia May 13 primary
      Oregon, Kentucky Primaries May 20
      South Dakota and Montana primaries june 3
      16 states to go, 34 done and no longer relevant about what might have been or could have happened or should have occurred.
      and then its on to the convention.
      Break out the stogies and warm up the brandy, this country hasn’t enjoyed a smoke filled room decision in a really long time.

      • alexei

        Actually, I think that McCain has a good chance in California – the Latinas and Latinos do not trust Obama and on immigration, McCain is good enough. As for NY, another good chance, since McCain is liked there and he is known for strong National Security. Obama has none, zippo, nada experience in this area and many New Yorkers will not want to make that leap of faith.

        Even if he doesn’t take those states, Obama will have to run hard in both and that means less time and money in the Swing States (Florida, Ohio, etc.). Good chance for the Republicans to hold those important states.

        To think that the Republican slime machine will not punish Obama and bring him down is laughable. McCain is absolutely loved by the Media – they will rally around their boy and Obama will be tossed to the wolves.

        Obama is the weakest GE candidate since McGovern – and we know what happened then. In fact, he is much weaker, McGovern was a War hero and a US Senator for many years.

        I have heard many people (particularly women) who are so fed up with the sexist diatribes, Hillary bashing crap, that they have stated they will not vote or will vote third party or even vote McCain. One poll even stated that Obama loses 18% of the Democratic base (Clinton is at 9%).

      • John

        Do YOU really imagine that a Democrat is going to win Idaho, Utah, North Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, South Carolina? Then please tell me why the media has a virtual orgasm over Obama’s victories in these states.

        • CK

          Hmm let’s see could it be that a black candidate won in those lily white states, and that democratic turnout was huge for him? Will a democrat win those states? Maybe not Utah and Idaho but even those states will be shaky if by november we are as deeply into the Bush/McCain depression as I suspect the nation will be. Oh and two years ago your list would have included Colorado, Montana and Virginia that a democrat just could not win.

  • http://houserisingsons.blogspot.com Fade

    And I hope to god, that whoever gets the nomination, Hillary OR Obama that we can agree to throw our full support behind them against the TRUE Enemy to our freedom- and that is the Republican machine, which outed Valerie, which tortures, throws people in prison forever with no trial, spies on us, screws over the legal system at every turn, and protects corporations OVER our citizenry.

    THAT is what McCain represents. I don’t believe that ANYONE who has bore witness to the madness of the Bush era as a democrat can seriously consider McCain.

    Even Ron Paul, if he was as honest as he seems, would realize the Republican party IS Corruption and move fully into the Libertarian party from the ranks of the Republicans.

    You Vote Republican and you are betraying your country. After everything we have seen the past 7 years, I firmly believe that.

    • CK

      Dr. Paul has already said he cannot support McCain.
      The people energized by Dr. Paul’s message will not be supporting McCain. Dr. Paul is what legitimate repbulicans once were. Considering the McGovernite level of defeat the republicans are facing this year at all levels, Dr. Paul will be one of the few republicans left.
      Anyhow he did the libertarian candidate thing once already. He faces a neocon funded republican opponent in his home district and does have to retain his congressional seat to remain any kind of a force. ( Funny thing the neocons are funding Dr. Paul’s republican opponent, and Dennis Kucinich’s suddenly many democratic opponents are heavily funded by AIPAC and the neocons.)

  • Cee

    John,

    That many people oppose her?!?

    This is more than cult behavior. Obama and his Kenyan cousin put the hoodoo on America!!

    Do you think John the Conqueror Root or the cross will save us?

  • http://houserisingsons.blogspot.com Fade

    Hey, I was Edwards all the way, but it’s down to either Hillary or Obama- And Hillary didn’t even bother to vote, speak out, or attempt to prevent the Dems breaking ranks on the FISA bill the other day.

    I guess I don’t understand the hard on No Quarter has to kill the Obama movement. I’m a longtime visitor and agree with 95% of this site’s sentiments.

    But aren’t we venturing into Rush Limbaugh territory here? Obama has a better chance of winning than Hillary against McCain. I was on the fence til Hillary couldn’t even be bothered to vote at all on FISA. I told myself I would support whichever of these two fought the hardest against Bush policy. As of yesterday, Obama’s up by one on my count.

    • TeakwoodKite

      Inspite of the Rove comment that which ever Dem candidate votes against it is “fair game”. I agree with you the symbolic jesture was worth the PR for the Dems.

  • John

    Gee, I can’t imagine why Obama is doing so well. I turn on FoxNewsChannel, MSNBC, CNN, Air America, POTUS 08, I go to DailyKos, Huffington Post, MoveOn.org, and I get a completely fair and balanced view of the race between the Evil Conniving Calculating Racist Bitch Hillary and her Hound Dog Husband Bill, and the Saintly Inspiring Underdog Barack Obama. It’s amazing that Hillary isn’t winning more primaries, it really is.

  • vee

    Faced with a choice between Obama and McCain, I have to go with McCain. McCain sold himself out to get the Republican nomination. Obama sold out the Democratic party to get the nomination. I am going with the lesser of two evils. Also, I am a lifelong Democrat. That too will change if Obama is the Democratic nominee.

    • CK

      You do realize that those are not your only alternatives? If you find the dem unacceptable, why would you accept a rethug? You can write in a name on the top line, not vote on the top line, vote for a green party or a naderite or a libertarian or whatever brand of third party is available on your state’s ballot.
      Even if you find the dem candidate unacceptable to your morals, there are down ticket races, local races that merit your vote. My advice for those who might find Obama or Clinton an unacceptable option is to NOT CUT OFF YOUR NOSE TO SPITE YOUR FACE. Take your vote away from the unacceptable by not pulling the lever for either president, but giving it away to spite your party is not profitable.

    • John

      Me too. I have never voted for a Republican for ANY office, in 30 years of voting. But I will not vote for Barack, because I hate the way the media has decided to assassinate Hillary Clinton by burying her with snarky comments and innuendo while raising Saint Barack to the heavens. And I include Liberal Talk Radio as the most egregious in their refusal to just give us the facts and let us judge for ourselves.

      If you are a Hillary Clinton supporter, there is no news outlet, on tv or the radio, you can turn to to get a balanced view of the race. All you’ll hear is one nasty Anti-Clinton attack after another. Ed Schultz and Randi Rhodes are the absolute worst offenders, because unlike the right-wingers, they won’t even admit their bias. They treat their listeners like little children, bashing Hillary one minute and then saying “Hey i wasnt bashing her!” the very next.

    • Cee

      I was also going to vote for McCain but seeing that the neocons have flocked to him in droves, I’ll write in Obama.

      http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12358

      Hell. Ollie North even endorsed McCain. LOL!

      • TeakwoodKite

        I can still hear the faint echo of his Iran Contra testimony in my head, when he was such a willing Poindexter fall guy.

        Not much has changed in the “Testimony Two Step” dance since then.

  • Bill Keyes

    Every day more mudslinging….sooner or later folks if we dont unify all this infighting just GUARANTEES a McCain victory.

    What I dont understand is why you ppl get off so much on all this mudslinging? If I didn’t know other wise I would assume I was on a right wing site where there is never any discussion or dialogue, just constant our side is right and the other side is wrong.

    What are you trying to accomplish here?

    There maybe a few ppl reading this site who havent made up their minds yet but if they are interested in a logical sensible presentation of the strengths and weakness of the candidates, they will go else where to get their info.

    I assume that you ppl realize that there will be a winner and a loser?

    Will you Hillary ppl support Obama if he wins and that also goes for you guys Susan and Larry?

    And will you Obama supporters even though there doesn’t seem to be too many here, support Hillary?

    If you cant agree on that now, then continue to waste your time with your daily mudslinging which does nothing except further polarize the two sides which lead to less possibilities that we will unify behind one or the other which is ABSOLUTELY necessary if we are going to defeat John McCain.

    • CK

      The objective is to elect More Better Democrats.
      McCain is truly an empty suit ( that is my estimation for some reason other folks here are all scared of this blowhard bully.) The travelling press likes him because the booze is free on his bus and he does lots of off the record chats with them. Makes them feel he likes them and that they are “in on the good stuff.” ) Start with some basic facts about McCain: He is not a liberal, he is not a maverick, he has no morals ( when in doubt replay the Bush 2000 SC campaign ads about his adopted daughter juxtaposed with the “McCain giving Bush a reach around hug” photo, add in a dash of Keating 5, a soucon of FUCK YOUs levelled at any senator who disagrees with him, and his brave jokes about Chelsea. Now to my mind McCain is about the most disgusting choice anyone could make and with him on the ballot a lot of rethugs will just ride it out on the sidelines. My preferred candidate has been asked a zillion times if he will mount a third party run. He has said no he won’t. But Huckabee is also a viable third party candidate. Maybe if the rethugs keep screwing him over as they did in Washington state he will mount one.
      Anyhow, the objective is more and better democrats.
      Look at the vote yesterday on FISA. 18 dem senators who deserve to be replaced asap. And a lieberman to go with them.

  • Gloria

    Re : one speech about Iraq ….correct….and if I hear about his record in Illinois, in a safe seat, OR about his “community organizing” one more time, I will scream! It is what he has done on the sly in Ill. and his record of non-courage in the Senate that will be the big problem as “the mask” is dropped…Not to mention rewriting his own nuclear safety bill…it didn’t die a noble death in committee, but was rewritten by Obama to cater to Republicans…you know, the one eager to work with him. His ads on healthcare are also a negative…

    This guy is not to be trusted!!

    • Barb

      I thought the bill was rewritten to satisfy all his Exelon executive donors.

  • Pingback: Make Them Accountable / Media

  • http://jonesalley.blogspot.com Milo Johnson

    PhenomenoN, dude…

  • Bruce

    Let me get this straight. Your candidate’s failure to prevail in this region – despite trying hard to get local votes – is a sign of her moral and political strength and of her opponent’s opposition to change and presumed corruption. Yet your candidate is vetted and ready and tested. Where in the woods of Idaho did she get that vetting and testing and readiness? Didn’t she live for eight years in the geographical center of the Beltway, and hasn’t she worked here without interruption since she technically moved to New York? Her daily life has been within 500 yards of the Mall since early 1993 but her failure to prevail, or even come close, in this region is a sign of her strength ad a political force?

  • CK

    For every Rezko on side there is a Celebi on the other.
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/13/81448/4808/105/455521

    • ces

      I can’t believe you made me go to the Orange…..

      But their source is the Post? Murdoch’s Post? The NRO? Get real.

      The source matters.

      • CK

        It’s out there, Murdoch is a heavy contributor to Hillary. Sorry about sending you to the orange satan but at least I sent you to the specific posting not to the front page. And I did not click on the link for you, you did that all on your own. And you did know that the London Times which is the only newspaper to be following the Sibel Edmonds story is also a Murdoch property?

    • Cee

      CK,

      You know that saying about when you point at someone, three fingers are pointing back at you?

      Heh.

      • CK

        Ah Cee I was just trying to be helpful. The objective is to defeat, demolish, destroy the rethuglican party. Why do you think Hastert left office when he did? The man had a sinecure, he could have stayed in the house till he croaked and probably a few elections after that.
        But anyhow, if linking to the GREAT ORANGE SATAN is unseemly then maybe this link will be more appropriate.
        http://letsibeledmondsspeak.blogspot.com/

        • Cee

          CK,

          My comments weren’t a criticism of you. I was thinking of the Hillary-can-do-no-wrong folks.

          • ces

            pot meet kettle.

            • Cee

              Hey Pot,

              Find one thing I said about Obama being above reproach.

          • CK

            I know. Since I am above criticism, as well as beyond reproach, I knew you could not have been criticizing me.
            I was so upset that the man would could-do-no-wrong ( Tom Brady ) lost the superbowl to another man who could-do-no-wrong ( Eli Manning ). It’s really difficult when two perfect characters have to compete for one brass ring.
            Hillary’s baggage is out there, plumbed, disected, pop-psychologized, country westernized, labelled, discoursed about, made into gold and muck. She has been an unavoiable part of the discourse, the politics, the quotidian of life nationally since 1991. Those as love her love her and root for her, those as don’t love her are not neutral or ambivalent about her; they heartily dislike her.
            Obama’s baggage is coming out. He has only been part of the national discourse for about 6 years ( excluding his role on LA LAW where he advised the actor who was playing the “new black lawyer” part). When one examines the history before 2002 on Obama there isn’t much there. No writing even though he was an academic, no impression from his year managing the Harvard Law Review, nothing of substance to measure let alone measure against.
            Obama is barely a boomer, Hillary is the last of the Boomers and McCain is the last of the pre-boomers ( not counting Dr. Paul). The pre-boomers time is over; and although they are fighting a nice rear guard action, one look at television commercials tells all one needs to know about the boomers. From “make love not war” to “honey when did I drop the Cialis? Is it four hours yet?” As the boomers unwillingly but inevitably pass along to glorious retirement another generation gets to strut and fret its hours in the footlights. 60 is not the new 30.

  • boilerman10

    Sorry, I call “bullshit” on that.

    Mr. Limbaugh, please take another OxyContin.

    Campaigns are not mutual admiration societies. And, I don’t think you have ever met Senator Clinton, or worked on her Senate campaigns, or know anything about her beyond what the traditional media tells you, and your Clinton Derangement Syndrome is showing.

    You are creating a boogieman, a “straw dog” to knock down. This does not aid Senator Obama, nor does it affect Senator Clinton. You are simply doing the Republican’s bidding.

    • S. Markom

      I don’t think you have ever met Senator Clinton, or worked on her Senate campaigns, or know anything about her beyond what the traditional media tells you,

      I assume you are speaking to me.

      To answer you:

      Yes
      Yes
      and Yes

      and as a result I would vote for any Democrat except her. This is the architect of all the scandals that transpired during Bill Clinton’s administration (except one). She is a brilliant person who has the same character flaws as Richard Nixon and is just as ruthless. Unfortunately there are large number of Democrats who, like me, will choose to either stay home or vote for her opponent.

      I am not thrilled with Obama but would at least hope he would surround himself with highly qualified people and then focus on issues, engage in negotiation, and not focus on enemies who disagree with him.

      • ces

        Let me guess:

        You had ideas she didn’t like?
        You weren’t invited to be part of her staff/entourage?
        oh and you were fired at some point

        Yes
        Yes
        and Yes

        /snark

        But seriously, you just sound bitter about something, like there’s another story behind your posting against Sen. Clinton.

        And enough of this stinking pile stuff about not voting if she’s the candidate. Neither one of these two are my favorite, but I’ll vote Dem to send the pugs out on their ass. If you Obama supporters can’t get over your idol worship, and realize there’s more at stack than “a dream” than we all deserve to have 100 years in Iraq, a few more benchifying bible-thumpers at The Court, and fiber optics up our colon to make sure we didn’t say hi to the wrong person.

        Man, somebody needs to call Webster, we have a new definition of ‘Blind Faith.”

        • ces

          [stake]

        • S. Markom

          To answer your questions:

          No
          No
          and NO

          . . . and as long as you will commit to voting for Obama if he is nominated, because the statements made on this blog would seem to negate that.

          • ces

            Yeah, but ya ignored the juicy stuff, didn’t ya. Why the angst after working for her? Seriously, please don’t duck the question.

            And sorry, when it comes to voting for a president, you can’t vote “Present”.

            You see, people like you (BO supporters on the blog) ignore everything BUT ‘vote for Barack.”

            I mean, please help the rest of us out, here. Why can’t BO folk address the issues? I’ll address my concerns with HRC if you want, but I have issues with BHO too. It’s your (collective) refusal to acknowledge his issues before the convention that is so freaky and disturbing. To me, at least.

            • S. Markom

              Juicy stuff:

              Yes I met her and her husband

              Yes I worked on Senate Campaigns (not hers)

              Yes I know about her and do not need whatever the media says.

              I was actually a Joe Biden supporter before voting for Obama. But I did vote for Bill Clinton twice – the first enthusiastically and the second reluctantly.

              I do not agree with most that his administration was admirable. On the contrary I found it to be less than adequate. He co-opted GOP initiatives and walked away from his core convictions.

              So I do not share in this clamor to bring back the Clintons. They lost the majority in both houses of Congress and had a boatload of scandals. Why would anyone want to bridge back to that?

              As far as she is concerned, I think most Democrats have now seen the Clintons as I have and are not voting for them to date.

              • BernieO

                Ah yes, the triangulation rap. Obama stated clearly a while back that he favored a single payer health care system, (which has a built in mandate since people have to pay taxes). Now he has backed so far off that he not only does not propose single payer, he doesn’t even attempt to get universal coverage. He trashes Hillary’s mandates, although his plan requires them for parents. All of this is designed to pander to Republicans who hate the idea on principle and to young people who are the most likely to not carry insurance even though they can afford it. His complaining that Hillary would force people to buy insurance when they can’t afford it is disingenuous. He plans to force parents to buy insurance and I would bet they are more likely to be strapped than people without children. The truth is, Hillary’s plan provides as much, if not more help for those that would have problems affording health care.
                Obama’s record is chock full of examples of him backing off on his principles in order to pacify Republican opposition. I actually think this shows pragmatism, but you clearly do not.
                As for the Clinton scandals, they were manufactured by the same Republican propaganda machine that successfully torpedoed Gore and Kerry. They hate the Clintons more because they have both won races. If Obama wins he will be subjected to the same kind of trashing.

                • gregoryp

                  It isn’t called pragmatism and it isn’t called good politics and it isn’t called being smart. It is called capitulation and for a damned good reason. He basically has negotiated with himself and compromised his stance before encountering opposition see his healthcare position. When negotiating one should start at their most favorable position and work away from that to assuage and to compromise. To compromise before the negotiating process has begun is crappy, crappy politics and Obama is a crappy, crappy politician no matter how smart you guys say he is. I want someone who is going to fight for liberal ideas. Someone who is willing to go tooth and nail to get every inch and every concession from the wingnuts. That ain’t Obama.

            • TeakwoodKite

              It’s your (collective) refusal to acknowledge his issues before the convention that is so freaky and disturbing.

              That about somes it up. Obama supporters don’t like to look at the ‘squiggly’ things in life.

      • ritamary

        Which scandals are those? The ones Ken Starr spent millions of dollars investigating and found nothing except Monica Lewinsky? And I imagine that is the scandal you are referring to that Hillary had nothing to do with.

  • S. Markom

    And for the second consecutive time Hillary refuses to congratulate Obama on his primary wins:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rleUPHX8yfM

    • boilerman10

      and your point is?

      • S. Markom

        The point is that this woman lacks character. One can only imagine how she will respond if she loses this nomnation.

        But if one does not know how to lose gracefully then they do not have what it takes to lose on more important issues and on a bigger stage.

        To a person like Hillary Clinton winning IS everything even more than it was with Richard Nixon. and like Nixon she has shown that she will trample on our Bill of Rights to take care of her enemies.

        • CK

          But if either of them is not the candidate, will they mount a third party campaign?
          And a related issue, which one will have the coattails. Which one on the top of the ticket will lead to the election of more better democrats? Donna Edwards won last night, corrupt blue dog and corporate shill democrat Wynn is out. In the last two days two more sitting republican congressmen have announced their decision to retire. Lots of opportunities out there and the repubs can’t even play zone defense in the house. So which dem as the nominee puts more better democrats asses into the house seats?

          • Fancy Pants Elitist

            I really wish Gore had run…

        • John

          Hillary Clinton lacks character because the media says so. No evidence needed if you are disinclined to support her anyway. The Clintons are racists and machine politicians because the media says so. Again, no evidence required. Hillary will do anything to win– um, what is included in “anything?” Campaign? Bill is out of control, he said racist things in South Carolina- because the media said he did. That makes it so.

          WTF ever. This is why I hate Obama supporters. It’s not enough to promote their own candidate, they have to have all the cards stacked in their favor- and STILL they bitch.

          • ritamary

            The Obamabots use all the Republican talking points against Hillary. Like last week when a caller mentioned Tony Rezko to Randi Rhodes and Randi Rhodes’ response was “Shut up when you don’t know what you are talking about. What about Whitewater?”
            Now Obamabots are using Republican talking points attacking John Edwards on Obamington Post because he is not going hat in hand begging Obama to accept his endorsement. Anyone who won’t join their cult is fair game for their attacks.

        • LJ

          Did Obama congratulate Hillary on her victory in Nevada, Florida, Michigan or Super Tuesday? No, o, no and no.

          It’s only now that the MSM is saying she did congratluate him. He also flew back to his home state after losing Nevada.

          Did the MSM say anything then? No, no, no.

          How DARE you say she has no character?

          “You’re likable enough, Hillary.”

          That’s character?

    • John

      Hillary congratulated Obama after his South Carolina win, only to be snarked at by Olberman and Matthews for not congratulating him ENOUGH.

      All I heard from Obama and his supporters when Hillary won Nevada was “fraud” and “intimidation by the Clinton machine.” I heard “fraud” in connection to New Hampshire, too.

      Who lacks character here?

  • boilerman10

    Larry,

    Reading this reply thread shows that you have rattled the cage of the Obama-lama-ding-dong, i.e. the True Believers. However, on the DC primary issue, given Washington’s large black population, expecting a different outcome was wishful thinking. Senator Obama will get the black vote, no ifs, no ands, no buts.

    But, what I havn’t heard from the True Believers, let alone detractors, is whether they will actively work for the election of this man if he is the nominee of the party?

    The Republicans have to go. Conservative thought of the so-called Goldwater/Reagan variety has utterly failed as a governing principle. It’s a great opposition tactic, but in actual practice, it fails. I like to call that the “Popiel Veg-A-Matic” school of politics…it looks great on televison but doesn’t work when you get it home.

    What scares me is that Obama is another “Popiel Veg-A-Matic” politician; even if he sounds more humane and human than McCain or Bush, and we have had 8 years of one of those already.

  • BernieO

    Obama says he will not have any lobbyists work for him yet the man who ran his campaign in NH was a lobbyist. When Hillary pointed this out in a debate Obama denied it.

    • Cee

      Bernie,

      Wanna talk about denial? Hillary made a mistake in bringing Maggie Williams back to oversee her campaign. The following is from an Ohio former Democrat blog.

      A Kansas City native, Williams, 53, was a central player in the Clinton damage-control machine during the White House years.

      In 1995, a uniformed Secret Service officer swore under oath he saw her leave White House lawyer and Hillary confidant Vince Foster’s office carrying documents after Foster committed suicide. Williams denied it.
      http://www.progressohio.org/page/community/post/adap2k/C3WG

      The American public has had enough of the past.

      • ces

        See…the cult behavior… Don’t look behind the curtain!

        Assertion: Obama said something that wasn’t true.
        Response: “Look what the Clintons did!”

        You’re sounding like a freakin’ echo from right-wing radio.

        YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH.

        • http://myownworld.us Steve

          You did say that looking in the mirror, right?

          • ces

            Yes, I’m willing to admit the Clintons aren’t perfect. Unlike most Obamaphiles being unable to talk about his faults, let alone admit he has some.

            That’s why I’m for comparing the entire record, not their “dreams.”

            Like I’ve said, I’ll vote for Obama if he’s the Dem candidate, will you vote for HRC is she is?

            If you answer No, then boo hoo for you, you’re an Obama “Cult” member and have no place trying to dictate Dem party direction.

            It ain’t ALL about Barack. (or Hillary!!!) This election will have ramifications for generations to come. If you take your toys and go home (aka not vote for HRC if she’s candidate), then you’re as responsible for the fan splatter as the pugs.

            • http://myownworld.us Steve

              Nope. I’ll vote for Hillary if she is the nominee.

              I “believe” in Obama, but I don’t want 100 years in Iraq McCain to be President (which is WHY I support Obama, he has a better chance to win then Hillary)

            • http://myownworld.us Steve

              Oh, and by the way, contrary to popular opinion, even Jesus had faults!

              :-o

      • CK

        Past as prologue ( ain’t it always so )
        http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/13/81448/4808/105/455521
        For your conspiracy pleasure, a direct connection between the Turkish drug mob neck deep in the Sibel Edmonds story and a delegate pledged to and heavy cash contributor to Sen Clinton.
        People with money flock to politicians
        Politicians flock to people with money.
        Now I understand why the Sibel Edmonds story cannot achieve any traction in the US Media.

      • BernieO

        I keep saying this over and over but EVERYONE needs to do some research about what has happened to ANY Democrat who was brazen enough to try to be president. The right wing smear machine trashed them mercilessly and the media joyfully joined in. There is a good reason that the Clintons were never convicted of anything. Yet Democrats still keep repeating Republican slime against the Clintons, which shows just how effective their propaganda is.

        I beg everyone to read things like “The Hunting of the President” by Joe Conason and Gene Lyons, or Jeffry Toobin’s “A Vast Conspiracy”. Go to Salon.com and read their archives about David Hale, the guy who accused the Clintons of wrongdoing in order to get out of a conviction for embezzling a couple of million from our government. Read about Jeff Gerth and his role in both the Clinton scandals and the Wen Ho Lee case. (He was the first “Judith Miller”.) Go to the dailyhowler.com site and read the archives from 2000 and 2006 to see how the media went along with right wing propaganda. Go to the NYTimes archives and read the kinds of things that Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich said about Gore. It boggles my mind how many Democrats still do not get it.

        If you are an Obama supporter, this is very important for you so that you will recognize these tactics early and be ready to fight back. I am not saying this to convince you to vote for Hillary but to get all Democrats to wake up to what we all have been facing since the nineties. Whether our nominee is Hillary or Barack, we need to understand how this process works if we want to be ready to combat it. Do not forget that the Republicans are so brazen that they were even willing to trash Kerry’s true bravery in Vietnam and the media was very tepid in their debunking of this. They did this even thought their guys were a bunch of chickenhawks.
        If you think that Obama will be immune to this kind of thing, I think you will be shocked at the lengths to which the powers that be will go to protect their interests. Right now the media loves him, but they also love McCain as well as their big fat tax cuts which he will protect. It is time for all of us to wise up and be ready to fight back. I have been heartened to see that some Obama supporters have been willing to sign the petition at mediamatters.org asking NBC to stop the sexism. This is the kind of thing we all need to do for all of our candidates. Believe me, the Republicans have been doing this for their guys for years.

  • bob h

    “Hillary’s campaign was awful in Maryland and Virginia.”

    Maybe, but was there anything she could have done about the fact that the large black populations have evidently chosen to vote based on skin color affinity?
    If you factor that out, she was even.

    • Mitchman

      ..the fact that the large black populations have evidently chosen to vote based on skin color affinity?

      Huh – Obama leads in just about every category, regardless of race, creed, color… I’m a young, white, male and can’t wait to vote for him next month…!!!

      “Come mothers and fathers
      Throughout the land
      And don’t criticize
      What you can’t understand
      Your sons and your daughters
      Are beyond your command
      Your old road is
      Rapidly agin’.
      Please get out of the new one
      If you can’t lend your hand
      For the times they are a-changin’”

      God I love the music of Bob Dylan – it’s more relevant now than ever… true classics…

      • s. hall

        And I can’t wait to see you cry when he turns out to be just another empty suit with big pockets of money.

        • Fred C. Dobbs

          What he said.

        • http://myownworld.us Steve

          Whaaaaaaaa

          Now you don’t have to wait!

          :-)

      • John

        Randi Rhodes tried to spin this the other day- she sees NO relevance to the fact that Obama and Hillary split the white vote just about evenly, but Obama gets 90 percent of the black vote. None.

        And your letter of support just oozes of Obamania- apparently you are the typical Obama supporter- you are “inspired” (to vote for Barack) and you have “Hope” (that Barack wins) and you feel all warm and fuzzy inside (thinking of Barack.)

        “Yes We Can (get this guy on stage elected!)” And then what? Um….what else is on tv?

        • BluestBlue

          John,

          You nailed it… but I think this will come to a head as soon as Obama became the nominee.

          Did you read the Joseph Wilson article on Huffington post?

          exerpt:
          But will Mr. Obama fight? His brief time on the national scene gives little comfort. Consider a February 2006 exchange of letters with Mr. McCain on the subject of ethics reform. The wrathful Mr. McCain accused Mr. Obama of being “disingenuous,” to which Mr. Obama meekly replied, “The fact that you have now questioned my sincerity and my desire to put aside politics for the public interest is regrettable but does not in any way diminish my deep respect for you.” Then one of McCain’s aides said of Obama, “Obama wouldn’t know the difference between an RPG and a bong.”

          Mr. McCain was insultingly dismissive but successful in intimidating his inexperienced colleague. Thus, in his one face-to-face encounter with Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama failed to stand his ground.

          emphasis mine
          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/battletested_b_86355.html

          I think we’ll be hearing a lot that “Obama wouldn’t know the difference between an RPG and a bong.”

          He has absolutely NO experience in national security, he couldn’t even bothered to call a single meeting of the subcommittee he chaired on Europe (NATO!) where he might have gotten some introduction. Contrast this with Hillary’s work on Senate Armed Services Committee.

          In 2004, Senator Clinton was asked by the Department of Defense to serve as the only Senate member of the Transformation Advisory Group to the Joint Forces Command.

          And I love Joseph Wilson’s strong close:

          “Theodore Roosevelt once commented, “It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly.

          If he were around today, TR might be speaking of the woman in the arena. Hillary Clinton has been in that arena for a generation. She is one of the few to have defeated the attack machine that is today’s Republican Party and to have emerged stronger. She is deeply knowledgeable about governing; she made herself into a power in the Senate; she is respected by our military; and she never flinches. She has never been intimidated, not by any Republican — not even John McCain.

          Barack Obama claims to represent the future, but it should be increasingly evident that he is not the man for this moment, especially with Mr. McCain’s arrival. We’ve seen a preview of that contest already. It was a TKO.”

          Barack hasn’t done the work needed in the past and he ain’t going to do it in the future.

          Judge him by his actions and accomplishments (none and lacking) NOT by his pretty but empty words.

    • Cee

      Bob,

      Oh. Another color excuse. Next week you’ll talk about gender, then age, caucus states,income, WEATHER even.

      Yawn. Excuses, excuses.

    • http://myownworld.us Steve

      Interesting, Obama won the white vote in Virginia and was close in Maryland.

      Next excuse?

    • Shirin (not an Obama supporter!)

      How do you explain the fact that he also has won majorities among white males?

      NOT an Obama supporter, but getting sicker and sicker and sicker of all this rubbish from both sides.

  • Mr.Murder

    Tony Rezko’s about to stand trial and Attorney Fitzgerald is no lightweight or Rove apparatachik.

  • Cee

    Larry,

    Thank you for informing us about the foreign contributions with the NY Sun (neocon) article.
    I’ll pass it along with a warning that someone has probably already sent funds with the intent to harm the campaign.

  • http://meat.net/ dbt

    So, your neighbor was interested in voting for a democrat and you threw as much mud at him as you could as fast as possible to talk him out of it?

    The “Obama attended a madrassa” smear got pretty hefty circulation. It’s not like “Barack Obama” screams “was raised in the suburbs with a white picket fence and a dog”. People are going to expect something different of him. And different he is.

    Third, the Rezko thing… seriously, go try to compare the record on Whitewater (a complete non-scandal) to Tony Rezko (also… a complete non-scandal) and tell me how your candidate comes out better.

    • BernieO

      It remains to be seen if Rezko is a complete non scandal, but even if it is you just acknowledged that Whitewater was and yet the Republicans and the media turned it into a major one.
      Obama clearly knew that Rezko was under investigation for corruption when he asked Rezko for help in buying a house he could not afford. Obama got a very sweet deal on it, too. Heck, the Clintons were crucified for Whitewater and they lost all of their investment money on it. Imagine what the Republicans will do with Obama’s Rezko’s ties.

      • ritamary

        Patrick FitzGerald thought Tony Rezko was dirty enough to prosecute him, and a federal judge revoked his bail because he lied to the judge. Rezko helped the Obamas buy a house, not twenty years ago but in 2005. Obama had recommended Rezko to receive millions of dollars in federal and state funds. So how does anyone figure this is a non-scandal?

    • Lorelynn

      Madison Guaranty – the S&L at issue in the Whitewater scandal – had already been investigated by the Resolution Trust when Clinton was running for office. We knew, officially, that there was nothing there because Republican prosecutors with subpoenas had gone in, looked around and cleared Madison.

      What prosecutor with subpoena power has officially investigated Rezko’s purchase of property for Obama’s benefit?

  • cbear

    Larry,
    All due respect, but do you not see the disconnect between stating that anyone who supports Obam is:

    …enthralled with the idea of Obama and know nothing about his past, his performance, and the scandals that will bring him down.

    Right after accusing the Obama voters of voting in their enlightened self-interest:

    You see, I believe that people act in their own interest

    WTF??????

    The sad thing is, I probably agree with you that HRC might very well be a good or even great President, but the constant drumbeat of either “Obama Sucks” or “Hill’s Great”, and the illogical and petty posts that have become a staple of this blog do not serve you or your credibility well.
    Nor does the immediate flaming of anyone who might offer a comment in contradiction, no matter how minor, to your (and Susan’s) views.

    Jeebus.

    • John

      What I notice is that the Obamamaniacs are so obsessed with everyone loving their candidate that they feel they have to take from HuffPo, MoveOn, DailyKos, etc. etc. etc. and come here to attack people who haven’t drunk the Kool-Aid yet and (GASP!) actually think Hillary Clinton would be a better President.

      Look in the mirror, people. You are basically arguing that anyone who doesn’t prefer Obama should just shut the hell up or be ready to be called racist, corpo or just plain stupid. Sorry, but there are still people out there who aren’t buying in. Maybe you dream of a future where sites like this are shut down and we are all sent to re-education camps to learn our lesson and be good little Obamanites, but we aren’t there yet.

      • http://myownworld.us Steve

        By all means, support Clinton, sing her praises, condemn or criticize Obama.

        I am an Obama supporter. Yes, he is inspirational, but I support him for a cold calculating reason .. I believe he is the stronger candidate in November given his support from independents and moderates.

        I prefer a nominee who can win, not a nominee “whose turn it is” who is supposedly a better potential President.

        If you cannot win, being a potential President is a moot point.

        • TeakwoodKite

          I prefer a nominee who can win, not a nominee “whose turn it is”

          Obama saying “it’s our time” does not fit this bill?
          potential President? Let’s not get to far down the the road. How about “potential Democratic nominee”.

        • Lorelynn

          Obama has never run a genuinely contested campaign for high office against the GOP. You have no idea if he can win, because you do not know what he will do when he is swiftboated, when his wife and children are called racist, misogynist names, or what he has in his past. You do not know what there is to be dug up on Rezko. You do not know what other ties Obama has that are seriously compromised. You do not know what Rezko wanted in return for spending $625k of his own money to benefit Obama personally. And until we know the answer to that question, there is no reason to believe Obama can win.

          You don’t know these things because the GOP dirt machine has never had reason to let fly against him. You do not know what they have stashed away against him, and how he will respond when it is used against him.

          We know what the GOP has on the Clintons. Every phone call they made and every check they ever wrote (literally) has been investigated and nothing was found. We also know how the Clintons respond to swiftboating.

          To say that you know Obama can win is sheer fantasy on your part. Maybe he can. But it’s just as likely, considering who has endorsed him, that he can’t. He’s telling you that he is going to let the Republicans set the agenda and the terms of the debate – you are simply refusing hear what he has said.

          • christian aaron

            and Clinton vs. Renzie or whatever the heck his name was, was a contested race? hmmm.

        • RealityCheck9

          Unless the drooling victimization projected by a very large number of Obama supporters drive voters to McCain. :-}

          Yes…they are victims…”down with the old”…”baby boomers messed up the world”……….”hillary has caused every dam thing that is bad in the last 15 years”…..”Hillary is evil” ….”it is her fault”.

          Jesus H Christ. Victims. victims. victims.

  • John Witherspoon

    methinks you are forgetting, larry, that DC is 61% poor black folk, who are disenfranchised in the general election. I wouldn’t exactly call them “washington insiders.”

    • http://myownworld.us Steve

      Calling Obama an establishment candidate because he attracted low income black folks in DC to vote for him is a real amazing twist of logic and a sign of desperation as they see their heroine going down.

  • AF

    Here they come. How dare you insult their leader.

    • TeakWoodKite

      ? Who they? Insult Obama?

    • s. hall

      Right — They fit well into the term Cult.

    • http://myownworld.us Steve

      Insult away, say whatever you wish.

      Flail, make excuses, blame the media, do anything but blame the candidate for a poor campaign.

      • simon

        Flail, make excuses, blame the media, do anything but blame the candidate for a poor campaign.

        Poor campaign?

        It’s only Feb 13th.

        Clinton won Mass, and Ca.

        I think Obama was stunned at his loss, and frankly, it doesn’t bode well for him, now does it?

        And we dont even know about Obama’s TRUE relationship with Rezko, Rezko’s real connections, and where they may lead, Syrian and all, and yes, this is a legitimate concern, the hints are truly revolting, and let’s hope they’re not true. Terrorism is a very profitable business.

        And no, I don’t know if it’s true Rezko is connected to terrorism, but a smart person truly intent on getting any DEMOCRAT elected would keep all contingencies open, until Rezko’s trial is resolved, no denial, welcome to the working week.

        If Rezko is connected to a terrorist money laundering network, though, or Auchi is, and this can be traced to Obama, or Obama’s money, Obama’s nomination will be nullified, there will be no salvageable democratic candidate.

        The best sources for the truth about the Obama-Rezko relationship are out of Chicago, what we outside of IL know, compared to the Chicago press, is virtually nothing. Denial is not your friend. If Rezko is dirty, and he was a player in IL politics, Obama’s business with him is as tainted as Rezko. How do Middle Eastern men with connections to Saddam launder money, arent you curious? Shouldn’t you wait to find out, before you lock the door on a democratic candidate?

        So you need to question whether it’s really about a Democrat being elected, or your blind fanboi love of Obama needing to be protected, at all costs.

        That, or you’re a Republican shill.

  • J.Citizen

    Mr. Johnson, do you actually take yourself seriously?

    I know it is hard, but perhaps you should try to take a step back and read your own material in as objective a manner as you can. Maybe then you would see why you have won for yourself such a reputation as a complete clown.

    Did it ever occur to you that maybe one of the (admittedly small) reasons that Clinton is doing so badly is that she has such terrible supporters in the blogosphere – like you?

    Do you imagine that you have ever convinced any rational person to support her? One can only imagine how many you have turned away!

    • Banquo’s Ghost

      Johnson is great when he’s in his sphere. He exudes sophistication and nuance when he is focused on the reality of Middle East issues and the internal struggles between CIA, FBI, and political and administration appointees.

      When he wanders into presidential competitions, however …

    • Nellie

      Hey J Citizen

      The “J” must stand for JACKASS!

      When you have served our country with one half the distinction Larry Johnson has then – perhaps you can come here and insult him. So get your air head out of Obama’s filthy ASS and get busy earning some street creds around here.

      Here are Larry’s: Intelligence analysis and operations officer, CIA; Deputy Director, Office of Counter Terrorism, Department of State
      Looks like you’ll be busy for quite a few years just to come to a base level of acceptablity.

      • http://myownworld.us Steve

        I see, when some has a distinguish record of service to the country, you cannot criticize him?

        I don’t doubt for a minute if Obama is the nominee, that more “dirt” will be dug up.

        I also don’t doubt that Obama will fall short in delivering as President then what his campaign and supporters suggest.

        In the end though, if Clinton, with her vaulted machine and experience in national camapaigns (via Bill’s experience) cannot defeat a newbie like Obama, she deserves to lose, period.

        • John

          Read the post below- it doesn’t matter to Obamaniacs if he would be good President. All that matters to them is that he wins. What he does as President is totally immaterial to these drooling cultists.

          • http://myownworld.us Steve

            All that matters to Clinton supporters is if she is a good President, not if she can beat McCain.

            Well if Democratic Nominee Hillary Clinton is still Senator in 2009, I don’t think she will make a good President.

            But that’s my humble opinion. What do I know?

            • simon

              All that matters to Clinton supporters is if she is a good President, not if she can beat McCain.

              She can beat McCain.

              I really want to find out who pays for these Presidential candidates, ALL of them.

              What are the business deals, where do the connections go, all of Congress is fair game, you know?

      • Joseph Mills

        Yeah, and here are Dick Cheney’s credentials: Vice President of the United States. And look where that got us.

        Please. Don’t recite titles to us. They mean nothing. And spare us the Jackass and filthy ass comments too. That hardly meets the standard of intelligent conversation, so matter what blog you’re on.

    • http://www.despair.com/cluelessness.html Smilin’ Jim

      Dear J
      (are you brother to Q Citizen, perhaps?)

      For one erudite enough to use objective and rational in the same posting, your ad hominem attack oils the engines of irony.

      Best of luck to Q, BTW.

  • Banquo’s Ghost

    PS Hey Larry how do you feel about the Clintons’ demanding sustained sanctions in Iraq during the 90′s that killed over a half million women and children (UN Maternal and Infant Mortality Report)?

    It’s OK, right? No probbo?

    • s. hall

      Wonder how much those sanctions cost–as opposed to the 1 trillion dollar war Bush has waged.

    • simon

      Larry how do you feel about the Clintons’ demanding sustained sanctions in Iraq during the 90’s that killed over a half million women and children (UN Maternal and Infant Mortality Report)?

      Those sanctions led to the oil for food program, by which Saddam, with the assistance of his good friend, Nadhmi Auchi, made, and laundered, billions.

      Laundering, purchase of illegal arms ( and god only knows in whose hands those ended up) the whole nine yards.

      And Obama’s patron is directly connected to this?

      And that’s OK with Obama supporters?

      Wow.

      • Barb

        isn’t this the same Auchi that was going to help Rezko bail out and that’s why he is sitting in jail?

        I really think the crap is going to hit the fan when that trial starts.

  • Banquo’s Ghost

    Just ask 3/4 DC residents! Just say no to Lady Sauron!

  • Montag

    The problem a lot of us have with Hillary is that she’s so blatantly opportunistic and arrogant. “Travelgate” is a good example of her lack of scruples and constraint. I just don’t trust her to dismantle the Bush-Cheney War on America, or to keep our Servicemen and women OUT of the line of fire whenever possible. And the one thing you can’t fault Obama on is that when he says he’s NOT Hillary he’s telling the truth.

    I predict that even if she sends your name to the Senate to be confirmed as Golf Czar she’ll pull it again if there’s any resistance–and then complain that your backbone is dulling her knife!

    • Banquo’s Ghost

      If elected, she will do precisely what her closest advisors tell her is to her own personal maximal political advantage nothing more nothing else. Just like Clinton I it will be a 24/7 election campaign for the entire 4 years.

    • s. hall

      And Obama is a shrinking violet who is threatening the Super Delegates if they don’t vote for him. What are you guys on?

    • Nellie

      Montag,

      Hillary seems like a sweet unsullied young lady – compared to Obama when it comes to “OPPORTUNISTIC” Please go back and read some intelligent information on your ‘god’. They say that the emotional damage done by cultism takes about 3-5 years to begin to rectify.

    • BernieO

      Travelgate was a ginned up scandal. The man who ran the travel office, Billy Dale, was found in a audit by KPMG Pete Marwick to have kept an off the books ledger and that the financial records were in a mess. The travel office staff serves at the pleasure of the president, so the Clintons decided to reorganize it. The office was badly mismanaged, but the media loved the guy because he did a lot of favors for them, so they were mad at the Clintons for firing him. They proceeded to turn this into a major scandal, even though the Clintons had good reason for wanting to change the personnel and had every right to do so even without cause. So much for our professional journalists.

  • V

    “…the disconnect between his record and how he actually votes…”
    I think you mean rhetoric. His record IS how he ‘actually votes’.

    Also, if you told your neighbor about Obama’s Muslim relatives and he “flipped”, he certainly doesn’t sound too bright.

    I’m a professor of mathematics at a university, but it doesn’t take a degree in logic to ascertain that you’re not very smart, no matter how many times you assert to the contrary. It’s the people who care more about Senator Obama’s having taught constitutional law and his bipartisan efforts than his great-grandfather’s religion who seem to have a working mind.

    • Banquo’s Ghost

      I find that remarkably few people visiting this site have anything vaguely resembling a working mind. Congrats if you do-

      • Hope

        If you don’t like this haunt, blow your cold air elsewhere translucent nobody.

        • TeakWoodKite

          Congrats Hope. :)

      • simon

        I find that remarkably few people visiting this site have anything vaguely resembling a working mind. Congrats if you do-

        This from someone who supports Obama?

        You people need to open a window.

        I was wondering what Larry’s, or anyones, take is on the death of the Syrian terrorist?

    • http://NoQuarterUSA.net Larry Johnson

      Yes, I did mean rhetoric. Thanks.

      You miss my point. If Obama’s crazy quilt childhood had received a lot of attention during the primary it would not likely be as much of an issue come the fall. By failing to fully challenge him on all of the Africa shit (look at the Republicans, they went after Mitt Romney and his polygamous grandfather) then we could say, “Obama has been put to the test.”

      Hell, instead we have the boy in the bubble syndrome. Protect him at any cost and flay the Clintons, unfairly, for saying racists things they didn’t say.

      • Banquo’s Ghost

        fair argument

      • Banquo’s Ghost

        well, ok, fair argument, but did you actually say anything like that in your web log entry?

      • Gloria

        Shelby Steele spoke at a bookstore in Berkeley a month or so ago and his talk was on CSpan a few weeks back on BookTV. He delved into Obama’s background as a “bargainer” quoting Obama’s own book in which he says that from the age of 14 he knew that if he didn’t make people angry, they would listen to him. For Steele (who is of black/white parentage) this already is a compromised character, as opposed to MLK and Jesse Jackson who were “challengers.” My take on the discussion was that Obama’s background has resulted in an eerily similar “want to be loved” syndrome a la Bill Clinton! Then, when I’ve seen his snide, cocky air, as in the debate where he snickered in an aside about Hillary’s “likability,” my gut reacted as if I were watching George Bush.
        What a combo!! Bush and Bill Clinton rolled into one!!

        Steele commented that once Obama drops his mask (or it’s done for him) there will be a lot of disappointment. Unfortunately, it may come too late…

      • mudkitty

        I don’t suppose, then, you could get behind a Clinton/Obama Dream Ticket, ala…

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQFtRxubRyA

    • s. hall

      You call it a working mind not to question who the people giving Obama the big money are? Why a 2 year Senator with no visible accomplishments has raised 130 Mill. The media has pushed this like they have never pushed anything before and maybe they have succeeded because you really believe you decided Obama was great all by yourself. Sounds like Obama’s cult will buy anything How about the Brooklyn Bridge? — I can give you a good deal.

      • Nellie

        Hey s half,

        I’ll make up 100 deeds for the Brooklyn Bridge – the first Hundred with the right price get to say they own the bridge!

        Then the rest of us can meet somewhere around DC and have dinner together.

      • mudkitty

        Because of his inspiring rhetoric. What else? What did you think? But are you saying that if he got the nod for vp you wouldn’t vote?

        • http://www.despair.com/sacrifice1.html Smilin’ Jim

          Absurd.

          No one with his ambition would ever accept the VP slot.

      • Barb

        Just finished reading John Grisham’s The Appeal, probably his best book to date. I believe that there are parallels to be made with Obama’s money and supporters.

    • Nellie

      You wrote It’s the people who care more about Senator Obama’s having taught constitutional law and his bipartisan efforts than his great-grandfather’s religion who seem to have a working mind.

      Au Contraire Doctor. Those who do something called RESEARCH (You do remember that don’t you) and look at what Obama has done with his ‘Constitutional Law’ Degree have the real smarts.

      For instance, under Social Security On Obama’s Website he has

      Require Full Disclosure of Company Pension Investments: Obama will ensure that all employees who have company pensions receive detailed annual disclosures about their pension fund’s investments. This will provide retirees important resources to make their pension fund more secure

      Just this one little piece, I believe is ALREADY law and has been for years at least in 3 different states I have taught in from north through Florida.

      Like any Charlatan, Obama uses his so called “smarts” in constitutional Law to fool People. He wasn’t anywhere near the US Senate when that law was written, and he is going to try and take credit for doing something others did?

      Please, if you are so enamoured of “Constitutional Law”, why don’t you go to George Washington and take classes by Marty Lederman. Then at least you will know facts as opposed to some non existant dreamy eyed and “fictional” ideal.

      By the way, Math is still considered a fact based discipline and science isn’t it?

      • CK

        An interesting thing to do is a lexis/nexis search
        on Obama’s academic prodcution from his years at Harvard and at Chicago. Compare his output for his teaching time with the output of his then teaching colleague Posner. Interesting because there is nothing to compare. Obama zilch, Posner lots and at that time Posner was also on the federal bench and writing decisions there also.
        All that time in academia and nothing. The only thing available is Obama’s biography. No record for Obama to have to defend. Smart if your goal is the white house and you actually have a long term plan to achieve it.

        • Nellie

          Thanks CK,

          I’ll take your word for this as I do not have access to lexis/nexis. I have no doubt that ZILCH is right!

    • BernieO

      You obviously do not know the story of Obama’s cousin running for president in Kenya an Obama’s support for him even though he has serious ties to jihadists. Obama injected himself into an election against a man who is an ally of ours on terrorism.

  • AF

    “I’m always losing paper,” he says. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjU2ZjQ3MGNiZjNmZjYxOGQ3M2Y4NmY2NDVhMDk0Mjg=&w=MA==

    He wants to run for president, he just doesn’t want the “hassle”.
    http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/05/07/070507fa_fact_macfarquhar

    He’s “not an operating officer” or somebody who’s going to “run some bureaucracy.”
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/_81599.html

    But it’s OK – “I don’t think there is anybody in this race who can inspire the American people better than I can.”
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/_81599.html