Why Are the Rightwing Republicans Hyping Obama?
By Larry Johnson on December 26, 2007 at 7:15 PM in Current Affairs
In the spirit of full disclosure I have contributed money to only one campaign this year–retired Admiral Joe Sestak. I am not working for any campaign and I am not lobbying for a job in any Administration, Democrat or Republican. I live in Mayland and have little hope of having a voice in who is selected to run as our next President beyond what I can write on these pages. Understood?
Good. Then why are pro-Bush Republican newspapers and magazines working so hard to ensure that Barack Obama is the Democratic candidate come November 2008?
Following close on the heels of Obama endorsements from the neoconservative Weekly Standard and the conservative Republican newspaper the Sioux City Journal, yet another conservative Republican newspaper the Dallas Morning News has now rushed to support Obama.
There’s definitely an Obama bandwagon out there – built and pushed by Republican neocons eager to put another right-wing Republican in the White House.
Back in 2000, the Dallas Morning News supported George W. Bush.
In 2004, it did the same.
“Mr. Bush has always risen to fight the next round,” the newspaper said:
Americans want and need a president with a backbone steeled by courage and a heart tendered by compassion. Not since the beginning of World War II has America faced as much uncertainty about its national security and its economic prospects. The next president must have the firm conviction to persevere against Islamic terrorism and the empathy to give his fellow citizens a helping hand, even as he steadily guides the American economy through the turbulent waters of globalization. (October 17, 2004.) . . .
We have also seen Mr. Bush preach compassion to a party that historically hasn’t rallied to the cause of the immigrant in South Texas or the student stuck in a failing school. Government can be a force for good, Mr. Bush tells his supporters. Republicans normally don’t talk that way. This one does, and he walks the walk (his landmark education and Medicare reform bills, for example). America is better for it, too, despite Mr. Bush’s tacking too far to the right on certain divisive social issues.
Now the Morning News looks at Obama and sees the same qualities it once saw in Bush.
Mr. Obama, the son of a white American mother and black Kenyan father, spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim country. His life experience gives him a unique perspective and a greater ability to build diplomatic bridges. We don’t always agree with his positions, but we recognize his potential to unite disparate political factions and restore cooperation between the White House and Capitol Hill. Americans are tired of divisive, hard-edged politics. Democrats would inspire a refreshingly new approach by choosing Mr. Obama as their 2008 candidate.
Why do these outlets and media who have fawned over Bush in the past like Obama so much?
Could it be because his positions on the crucial issues of health care and Social Security are closer to those of the Republican right wing than those of any other Democratic contender?
Could it be because his pose of rejecting what the Morning News calls “the divisive politics of the past” make him an easier mark for Republican leaders who still go down the line with the partisan and hyper-divisive George Bush and Dick Cheney?
These Republicans have proved for many, many years that they are all for divisive politics, so as long as it helps the right. So maybe that’s why they are promoting a Democrat who talks like Barack Obama does – and why they loathe the prospect of running against a tested fighters like Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.
Or maybe it’s just that these Republicans just want the Democrats to nominate someone they know will be easy to best. Yes, I know some polls suggest Obama does better in a nationwide match up. If you buy that nonsense let me sell you a bridge.
Does anybody seriously doubt that the Dallas Morning News – or the Sioux City Journal or the Weekly Standard–or Karl Rove – who have all hyped Obama, will all support the Republican nominee in the fall election, no matter who that nominee is, over any Democrat?
Does anybody seriously believe that these pro-Obama Republicans are sincere when they talk about a new “bi-partisan” respect and of ending divisions?
Does anybody seriously believe that they have anybody’s best interest at heart except their own partisan one?
Harry S. Truman once said: “Whenever a fellow tells me he’s bipartisan, I know he’s going to vote against me.”
It’s the same with the pro-Obama Republicans.
They are against Democrats today, will be against Democrats tomorrow, and will be against Democrats forever.
And so they are for Obama.
(Release: November 13)
on sale for only $16.95.
has a spatula.)
8% Off at $11.95, with a rare five-star ranking by 294 customers: 
And check out these: 
("This crazy redhead is on to something. Her pink Rambler story alone is worth the price of the book," writes 
- “Richard Sale’s reportage on Washington, the CIA, the American armed forces, and foreign intrigue has created a perfect background for this account of the steady growth of President Clinton as a master of the game of nations.”--W. Patrick Lang, former head of Middle East Operations, DIA
"Anne C. Heller's stunning biography of Ayn Rand" uses a "plethora of newly unearthed research and fresh insight."
to play the race card.
You betcha! In a general election, the right wing slime mechanism can beat this guy like a 99 Cent Store pinata…
Nice work.
Tucker Carlson was fawning over him on gasbag Ed Schultz’s show a coupla weeks ago.
Larry, had you been at Troy, and were a Trojan - the wooden horse (filled w/the Special Ops Greeks) never would have made it into the city.
Also on the John McLaughlin Group. Then there are David Brooks (Larry’s neighbor!), David Broder, and more. It should make any sober Democrat wonder (with an emphasis on the word sober).
I love this analogy - and I believe you are right!
Happy New Year
I for one do not want to get along. I want to destroy the entire criminal organization called the “GOP”!
Get along? Fuck that!
It is time to take back our country from these criminals and destroy the entire GOP support structure!
“Demand the Truth!”
Shorter version: NO QUARTER
Larry,
why are right wing republicans hyping obama? easy, it’s because he is ‘unelectable’ on a national scale, and the more they can ‘fracture’ the dem prez ticket, the better for their odds of getting the rnc’s golden boy nyc mayor bloomberg into office. it’s all about divide and conquer. also hillary is ‘unelectable’ on a ‘national scale’. the only ones who can destroy the crooked rnc’s aspirations is for rep. paul to upset the gop prez ticket (paul would win on a national scale), or former vp gore run on the dem ticket (gore is electable on a national scale).
that’s the way i see it anyway.
With respect, you’re not correct about Sen. Clinton. The GOP is *saying* she’s the candidate they want now because they want to weaken her so she can’t win the nomination — because they know she’s tough enough and has the experienced staff to take them on in a general election, and to beat them.
And that’s why the conservatives want Obama, and are praising him to the hilt — because his thin record is so easy to attack, and he’s not experienced in a grueling, nasty general election fight. (Besides Larry’s great points.)
Ron Paul? Oh dear. He who’d destroy Social Security? And who says he’d end the war in Iraq — but doesn’t everyone know that what he promises does not mean he can deliver, and that he’d run smack into obstacles that will slow him down, just as it will anyone in the presidency? Then there are his goofy views on the Civil War and his purported racism — see TalkingPointsMemo.com (But anyway, while he has a romantic online contingent, he doesn’t get traction in the polls.)
Oh Susan you should read the takedown of Ron Paul here: http://themedium.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/the-ron-paul-vid-lash/?ex=1199163600&en=7b25470d94ea3b8b&ei=5070&emc=eta1/
It shows all tells all and is a must read on Dr. Paul’s racism.
As Commander in Chief, he actually could cause the withdrawal of troops from Iraq; that is within the commander in chief’s perview. ( It’s in the Constitution even) He could also affect the withdrawal of US troops from Korea, and 700+ other places overseas. Now I will grant that the military will try dumb obstructionism but it’s either follow orders or revolt.
Meanwhile why are you suddently going after Ron? If as you say he has no traction then would it not be more useful to go after the Repubs who do have traction like Fred or Rudy or Mike or Mitt or John. And isn’t it amazing that a man who has spent 10 terms in congress has been able to hide all that white nazi racism all that time. No one ever suspected it until suddenly he has no traction.
What’s that aroma is it the aroma of fear?
Is it $20 Million raised this quarter?
Is it median contributions of $50 and average contributions of $105. Is it not one penny from the lobbyists or the Mil-Industrial complex, or Big Pharma or Big Finanace? ( You do know how much Gollum Sacks has contributed to Hillary don’t you? )
Is it 200,000 contributors — passionate contributors — people who will parade with Ron Paul signs, spend their own money to produce ads for him and blimps for him and come out 5000+ strong on a miserable november day to hear him speak in Philly?
Is it that his is a bottom up campaign not one run by the pols and the pollsters and the beltway experts?
Is it that for every person who is sending him money there are 5-10 who don’t but will vote for him on primary day? Will stay around for hours for caucus day?
The smear memo went out the morning after Boston Tea Party day. One money bomb is an “internet fluke”, a second one 50% larger is a wake up call for the vested interests in our One party with two grasping hands country.
Yup use romantics will be posting signs and voting and driving other folks to the polls and doing what needs to be done.
Hey if Hillary doesn’t get the nomination will she be running as an independent? Lieberman did it and it worked for him and the democratic party in a single state and Hillary has a 50 state organization. Maybe someone should ask her?
Susan,
i’m talking about who is ‘electable’ on a ‘national scale’. sorry to say but i don’t see either hillary or obama as electable on a national scale, whereas former vp gore does have that ‘national electability’. a great many around our nation see gore as the rightful prez (to this day), and one who had his 2000 election by the people stolen by the bushs and their cronies both in the fla. crooked shenagans and ‘their boys’ that are sitting on the supreme court. if gore were run again, he would get the votes from all the spectrum from disaffected republicans to disaffected democrats. rep. paul the allegations of racisim being leveled against him, the individual who has been drudging the accusations, is also alleged to be nothing more than a stooge for a store front org that is being funded by israeli/neocon interests who are scared witless that they’ll loose all those big u.s. dollar giveaways, that rep. paul would be sure to stop up their money spigots.
with hillary there is too much polarization, which erodes away any national electability on her part. her excess baggage is bill, as that is what is being said over and over again around the nation.
the crooked rnc’s fair hair boy behind the scenes is the current nyc mayor bloomberg. bloomberg is wall street’s pick for prez. it is the rnc bunch that is systematically and methodically destroying giuliani’s poll ’stuff’. one has to look at who are the mouth pieces — big corporations that own the various major media networks. the rnc’s apparent game plan is to put those who are unelectable on pedistals and then systematically shove the pedestals out from underneath them when they feel the time is right as time marches towards nov 08 election day.
again, this is how i see what is happening.
They said the same thing about Hillary winning in New York when she ran for senate. Even former Clinton advisors said she could not win because she wasn’t from there. Her main problem is, IMO, carrying the South, which I think Edwards could help do as her running mate.
Who will be the headliner? Mudcat has been saying that the south is important and parts of the south are a problem for Hillary. We shall see fairly soon.
Sometime,
Or Wes Clark, who was the top surrogate for the Dems in ‘06. He has a street named after him in Alabama, is from Arkansas and being a retired four star and decorated combat veteran doesn’t hurt.
J,
I happen to think Clinton’s tenure strongly emphasizes that we were much better off with him at the helm than our current POTUS.
Taters,
i agree with your assessment that we were better off with bill than with junior. junior’s problem is that he still has a pacifier in his mouth, and he can’t seem to find his way out of a room with doors on all sides (remember how he tried to exit stage left in china and had a dumbfounded look on his mug.)
Wow! I like the ‘pacifer’ word picture - If you watch his ‘news conferences’ Bush has defintely been sucking on something!
“With respect, you’re not correct about Sen. Clinton. The GOP is *saying* she’s the candidate they want now because they want to weaken her so she can’t win the nomination — because they know she’s tough enough and has the experienced staff to take them on in a general election, and to beat them.”
I’m not quite sure which part of the time-space continuum got interrupted for this to even be remotely true. From minute one of her candidacy, it was operatives up to & including Karl Rove who pushed the Clinton-as-candidate meme. (Google will help in this regard.) Why could that be? Well, read any of the inner-beltway gossip and it will be instantly clear that she’s the classic victim, having been routinely abused by the GOP since her days in Little Rock. With her, they know exactly who they would be getting — someone they can beat up just like they did before, and someone who would respond in exactly the same way.
The ‘base’ wants Hillary because with her, things really won’t change all that much. She’s just the other side of the exact same coin.
What a dumb argument.
What do you say about the fact that Foster’s Daily Democrat endorsed Bush in the 2000 and 2004 general election, Lieberman in the 2004 primary, and now Hillary in the 2008 primary.
Another Republican paper, the Valley News in Iowa, endorsed Edwards.
So what?
I don’t think anyone’s under the illusion that they’ll endorse these Democrats in the general election.
And it’s funny that you’re so quick to use these Republican-supporting papers as boogeyman when you yourself were a Republican not too long ago. You left that out of your “full disclosure”. It’s clear that you have something personal against Obama. That’s fine. Just don’t pretend you don’t.
It’s this:
“Could it be because his positions on the crucial issues of health care and Social Security are closer to those of the Republican right wing than those of any other Democratic contender?” Hillary’s a liberal who manages to look moderate. Obama is a moderate/conservative who manages to look liberal(to liberals atleast).
There is ONLY ONE reason the reich-wing would be pushing for Obama as the Democratic candidate and it has to do with race. I have no doubt that this is understoon by all who post here.
Obama is another Harold Ford in the making.
How do I know this? I was born and raised in the south, still visit the south and have relatives in several southern states and so I have an excellent understanding of the southern white male thinking process and as a black person, have seen this all before.
The same bigoted uninformed people who voted against Harold Ford will also vote against Obama. For the simple reason that he is black.
I was thinking that it would make what happened to Harold Ford a practice run and small potatos. It just presents a more traditional and sadly “acceptable” smear. It also feels like “the co-opting of Lieberman”… The bottomline is Obama does not have the political instincts to counter-punch when he is being “punked” when Rove is making the phone calls.
Obama is another Harold Ford in the making.
Bingo!
There’s an old truism that goes something like this:
“If your advance is going too well and without complication, you are walkimg into an ambush!”
I’m not convinced that Obama or his fawning admirers have made enough laps around the sun to instinctively grasp this concept yet.
You hit the nail on the head Larry. The Repugs want BO as the nominee because he will be an easy target. No one wants to talk about it. HRC has been vetted. I want to know what BO is hiding about his undergraduate years. Why doesn’t any of this high school and undergraduate friends join him on the campaign trail like HRC’s friends. He’s got some skeletons in his closet in my opinion and the Repugs are ready to hit him on them.
the easy answer is that they know their candidates can’t win, no one they can put up could win at this point.
No question about it.
They feel he is most beatable. And they very well might be right. I like him but we have two fully vetted candidates who most likely will stomp the GOP.
Not the time to take a chance.
Larry, Why are you so suspicious of right-wing motives? Don’t you know that the newly enlightened southern white male voters will gladly vote for a black muslim (perceived) over a white christian?
LOL! Gawd. On Christmas a relative of mine tried to tell me that Obama is really a Muslim.
That smear worked.
Why did Rupert Murdoch throw his support and funds to Hillary?
I have been wondering about that since it happened. (sorry about the web dust). If you were concerned about the coroporate “influence”, She is a senator from the state that is THE $ capitol of the world…
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aG8zOsDYmRVA&refer=home
Backing Visas, Free Trade
This is interesting.
Her support for fewer restrictions on worker visas helped her earn a 35 percent rating in 2005 from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. That ranked Clinton above 14 of the other 43 Senate Democrats that year, lending credence to her advisers’ depiction of her as a centrist.
She was one of only 11 Democrats to vote for the U.S.-Oman free-trade agreement last Sept. 19. In August, she voted to allow offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, which passed 71-25.
Great work Larry and Susan! Here are some sites that agree with you on Obama, maybe Susan can research them and find Bob Kerrey’s next talking points!
http://www.aryan-nations.org
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/
http://www.whitepride.tv/
http://www.davidduke.com/
You just played the race card very clumsily.
Some weeks back, Thomas Friedman (correct me on the name, if I’m wrong) penned an OP/ED suggesting that Obama should make Dick Cheney his VP.
Like her husband, Ms. Clinton can be devastating on the attack. In these wretched primaries, we do not see this. I think the Republicans rightly fear her wrath, preferring the naive Obama.
Larry,
Hey way to really stir things up at Daily Kos. I’m not sure if I agree with your hypothesis. Normally I would have suggested you had worked at the CIA a little too long. However, after the past 7 years I have begun to feel like I’m wearing a tinfoil hat. It certainly is a question worth asking. Especially if Bloomberg throws his hat in the ring.
stirred up enough for this diary:
Why Are Rightwing Republicans Hyping Roosevelt?
BREAKING: PAKISTAN’S BENAZIR BHUTTO ASSASSINATED.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22406555/?gt1=10645
Shot thru the neck, not blowed up.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/12/27/pakistan.sharif/index.html
Let me grab a tissue.
hey larry I hear that Michelle Obama is a CIA operative working on WMD issues. All’s fair in love and war so she’s fair game wouldn’t you agree?
keep on the “attack obama” memo. you’re doin a heck of a job
Spouses, regardless of their relationship with the CIA, are not “fair” game.
Obama merits attack on his waffling on tough issues. Voting present rather than saying yay or nay is representative of his so-called profile in courage. Obama’s wife is not and should not be an issue.
Bhutto’s been assasinated.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/28/world/asia/28pakistan.html?hp
wow that place is a powder keg
Bush says during comments …” undermine Pakastan’s democracy”….HUH? Did I miss something? What democracy?
The coverage is killing me. They are saying that the heart of Pakistan was killed!
They don’t mention that Bhutto robbed the nation blind and supported the Taliban.
You know we’ve been trying to get rid of Musharaff since he’s become a bit independant. Bhutto wasn’t able to do it so she became expendable too.
Next sucker to die?
I was kidding. the obvious parralel is the bush adminsitrations coordinated effort to take down your friend joe wilson.
now we have the hillary campaign coordinating to take down one of HER political opponents. Comparing him to the likes of bill kristol and George Bush!
Hillary’s “courage” has led her to vote wrong on all the major issues of the day: Iraq, israel lebanon (anyone who doubts she is lieberman jr should read the emails she sent to supporters during that one), kyl lieberman, open borders, socialized medicine and prett5y much every other measure that can hurt america and enhance the power of the governemnt.
Obama does not deserve to be compared to bill kristol at the behest of hilary rodham clinton and she is no friend of the anti war movement or of America period
Every time I come here you have some asshole, or yourself, slamming Obama and elevating Hillary Clinton. Fuck that beotch and fuck you too. I’ve had it with your god damned bullshit. She can’t win. She’s the one person Republicans would love to have as an opponent.
As far as Obama being black and a target for Republicans? Here’s a clue for you assholes, Republicans will swiftboat any candidate Democrats put up. It’s all out war and you fuckheads are handing them a bazooka.
Since I’m going to be booted anyway. Fuck Hillary Clinton. She’s a vicious c*nt who will never be president. I will never, ever vote for that pig-eyed sack of dogshit.
Morons.
With such an eloquent spokesman such as you - (and your persuasive, measured and thoughtful reasoning for Obama) - your camp should have no problems cinching the nod from the Dems.
Oh yeah, say hi to the straw man, will you?
And look up misogynist, you sound as if you’re only one more rejection away from going postal.
And easy on the spittle, junior.
“You have to suffer if you want to sing the blues”…you’d think somebody tied this boy to the “wippin’ post” as kid and thus his anger….
Putz.
Since I’m going to be booted anyway
should read: i am engaging in conduct that i know will get me booted. i choose to engage in such conduct. ergo, i choose to boot myself.
~~~
bye bye. as they say, “don’t let the door hit ya, where the good lord split ya.”
personal note: i hope you’re a better carpenter than a commenter on the internet. despite your intemperate language, best.
Bhutto’s been assassinated.
Clearly, this is good news for Republicans.
Also, this is another problem being blamed on Bush, but clearly this is the fault of Bill Clinton.
There, we can now talk about it on rational terms that any beltway pundit or ‘thirty percenter’ could understand…
heckuva job!
Can’t really say how credible the “lone gunman” story is.
Marcellina | Homepage | 12.27.07 - 9:09 am | #
a youth was arrested, yesterday, for having explosives:
Youth with dynamite held near rally venue
PESHAWAR, Dec 26: A young man, allegedly carrying dynamite, was arrested here on Wednesday from outside the Arbab Niaz Stadium where Pakistan People’s Party chairperson Benazir Bhutto addressed a public meeting.
Reliable sources said the 19-year-old suspect, who identified himself as Raham Islam of Matani, had dynamite strapped to his body and he was trying to enter the stadium when he was stopped by security personnel. The suspect said that he had come here from a wedding party and could not find time to dispose of the explosive material.
The sources said he had been detained by the Crime Investigation Agency for interrogation, but CIA officials denied having any suspect in their custody.
Capital City Police Officer Tanveer-ul-Haq Sipra told Dawn that the accused had been arrested and was under interrogation.
He said proper security measures had been taken for the meeting and no untoward incident had taken place.
Meanwhile, a firecracker went off in a drain at a place about one and a half kilometres from the stadium. Police officials avoided giving any details in this regard. Mr Sipra, however,
portia | 12.27.07 - 9:14 am |
quite a series of comments developed at other threads:
The Intelligence persons who helped fly bin Laden out of Afghanistan and the Tora Bora had a hand in her killing, the same agency that helped the Mujaheddin get started?
They run the intelligence services, but the military runs the nukular stuff.
How much direction can the military take in these matters since martial law was more or less declared when the Supreme Court was suspended in a decision for a time by Musharraf?
Has anyone run dual capacities that would position them to be the prime shot-caller in his stead or if he is out of the picture?
Anyone high in the ladder who has blood lines or direct political affiliations with someone in the other leg of their security apparatus?
Name that coup…
Name that coup…
For better or worse…is martial law good for Republicans? Freting about the color coded “fear switch” being turned on at election time…the election in several states going screwy. Wonder what it would take for the 50% + 1 crowd to declare it.
MSM spin “chaos on TV” hear comes the hype of terror during the primaries.
don’t you know ,EVERYTHING that goes boom is Al Qaida. after all they are the ONLY group of people in the world that has grievances against others. The are the great BOOGIEMAN…I find it funny that Islamic terrorism is what we are all fighting against, not Terrorism from other faiths as well. There are Christian, Jewish and Muslim terrorist and they have always been around.
The better war to fight is against Extremism of any stripe.
You forgot about the secular terrorists, such as, for example, the Tamil Tigers, who by the way are the real masters of the suicide bombing.
I was kidding. the obvious parralel is the bush adminsitrations coordinated effort to take down your friend joe wilson.
now we have the hillary campaign coordinating to take down one of HER political opponents. Comparing him to the likes of bill kristol and George Bush!
OMG! WHAT IDIOCY!
there is “no obvious parallel.” one is treason. the other is normal politics.
If I were an Obama supporter I would say…
Dear Mr. Johnson,
For starters, thank you for your work on behalf of our country.
Allow me to state why I believe Sen. Obama is best suited to be the Democratic nominee for POTUS.
Sure, like all the candidates, he has made missteps and this is his first time under the all too glaring spotlight of the national stage. However, he is a quick study and learns from his mistakes. Who among us does not have clay feet?
His accomplishments include…insert here
He is a good, principled, hard working man - insert examples here.
And unlike candidate A, B, C or D, I prefer his positions on insert here. And this is why - insert here.
I will not take the tack of Bill Kristol, who in a debate with Joe Wilson, stated that on the ground experience is over rated.
Sen Obama has sought advice from those with relevant expertise since day one. And he is a voice for many of us that feel we have not had one. etc…
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Anyway, you all get my drift. But no, we get emotionally challenged droolers such as Davis 13 upstream who is seemingly incapable of expressing anything except his hatred and contempt of women.
As for myself, I went from JE, to Barack to Hillary - whom I thought I would never support. And though unlikely, that could change. Anyway, Season’s Best.
I’m a Ron Paul supporter. I would be voting for Guliani or Romney if not for their insane foreign policy views, many of which are shared by HIllary.
wethornet- this blog is usually about current events, espeically in the middle east and espicially about thosei n washington , namely the neoconservatives, who have been steering u in the wrong direction there. All of the sudden one day there is topic after topic about Hillary Clinton and how great she is. it’s scary. It’s like Larry JOhnson and Susan PC have become Stepford people.
and wehat makes it all the more strange is the most obvious point: hillary is not exactly known for her sagacity on foreign affairs. look at her votes!
I just can’t fathom why anyone here would support someone who cares so little about the types of issues that are discussed here.
I don’t think anyone here has the same enthusiasm for bashing barak obama as you all do. or a fraction of the fear of an obama presidency as one that will leave the neo cons with a direct line to the white house.
I don’t hate barak obama. I hate joe lieberman and bill kristol.
Wow… So Hillary Clinton knows nothing about foreign affairs? Wow.
Perhaps you might want to re-read an earlier post by Joe Wilson, in which he explained Hillary Clinton’s role in encouraging her spouse (when he was Pres.) to visit Africa.
But perhaps you think that we should just leave all the problems of that continent to be solved by Bono, Angelina Jolie, and assorted hangers-on…? Let’s just not bother any US presidents, nor presidential candidates, with fuzzy details about critical continents, when the REAL rock stars can address Serious Problems, eh?)
Curiously, Joe Wilson seems to think it’s worth keeping Africa on the foreign pollicy radar. But then, what would a former ambassador know, huh…?
——-
As for the woman-hater on this thread, he has inadvertantly shown just HOW tough Hillary is — his comments speak volumes about what she’s really up against. I’m only surprised he didn’t sign himself ‘americanTalibani’; perhaps he’d like to see us American women in burkas, unable to drive, hold jobs, or contribute in any meaningful way to society?
———–
Larry, appreciate your enlightening expose of why the Repubs are marketing Obama so urgently these days.
So then the options left to us are to elect a Republican lite candidate(Hillary) or a candidate that the MSM abhors and will do everything they can, ala Gore 2000, to destroy? F@ck me.
Someone upthread said the GOP would be counting on their core constituency, racists, to vote against Obama. I believe that’s true, but I wouldn’t expect the Dems to do any better in the south if they ran Hillary. At this point, I’m not willing to buy what Larry’s selling.
[...] post by Larry Johnson This was written by political. Posted on Wednesday, December 26, 2007, at 6:15 pm. Filed [...]
readerof tea leaves- I was referring specifically to Mr Wilsons beltway style smear of obama. and no, i don’t think Aftrica should be on our “foreign policy radar” at all. we don’t need to spread al queda there any more than we already have.
MAN, did I ever misjudge the left wing of the antiwar movement. next you are going to tell me they hate us for our freedoms and iraq would have been a cakewalk if we ‘d done it the right way
[...] the pages of the Wall Street Journal? Don’t forget Larry Johnson’s warnings in “Why Are the Rightwing Republicans Hyping Obama?” — which should be re-read by every true [...]
[...] now, beyond the pages of the Wall Street Journal? Don’t forget Larry Johnson’s warnings in “Why Are the Rightwing Republicans Hyping Obama?” — which should be re-read by every true [...]
[...] salivated at the prospect of Obama as their general election opponent. Read Larry’s “Why Are the Rightwing Republicans Hyping Obama?,” from December 2007. (Why have the ‘wingers been excoriating Hillary? To get her out [...]
Hasn’t the real right (Limbaugh) been touting Hillary for the last two or three months…so therefore, by your own logic…
“Or maybe it’s just that these Republicans just want the Democrats to nominate someone they know will be easy to best.”
[...] fans, like “conservative pundit Andrew Sullivan” (it’s so odd that there are so many conservative fans of Obama) who “imagine” that “it is Obama’s face — just his face — that [...]