Hey Obama. What Flavor is the Kool Aid?
By Larry Johnson
Email: larry_johnson@earthlink.net
Site: http://NoQuarterUSA.net
About: Larry C. Johnson is a former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who moved subsequently in 1989 to the U.S. Department of State, where he served four years as the deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. He left government service in October 1993 and set up a consulting business. He currently is the co-owner and CEO of BERG Associates, LLC (Business Exposure Reduction Group) and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, and crisis and risk management, and money laundering investigations. Johnson is the founder and main author of No Quarter, a weblog that addresses issues of terrorism and intelligence and politics. NoQuarterUSA was nominated as Best Political Blog of 2008.[1] He has worked as a private consultant on issues of international terrorism and security for the U.S. Government and private companies. Johnson has appeared as a consultant and commentator in many major newspapers and news programs.[2]
Contents [hide]
1 Background
2 Views
2.1 1996
2.2 1998
2.3 1999
2.4 2000
2.5 2001
2.6 2003
2.6.1 Plame affair
2.7 2008
3 Notes
4 References
5 External links
[edit]Background
Larry Johnson moved to Washington, D.C. in 1979 to begin work on a Ph.D. at the American University. Although he completed successfully all coursework and comprehensive exams, he did not write a dissertation. In 1978 and in 1983-85 he worked in Latin America on community development projects as a community organizer. Returning to the United States in 1985 he joined the Central Intelligence Agency, thanks in part to a letter of recommendation from Republican Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) that helped to "open doors" for him at the Agency.[3] Johnson entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985 and was a classmate of Valerie Plame. Every member of that class was undercover. After a year in the Career Trainee program, which included a stint with the Afghan Task Force, Johnson was assigned as an analyst in the Middle America Caribbean Division in the Latin American Affairs Office of the Directorate of Intelligence. He received two Exceptional Performance awards and was promoted ultimately to Senior Regional Analyst for Central America.
Johnson remained undercover in the CIA until October 1989, when he resigned from the CIA and started a new job in the Office of Counter Terrorism at the Department of State. Johnson played an instrumental role in launching the Terrorism Rewards program international advertising campaign (working with Diplomatic Security officers Brad Smith and Michael Parks). [4] Johnson also was involved in a variety of crisis management response operations, including the release of hostages from Lebanon and liaison with the Pan Am 103 families. He left government service in October 1993 and started his own business as a consultant.
After leaving government service, Johnson became a frequent guest on many major television news shows when a question of terrorism came up. He was first interviewed by CNN following the capture of Carlos the Jackal. Johnson subsequently appeared on CNN, ABC's Nightline, CBS, the BBC, MSNBC, the Jim Lehrer News Hour, NBC, and NPR. In December of 1999, for example, Johnson was hired by NBC to serve as its terrorist expert for the Y2000 and was in Time Square with Tom Brokaw and Katie Couric ("a lot of fun and the best way to see in the New Year"). Johnson also was hired in January 2002 as a Fox News Analyst and remained under contract until February 2003.
Since 1994 a significant focus of Johnson's consulting work has been with the U.S. military special operations forces in scripting and conducting military counter terrorism exercises. He traveled under orders from the U.S. military to Iraq in May 2006 to work on a short term project.
A registered Republican who supported President Bush in 2000, Johnson became a strong critic of the Bush administration in May 2003 for its conduct of the war in Iraq and, a few months later, for its role in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame.[5] He was also featured in the 2004 political documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism. Since Robert Novak's controversial disclosure of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative in July 2003, Johnson has contributed to public discourse on intelligence matters, often sparking further controversy. He has been interviewed by both the mass media and the alternative media and published commentaries on a variety of issues, including the Plame affair, the controversy concerning Mary McCarthy, and the resignation of Porter Goss as Director of Central Intelligence.
[edit]Views
This article or section may contain an inappropriate mixture of prose and timeline.
Please help convert this timeline into prose or, if necessary, a list.
[edit]1996
In 1996, Johnson noted that terrorism worldwide was on the decline. "Terrorist incidents [both internationally and in the US] have fallen to levels not seen since the 1970s. Whether measured by the number of incidents, the number of fatalities, or the number of groups, raw statistics demonstrate that the level of terrorist violence has declined since the mid-1980s. In fact, the evidence suggests terrorism was more widespread and deadly 10 years ago."[6]
He also wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times suggesting that the newer and more deadly terrorist threat to the U.S. was embodied by "networks of terrorists, mostly foreign, working within its borders." Exemplifying this threat was Ramzi Yousef, one of the masterminds behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. In the article, Johnson suggests that enhanced cooperation between intelligence agencies, particularly the FBI and CIA, is mandatory to meet the growing threat of terror networks.[7]
[edit]1998
In 1998, Johnson argued that while overall terrorism was declining, the threat from bin Laden and al-Qaeda should be the focus of American counterterrorism policy:
The nature of the threat posed by Bin Ladin is highlighted by my final chart, number 7. Osama Bin Ladin and individuals associated with him have killed and wounded more Americans than any other group. This chart also illustrates that groups such as Hamas and the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) prior to 1998 have killed more foreigners in the anti-US terrorist attacks. If we take into account the bombings of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Osama's status as the most lethal terrorist is certain.[8]
In addition, he told USA Today that bin Laden had participated in "virtually every major attack of terrorism against the United States" in the 1990s. Johnson underlined the threat posed by bin Laden, saying that he was possessed by "hatred and craziness." If left unanswered, "he would continue to terrorize Americans around the world. He has no compunction about killing women and children. He's a complete egalitarian in his murderous attitude."[9]
[edit]1999
In an interview with PBS's Frontline for its 1999 program, Hunting bin Laden, Johnson discussed Osama bin Laden.[10] According to Johnson, Americans had "tended to make Osama bin Laden sort of a superman in Muslim garb." "Actually," he continues, "Osama bin Laden, in my view, represents more of a symptom of a problem, and the problem is this: the Saudi Arabian government, not just Osama bin Laden but many people in Saudi Arabia, have been sending money to radical Islamic groups for years." Johnson continued:
When you look at who's killed Americans in the last 10 years, the individuals he's supported and backed--I'm basing that upon the initial information that's been released in the indictments and conversations with others in the intelligence communities--Osama bin Laden has been the one killing Americans. No other terrorist group in the world has been out killing Americans except for Osama bin Laden.... Osama bin Laden remains out there as the one really targeting us. So, we recognize that he's the threat. He's serious about wanting to kill Americans, but as long as he's in Afghanistan, as long as he doesn't have access to a cell phone, as long as he can't just hop on a plane and travel wherever he wants without fear of being arrested, his ability to plan and conduct terrorist operations is extremely limited. We have to recognize [that] he would like to do a lot of damage. He would like to kill Americans, but wanting to is different from being able to, having the full capabilities in place.[11]
In the interview, Johnson doubted the ability of members of bin Laden's organization to plan and put their lives on the line:
There's not another Ali or Mustafa out there at this point and Osama bin Laden in my view has not been a very effective organizer or leader. He talks a great game and puts out terrific threats as far as stirring the passions in the United States and maybe firing up the imaginations of some young Muslims throughout the world. But when push comes to shove, can he get a group of people who are together who will say: we are going to plan an operation, we're going to put our lives on the line, we're going to go out and try and kill people and we don't care what the consequence is? It hasn't happened.[12]
Frontline asked:
[Is it] ... fair to say what you're saying is that the president of the United States, his national security advisor, his deputy national security advisor for counter-terrorism, are basically blowing smoke [about the danger posed by bin Laden] and his followers]?
Johnson responded:
They're grossly exaggerating the problem. They are hyping it. They shouldn't be talking about rising terrorism. Instead of saying "terrorism's rising," it's not. "Terrorism is spreading," it's not. "More people are dying from terrorism," not the case. But what they should be saying is, "There's one individual out there that really doesn't like us, and he's made it his mission in life to kill Americans, and we've gotta deal with him." But we need to have a voice of reason in that process instead of putting ourselves out crying wolf, because this is essentially what's taking place right now. They call it the administration that cries wolf.[12]
[edit]2000
Johnson co-authored an article in 2000 with Milt Bearden which focused on the threat posed by al-Qaeda specifically, rather than terrorism trends in general. Beardon and Johnson note that new information emerging about the bombings at Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 points to the threat posed by Imad Mugniyah and Osama Bin Laden will require "a coordinated policy that will employ a full range of covert, clandestine, diplomatic, and military operations," concluding:
The Clinton Administration has shot its bolt on the terrorist problem with small effect, and no last minute show of force will change the record. A new administration can start afresh with a more sharply defined set of terrorism goals – Mughniyeh and bin Laden and their protectors for starters – and bring the full, coordinated force of American diplomatic, military, and intelligence capabilities to bear on the problem.[13]
[edit]2001
After Johnson's testimony to the special forum at the U.S. Senate, Gary J. Schmitt, executive director and CEO of the Project for the New American Century, refers in the Daily Standard (blog) to an op-ed piece Johnson wrote two months prior to the 9/11 attacks, claiming that Johnson argued that the US had little to fear from terrorism.[14]
In an editorial entitled "The Declining Terrorist Threat," published in the New York Times on 10 July 2001, Johnson says:
Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.... None of these beliefs are based in fact.... While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across the continents, terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way.[15]
Ten days after the 9/11 attacks, after quoting the above passage, Timothy Noah concludes a post in his "Chatterbox" feature at Slate: "Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong."[16] Johnson defended himself against such attacks:
The rightwing is resurrecting an op-ed I wrote in July 2001. I stand by the full article. It is still relevant today. I am accused, incorrectly, of ignoring the threat of terrorism. In fact, I correctly noted that the real threat emanated from Bin Laden and Islamic extremism. President Bush, for his part, ignored the CIA warning in August 2001 that Al Qaeda was posed to strike inside the United States.[17]
After September 11, Johnson appeared several times on FOX News to address the question of military action against terrorism. On 14 November, he defended the FBI's proposal to interview 5,000 students in the U.S. suspected of having information relevant to the September 11 investigations:
I think they should talk to everyone that they feel they have a need to talk to. I mean, look, this is war. This is not a legal proceeding. This isn't the O.J. Simpson trial. The folks that attacked us -- they murdered Americans. And we've got to recognize that in wartime, we should do things differently.[18]
[edit]2003
In January 2003, Johnson wrote an analysis of the relationship between the upcoming U.S. invasion of Iraq and the threat of transnational terrorism. According to Johnson, Bremer's response was to tell him that "it didn't matter what Saddam did or didn't do, we were going to war."[19] The paper warned that an invasion would "do little to destroy the infrastructure of radical Islamic terrorism responsible for the 9-11 attacks." Noting that Saddam Hussein's regime has been a longtime supporter of regional terrorist organizations such as the PLO, Johnson examines contacts between Saddam Hussein and transnational terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda:
There is no doubt that Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism—i.e., a country that provides financial support, safe haven, training, or weapons and explosives to groups or individuals that carry out terrorist attacks. . . . According to Central Intelligence Agency data, there is no credible evidence implicating Iraq in any mass casualty terrorist attacks since 1991. . . .
Johnson notes that the period immediately leading up to 2003 saw a rise of activity surrounding terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, suggesting that "Iraq is willing to help a movement that it would otherwise oppose on ideological grounds. Nonetheless," Johnson concludes, "it is important to understand that Iraqi entreaties to Al Qaeda, are most likely intended as a tactic to bolster Iraq’s ability to fight off a U.S. invasion rather than a deep-seated theological and ideological commitment to the terrorist agenda of Bin Laden.[20]
In that analysis Johnson also warns that the U.S.-led invasion was likely to backfire:
In fact there is a serious risk that a U.S. led war against Iraq may crystallize the diffused anger in the Arab and Muslim world — a heretofore unattained goal of bin Laden and his followers — and persuade more Muslim youths to take up the terrorist banner against America and her citizens.... If we decide to invade Iraq we must be prepared for the contingency that our attack will inspire young Muslims to pursue jihad against the West in general and the United States in particular. Just as the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan rallied many Muslims, especially young adults to the cause of jihad, a U.S. attack may enable Islamic extremists to attract new followers.[20]
Johnson also gave interviews on the topic of what to do with captured al-Qaeda leaders; while he did not condone torture, he suggested that a "sleep deprivation and reward system" might be useful for getting information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:
I don't see a constitutional right to have eight hours of sleep. You shouldn't subject someone to freezing but they don't get to wear mink coats, either.[21]
In May 2003, Johnson joined members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) in condemning the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes:
It is a misuse and abuse of intelligence. The president was being misled. He was ill served by the folks who are supposed to protect him on this. Whether this was witting or unwitting, I don't know, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.[22]
[edit]Plame affair
After Robert Novak wrote a column identifying the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson as a CIA officer, the media invited Johnson to comment on the ensuing scandal because he had been a member of the same Career Trainee class with Valerie Plame Wilson. For example, in October 2003, he appeared on Democracy Now to discuss the Plame affair. He told interviewer Amy Goodman that Valerie Wilson's cover should have been respected whether she was an "analyst" or a "cleaning lady": "if she's undercover she's undercover, period. If the media allows themselves to get distracted with those kinds of curve balls, they ignore the issue."[23]
He told a Senate Democratic Policy Committee in October 2003, "My classmates and I have been betrayed. Together, we have kept the secrets of each other's identities a secret for 18 years. Each and every one of us have kept that secret, whether we were in the CIA, in other government service or in the private sector. But this issue is not just about a blown cover. It is about the destruction of the very essence, the core of human intelligence collection activities: plausible deniability, apparently, for partisan domestic political reasons."[24]
Johnson testified at a special joint hearing of Congressional and Senate Democrats on 22 July 2005 about the consequences arising from the Plame affair.[25]
[edit]2008
In 2008, Johnson emerged as a staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton and a strong critic of Barack Obama. Larry Johnson's blog, NoQuarterUSA, became a rally point for Clinton supporters wary of Barack Obama's qualifications to be president. Supporters of Barack Obama insist that a story that first appeared on Johnson's blog--a report that Republican operatives have a tape of Michelle Obama making racially insenstive comments about caucasians--has been "refuted" Barack Obama's Fight the Smears website.[26]. However, Johnson never claimed to have the tape and reported that the Republican operatives controlling it intended to release the tape sometime after the Democratic Convention in August 2008. On October 21, however, he asserted that the operative in possession of the tape had been instructed by the McCain campaign not to release it.[27]
[edit]Notes
^ http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-political-coverage/
^ Larry C. Johnson, "About Me," No Quarter (personal blog).
^ "Former CIA Official Larry Johnson Delivers Democratic Radio Address," transcript posted on official Democratic National Committee's website for The Democratic Party, July 23, 2005], accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Interview with Larry Johnson, confirmed by his supervisor
^ "Ex-CIA official Blasts Bush on Leak of Operative's Name: Democrats' Radio Address Focuses on White House Aides' Role," CNN July 23, 2005, accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Gail Russell Chaddock, "Why Terrorists Pick On the French," Christian Science Monitor (5 December 1996) p. 1.
^ Larry Johnson, "Terrorists Among Us," New York Times (20 August 1996) p. A19.
^ Terrorism Today
^ Lee Michael Katz, "The Hunt for Bin Laden," USA Today (21 August 1998) p. 1A.
^ See Transcript of original interview with Larry C. Johnson, as broadcast on Frontline in 1999. Cf. "Interview: Larry C. Johnson," for Hunting bin Laden, transcript of interview broadcast on Frontline subsequently on 13 April 2001. See also dedicated PBS webpages for media links: Iraq and the War on Terror, Frontline PBS, online featured programs, accessed 19 November 2006.
^ frontline: hunting bin laden: interviews: larry c. johnson | PBS
^ a b [1].
^ As posted in [2].
^ Gary Schmitt, [ 07/25/2005 "Meet Larry Johnson: The CIA official Turned Democratic Spokesman Has a Pre-9/11 Mindset," Daily Standard (blog), July 25, 2005, accessed November 20, 2006.
^ *Larry C. Johnson, "The Declining Terrorist Threat," The New York Times 10 July 2001: A19.
^ Timothy Noah, "(Not Exactly a) Whopper of the Week: Larry C. Johnson," Chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics (blog), hosted by Slate September 21, 2001, accessed November 20, 2006. Note the full context of this quotation:
It is, to be sure, a little bit cheap (and slightly at odds with the usual parameters of this feature) to criticize someone for making an erroneous prediction, particularly after a tragedy. Chatterbox is especially reluctant to tag Johnson because Johnson's op-ed was argued forcefully, backed up meticulously with factual data, and bravely at odds with conventional wisdom at the time of its publication. Add in that Johnson now makes his living as a consultant to corporations about terrorism, and therefore had everything to gain by exaggerating the dangers terrorism poses, and the guy practically looks like a hero. Chatterbox, who two decades ago was an editor for the New York Times op-ed page, would have published Johnson's piece had he still been an editor there this past July. In his capacity at Slate, Chatterbox might well have written up Johnson's prediction, and perhaps even endorsed it.
But boy, is he glad he didn't! Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong. Sadly, a mistake this embarrassing cannot be ignored. As a fellow skeptic, Chatterbox in all sincerity wishes Johnson better luck next time.
^ Larry C. Johnson, "Johnson vs. President Bush," re-posted and updated by SusanHu at DailyKos (blog) July 25, 2005.
^ FOX News Interview with John Garrett (14 November 2001) Transcript #111405cb.260.
^ [3].
^ a b Larry C. Johnson, "Setting the Record Straight on Iraqi Terrorism," posted in Booman Tribune: A Progressive Community (personal blog) 27 January 2003. accessed 19 November 2006.
^ Qtd. in Toby Harnden, "CIA 'pressure' on al-Qa'eda chief," The London Telegraph 5 March 2003: 16.
^ Qtd. in Nicolas D. Kristof, "Save Our Spooks," The New York Times 30 May 2003:A6.
^ Democracy Now (3 October 2003)[4]
^ U.S. Senate, Democratic Policy Committee Meeting on the CIA Operative Leak, (24 October 2003).
^ Letter to the Senate.[Needs full source citation; see "References" section.]
^ Tumulty, Karen (2008-06-12). "Will Obama's Anti-Rumor Plan Work?", Time Magazine. Retrieved on 20 June 2008.:"a story that apparently first made a big splash on the Internet in late May in a post by pro-Hillary Clinton blogger Larry Johnson"
^ Whitey Tape, API, Phil Berg, and Andy MartinSee Authors Posts (1090) on January 17, 2008 at 10:39 PM in Current Affairs
You know where I stand. I believe with every fiber of my being that Barack Obama is not qualified to be President. Two undistinguished years as a Senator and being a “nice” guy in the Illinois state legislature are laughable, yet this guy is getting serious attention. I’m just waiting for Obama to decide to take his followers to Guyana. He reminds me of Jim Jones, the famous San Francisco preacher who led his congregation to their deaths in the jungles of Guyana.
“Oh, Larry,” you say, have you gone over the edge? Well, take a look at this and tell me what you think:
I’ve been blessed to hear many great orations. I was in the audience when Howard Dean gave his famous address challenging the Democratic Party to rediscover courage and return to principle. I have heard Bill Clinton speak of a place called Hope, and listened to John Edwards bravely channel the populism that American politics so often suppresses. Some of those politicians mirrored my beliefs better than Obama does. Some of their speeches were more declarative and immediate in their passion. But none achieve quite what Obama, at his best, creates.
Obama’s finest speeches do not excite. They do not inform. They don’t even really inspire. They elevate. They enmesh you in a grander moment, as if history has stopped flowing passively by, and, just for an instant, contracted around you, made you aware of its presence, and your role in it. He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh, over color, over despair. The other great leaders I’ve heard guide us towards a better politics, but Obama is, at his best, able to call us back to our highest selves, to the place where America exists as a glittering ideal, and where we, its honored inhabitants, seem capable of achieving it, and thus of sharing in its meaning and transcendence.
That friends, is the well-respected Ezra Klein. Jesus Fucking Christ!!! “Triumph of word over flesh?” Great, we now have the black Jesus. When do we get the sermon on the mount (blessed are the peacemakers. . .) and I wonder what kind of loaves and fishes he’ll be serving?
Unfortunately, this kind of adoration is all too common. Seemingly sane, common sense folks are going weak in the knees, and likening Obama to the reincarnation of John and Bobby Kennedy combined. But this honeymoon will end. Democrats can only hope the realities of Obama’s true record and personality are exposed before the primary season ends. Otherwise, you can count on the Republicans retaining the White House. Jim Jones’ kool-aid killed his followers. The Barack Obama version will kill the Democrats if folks keep chugging this stuff down.
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
Obama does not remind me of Jim Jones but who ever is in charge of the Obamarama spin machine must have worked for the Bush administration or studied with Karl Rove. So much media hooey
The analogy holds. I have observed glazed eyes, and irrational celebrity adoration given to this rather wan man with no ideas and a guy who we saw today who pandered to 2 uberrightwing papers in NV.
Mr. Democracy told us how transformational and wonderful Ronald Reagan was. Yes, even more than Bill Clinton, and of course Nixon. Like the comparison?
Mr. Obama it seems is a stinker. He’s not much of a Democrat as he heads into Reagan country and awaits any votes he can find in California no matter what he has to say or do.
This is what the bling followers do not see. Actually they want to be redeemed and delivered. White guilt. Black pride. Hillary hate. Bush rage.
What a cocktail, but he’s getting everybody drunk on it!
Personally, I have a hangover already seeing the Pied Piper Syndrome in full sway.
It is, essentially, the same group that bought into Rove, and Bush, buying the image, the glamour, and the fantasy, as opposed to the truth.
They have a need to be rescued from the mundane, much like the middle aged man needing to reaffirm himself in the eyes of a twenty year old woman, say. They are hooked on the way Obama makes them feel, the excitement, the attention, the sense of uniqueness they are other wise unfamiliar with, comes to fruition when they see themselves as part of brand Barry.
I read somewhere Obama’s handlers intended to sell an image of Obama, because his record was so weak.
And they are, it’s the equivalent of ” what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas” giving the consumer a feeling of exclusiveness.
But strip that glamour, referring to Obama as ordinary “Barry,” say, and the excitement, the hipness factor goes.
Again, if the consumer ignores the lesson of Bush, they deserve Barry.
You know how fickle Hollywood is…
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Does Karl Rove run an “Advanced Slimy Tactics” course at a college/university somewhere? Too many of Obama’s tactics seem to come directly from that playbook.
You are seeing the work of Robert Gibbs, David Plouffe, and David Axelrod in Obama.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/22/134458/142
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/12/7/22374/8663
http://www.akpmedia.com/partners/dplouffe.html
http://www.akpmedia.com/partners/daxelrod.html
all you have to do is ask an Obama supporter “why” they support Obama? They generally go blank for a few seconds…like a zombie and then start repeating he is the candidate of “hope” the “agent of change”. Then when you ask for proof…sparks start coming out of their ears….they have generally blown a fuse.
It is frightening!
The reapeat, over and over again the same litany. He’s eintelligent, His stellar record as a community organizer, he makes everyone ‘feel good’, He gives us hope.
There should be some concern of the phenomenon that creates such a cult, and that presupposes female submission to such a cult.
White guys seem to be losing their touch, and it’s fairy obvious that white women never had one to begin with - at least, with other women.
When all God’s children defer to a different God, does God still exist?
Let’s contrast that to Hillary Clinton’s “real” record: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . unless you consider being the wife of a President experience. And if you do, where are the accomplishments during those 8 glorious years of Bill Clinton that qualifies either one of them as change agents? Healthcare - nothing. Energy - nothing. The economy - let’s not forget the dot.com and NASDAQ crash along with all those corporate scandals that took place during their watchful eyes.
Also what great legislative accomplishments has she had since being handed Moynihan’s seat 7 years ago that qualifies her as a “change agent?”
Markom,
susan has already provided reams of evidence, but try this. On a sheet of paper list every hearing Obama has chaired while in the Senate and then list the hearings chaired by Hillary.
Then, look at the follow up investigations and legistlation produced from said hearings. Hillary kicks Obamas ass on that score. Not even close.
Markom,
If you really want to see her votes go to Washington Post online click politics, then Congress. All senate votes and bills , details are there. See Obama’s there too.
Bio her on Google. She has had a distinguished life if you can stand it. Seems you’ve done this before and don’t want to see the facts.. If so, why bother? Just don’t vote for her.
I will be voting for Hillary Clinton should she be nominated.
So you would have to admit that the only real accomplishment of this election is that Dems are NOT putting up a “D” student from Yale this time.
Is it worth even showing up for the primary for a battle between lightweight legislatures - one with slightly more experience than the other? Sorry, but I am not buying this shared experience fog by Hillary. But if she is trying to create this myth of “35 years experience” she did have 8 years in the White House and if you look at a list of their admitted accomplishments there is zero about energy and zero about healthcare. In fact most of the major accomplishments were GOP initiatives that they had no choice but try totake credit for.
Sorry, but I can’t get excited by either one of these so-called “change agents” who have not changed anything in public policy nor have they run anything during their “illustrious” careers.
One more comment to that reply . . . .
So we are to choose among a 1+ term Senator, a Senator who served only 1 term, and a Senator who has less than one term and spent most of that running for President.
Gone are the really qualified: Dodd, Biden, and Richardson.
The only ones drinking the Kool Aid are everyone in the party who really believe we have this great choice of “rock stars.”
You have some solid points. “Gone are the really qualified. Dodd, Biden, Richardson”
Sadly if that was the only threshold we wouldn’t be in this pickle barrel.
Are you implying that GWB had any real experence credentials before assuming office? Or that he had anything more than a “D” average at Yale as Kerry did?
I am upset that Iowa and N.H. have determined who I can and cannot vote for in the primary. Why do we have to settle for the lesser of evils and not for the most qualified who may not be “rock stars?”
Now days it is not about being the most qualified or the context of the Debate would be different.
It seems to me more about maintaining the edifice of an illusion as to where “power” resides in this country.
Will that be Kosher or Dill?
Where can this information be found?
I suggest you access all her voting records in Senate on Washington Post online…go to politics/congress. Compare them to Obama’s.
Then Google her Bio and her distinguished record in civil rights, childrens rights, and enacting protectionist law for children, and much more from her roots as a “Goldwater Girl” to her transformation at Wellsey. Her commencement speech at Wellsey remains relevant and inspiring to this day.
Her Bio can also be augmented from letters The New York Times published written by Hillary during Wellsley period to her friends.
You really no nothing about her. She voted for progressive bill amendments that Obama voted against. Can also be seen in WashPost online.
“her distinguished record in civil rights, childrens rights, and enacting protectionist law for children”
Yeah? Tell that to the children of Iraq. Tell that to the children of Serbia. Tell that to the children of Palestine, and especially of Ghazza. Tell that to the children of Lebanon. They will be terribly glad to hear about her distinguished record in protecting children and their rights.
I’m waiting to hear from Hillary’s mentor. Marion Wright Edleman (Children’s Defense Fund) stopped speaking to her years ago.
Great points!
So if I give a good speech at my commencement exercise does that qualify me as President.
Her record is smoke and mirrors and expects people to buy into it.
If she uses her husband’s records then there are no substantive accomplishmentsone should own up to other than smoke and mirrors.
And if you are using her voting record then there are 50 Senators all equally qualified to be President. What substantive legislation did she (not Chuck Schumer who has been doing ALL the NYS work)create - not attach her name to - not just vote for?
Apparently you don’t think the S-CHIP bill was important? Hillary was a leader in getting that passed.
There is a reason that conservative upstate New York reelected Hillary by an overwhelming margin. They know she has been an effective Senator, working hard to promote economic growth in that economically depressed region.
Hillary has worked for years on issues like education and child health. In Arkansas she successfully spearheaded a badly needed education reform bill, among many other things.
As for Bill, he was severely handicapped by the huge debt that had been run up by Reagan and Bush and yet he managed to turn this debacle around and put us on the road to fiscal health. That is no small thing, considering the unbelievable attacks that were being made on him (pre Monica, too) and the compliance of our media with these far right assaults. Under him, our economy was strong and it was not all because of a bubble. We were respected in the world. According to Richard Clarke, he was taking terrorism very seriously unlike his predecessors.
S-Chip was orignally a Ted Kennedy/Orin Hatch bill that happened to be during the Clinton administration. What does Hillary have to do with it? In addition S-Chip is a band-aid for a much larger problem that was not addressed during Clinton’s 8 years. If Hillary is running on being a change agent and taking liberties with taking credit for events during her husband’s administration, then where was the “change” in healthcare?
Regarding the economy, Clinton had a conservative Congress that forced him to deal with the deficit, forced him to deal with welfare reform, and foreced him to approve NAFTA.
Bottom line. Hillary has little experience and is no change agent as she contends.
as far as her election, she was up against “nobodys” and there never was even contest for her original nomination. The workhorse for NYS has been and continues to be Chuck Schumer who wroks very hard while Hillary takes credit for things she has no or little part of.
Chuck Schumer who works very hard …
Can you tell me why he would suggest the current AG?
Schumer originally had Mukasey on his list of recommendations to the President. Therefore he was in no position to go back on his word over the issue of waterboarding.
What does Teddy say?
President Clinton signed the bill in August 1997.
While Kennedy is widely viewed as the driving force behind the program, by all accounts the former first lady’s pressure was crucial.
“She wasn’t a legislator, she didn’t write the law, and she wasn’t the president, so she didn’t make the decisions,” says Nick Littlefield, then a senior health adviser to Kennedy. “But we relied on her, worked with her and she was pivotal in encouraging the White House to do it.”
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/06/clinton_claims_credit_for_child_program/
I guess maybe you would also say Eleanor Roosevelt had no hand in integrating the US armed forces. It was all the work of Harry Truman???
This is classic Clinton revisionism. Did ted Kennedy say that in 1997 or when Hillary ran for Senate? No he conveniently said it last year when she was running for President.
I think we can agree that many 20th century first ladies were influential in their husband’s administration to certain degrees. That does not entitle them to blanket credit for anything that happened at that time without recorded confirmation of that.
OT Larry Air America talk show host Ed Schultz and Richard Greene are going to town with O’Reilly’s comments about “show me the Vets under bridges” comments that O’Reily made. We know that Edwards has consistently brought our attention to over the last year.
Keith Olberman also put out the big “house them or shut up” challenge to O’Reilly. These challenges are sure to last for days now.
I am sure Klein has been drinking SOMETHING, to have written that piece. I am not sure it is Obama’s fault he did… and I do agree with you Larry, that it is crazy to even try to compare Obama to some kind of saviour or something. America, and people like Klein do nothing to help the American people find the best candidate, when they drool so slovenly over any one of them. All have faults as well as good qualities. My personal thoughts on Obama are that he is an exceptional orator, and has many admirable qualities, but he is not yet seasoned, or experienced enough. His time has not yet come. Perhaps a VP candidate, and maybe 8 years from now, a WH bid…
Lady,
Obama is playing to win.
Leading The Village By Their Collective Snouts
by tristero
Like Digby, I am puzzled - and appalled - by Obama invoking Reagan as some kind of icon of positve change. It’s like an aspiring surgeon saying he wants to follow in the bloody footsteps of Jack the Ripper, even if surely he disagrees with some of Saucy Jack’s procedures.
But Obama isn’t stupid, so he clearly is no Reaganite. Therefore, I am entertaining the possibility that perhaps this is an extremely clever rhetorical strategy on Obama’s part, complete with a dog whistle to people like you and me. Surely Obama knows modern rhetoric better than any other American politician and most cultural observers. So I think this may be a plausible explanation of what he’s up to:
Obama believes the country isn’t in love with conservative ideas per se. But both the voters - but especially the press - loved the way Reagan packaged them.
That is what I think Obama is saying - Republicans win merely on packaging, not on widespread support of their ideas. And he thinks he can win very wide support simply by associating liberal/moderate ideas with an updated version of Reagan’s manufactured persona. Going even further with this, Obama is addressing not “the American people” directly, but the people who serve as the mediator between politicians and the people, ie, The Village. This makes sense. After all, The Village are the ones who first have to accept and then spread a politician’s manufactured persona. As for Reagan’s conservatism, Obama understands that The Village neither knows or cares very much about that, beyond a few short slogans - “death tax, partial-birth abortion,” yadda yadda. In other words,
Obama is trying to appropriate the Reagan-Love that The Village feels - and by extension, felt by the voters they influence - for himself.
It doesn’t matter that it’s all illusion. By co-opting not the legacy of Reagan but simply his image within The Village, Obama makes it difficult for Republicans to paint themselves without a fight as the only heirs of the cheerful, confident, can-do America that Reagan’s myth says he was.
Now, we know Reagan was nothing like his image, And Obama knows we know. That’s the dog whistle. His Reagan-loving is just bait for a corrupt press corps fixated on images and perceptions. He is playing their own game against them, and he is much smarter than they.
A caveat: Obama truly is a genius at talking in a manner which makes you think he’s saying what you hope he’s saying. So I could be wrong and a President Obama could be Reagan-lite, God help us. But whatever Obama is up to here, I hope he knows what he’s doing. Despite his image, Reagan was a catastrophically bad president, the worst in my lifetime until Bush (and then his son).
Reagan is no one to hold up as an example to Democrats without a damn good reason. That is why I supect Obama has one.
This is all part of the overarching desire to be a rich African American millionaire/billionaire Oprah clone. A
Oprah has long been a closeted Republican.
Republican African Americans pride themselves in that they are not seen as “victims”. Condy Rice, Colin Powell are the role models along with corporate heavies.
And this is bad because?
Norris,
If Obama and Michelle had this desire they would have made other choices after law school.
Next try?
I have tried to watch her program a few times and can never figure out what all the hooplah is about. Wish she would put someone on the cover of her magazine besides herself (yawn)
After watching Obama’s performance today in praise of the great transformational Ronald Reagan from his endorserments from the Right Wing Press of Nevada, it will be even harder for me to figure out the drooling masses. Or Klein.
Klein is Arianna Huffington’s henchman/hitman for Hillary. Huffington Post is totally biased regarding Hillary, and skews everything to Obama’s advantage.
Before becoming a “progressive” Arianna arrrived in New York from Oxford, England as a full fledged conservative. Very conservative. After going to NY parties, writing a book on Picasso, Arianna married Mr. Huffington, a mutimillionaire conservative. Mr.H. ran for congress as a conservative, and Arianna hit the campaign trail with him. Mr. Huffington lost his bid. She had two daughters, and Arianna and Mr. H. divorced.
Fast forward to Gore vs. Bush. Arianna morphed into a “progressive” and shreiked that Gore and Bush were alike. Her support of Ralph Nader was intense, and she took every opportunity to trash Gore and tell us Nader was the only way. Gore was even worse than Bush and to hell with Democrats…vote Green Party.
Before creating HuffingtonPost, Arianna ran for Governor in California against Schwarznegger along with 500 other people.
Bingo…….HuffPo is born and Obama’s the guy!
Hillary is to be hated, shunned, revilled.
Arianna has Klein as one of her hitmen. He consistently disses Hillary no matter what. What is she really about and what are her politics?
Only The Shadow knows.
Boy are you right about the Huffington Post. Arianna is a gadfly. I think she particularly dislikes Hillary because Hillary is where she aspired to be. Arianna clearly had her eye on a larger prize than just wife of the Governor of California. She and hubby were rising stars until he decided to come out of the closet.
When Arianna was recently on Air America’s Mark Greens program “7 days in America” just after Iowa. Green, Huffington and Gary Hart all ignored Edwards second place finish. The few words Arianna had to say about Edwards were basically about how he should drop out.
Katrina from the Nation really tried to be fair and balanced about the candidates, but Mark Green swept her efforts right under the “progressive” (cough, cough) rug.
LOL! Hmmmmmmm…maybe Jim Jones did work for the CIA. LOL!
it’s funny that lj makes that reference, but i guess it takes one to know one…
“As the massacre unfolded, Jones can be heard on a tape recording yelling, “Get Dwyer out of here!” Richard Dwyer was later found at the airstrip, methodically washing his hands. In 1968, Dwyer was listed in the publication Who’s Who in the CIA. When asked if the allegation was true, he replied, “No comment.”
God. I was joking. Wow.
Hmmmmmmmm…
After receiving complaints lodged by relatives of cult members, Congressman Leo Ryan visited Jonestown on November 18, 1978 to investigate allegations of human rights abuses. Congressman Ryan, a noted CIA critic, had authored the Hughes-Ryan Amendment, which would have required the CIA to disclose to Congress — in advance — details of all covert operations. The State department offered Ryan no answers or assistance, despite numerous inquiries. He arrived with U.S. embassy official Richard Dwyer, as well as some journalists. Among the reporters was Tim Reiterman, who had covered the Patty Hearst story for the San Francisco Examiner.
In all likelihood, Ryan already suspected what was really going on at Jonestown. That was when all hell broke loose.
At the airstrip, Leo Ryan soon became the first congressman to die in the line of duty, along with four reporters. (The Hughes-Ryan Amendment was killed in Congress soon afterwards.) The assassins were described by witnesses as “glassy eyed,” “mechanically-walking zombies,” and “devoid of any emotion.” Dwyer and Reiterman were also shot. Soon after that, the mass slaughter began. A plausible explanation for the events that unfolded is that Jim Jones (or someone else) ordered the murders after Ryan’s unexpected visit threatened to expose what was happening. In the chaos that followed, a mass extermination was carried out.
http://conspiracypage.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/jonestown/
Two things:
1)This ends with:
Is that night November 4th? Or a night of drinking?
2) Won’t the morning after be awkward?
Your point is not lost on me Larry.
Taters,thanks for calling what it is.
swordsscimitars…Larry, it would be great if Obama would do the same.
Thank you Larry! It is always refreshing to read what you have to say as it is raw and no-nonsense.
It is very easy to get lost on what Obama says as he is quite an orator, but that is where it all stops. Haven’t we had enough bullshit already? When do we learn in this country? Personally, Obama gives me the creeps. He’s just too polished, too pristine, too neat, and pretty to be real. Where’s the beef?
He’s packaged, creepy, opportunistic and his politics are far more to the right than Edwards or Hillary.
He is a product of the Pritzker Billions machine in Chicago, and his donors [large ones] are heavy corporate,nuclear,healthcare, etc. Hyatt Hotels. S&L’s….
His Bio can be found re: voting record carefully hidden on Google, and Washington Post will give you his voted in US Senate.
Some of his votes are even creepier. He is a lightweight who has limited experience and no outstanding track record as a legiislator.
He orates with preacher passion, and this is very hypnotic when we see the crowds on Preacher TV.
I find him thin in experience and vague on substance. He is no way qualified for this very daunting job. His background reveals inconsistencies about his so called votes and/or positions.
Rezko’s Connection with Obama. Long story short; Obama bought his house for $300,000 less then Market Value. He buys the adjacent land for $500,500 less than the previous purchase price. Obama knew Rezko was under indictment at the time of his real estate purchases. He also knew Rezko was under Federal Investigation, when he accepted money from Rezko for his Senatorial Campaign., This is eerily similar to the beginning of the list of crimes in the Wilkes/Duke Cunningham affair.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4111483&page=1
Has anyone checked out the amount of down payment, mortgage, Real Estate Taxes etc on Obama’s Illinois house? What about Obama’s housing in DC? The figures don’t seem to add up to be affording so much real estate. Does an Illinois Senator make enough to buy a 1.6 million dollar home, less that one year after becoming a US Senator who started at about $165,000 per year?
Where’s the beef?
I think the question these days is not where but “Is the cloned beef safe to eat?”
So Obama is fawning and gushing over Reagan to pander to the right? The ersatz Gipper who introduced the term/adjective “homeless” into our American vocabulary. Perhaps he’s fondly recalling people pushing shopping carts with all their worldy belongings in numbers previously unseen or imagined. Reaganomics? Reagan said deficits don’t matter. Anyone believe that bullshit? Is he (Obama) out of his mind? It must really be a pain in the ass to wake up every day and constantly defend this clown. He simply is not a leader. And the “I’m a uniter, not a divider” theme has already been perpetrated in another playbook.
Reagan said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
I’ll bet you our veterans would really appreciate a functioning government that is there to help. This same kind of thinking led to the tragegy of Walter Reed. Katrina. The mining disaters. Poison from China. Not heeding the ‘Bin Laden determined to strike in US’ daily briefing.
A contempt of government will not allow one to govern properly. The next POTUS is is really going to need to do some heavy lifting to get us out of this mess.
Now what kills me is we have some bozos slamming Bill Clinton’s presidency - fair enough - but while their candidate of choice is hearting rightwingers with their make believe hero??? (That means Reagan to you Obama supporters)
Why do I often get the idea that many Obama supporters are incapable of nuanced thinking and may very well have previously voted for Sanjaya? And many of them seem to share a more than healthy dose of contempt for history.
They should be glad est isn’t recruiting anymore.
With apologies to former est folks…
Amen Larry. I was on the Obama train for awhile, until I kept hearing his supporters say “he inspires me” which began to sound like the liberal version of “i’d like to have a beer with him…” I took a second look at Hillary and haven’t looked back. Obama’s vague message of “hope” and “unity” has no translation into the real world of governing, and the longer this goes on, the more painfully obvious it becomes…it simply astonishes me that intelligent people whom I respect can’t see it and have completely abandoned their critical thinking skills and gone for the cult of personality. Some of these people are as bad as the Bush cultists from a few years ago. I thought our side was smarter than that…oh well what a surprise.
Maybe you ought to take a third look at Hillary, and then look beyond the Hillary/Obama duality at a third person?
Hillary, the great humanitarian and protector of children, has Madeleine “the price (of half a million dead Iraqi children under five years old) is worth it” Albright as her foreign policy advisor. Madeleine, I have learned today has jumped on the “let’s divide Iraq into three parts, against the will of 98% of its citizens” bandwagon (why is that not surprising?), which means that it is almost certain to be Hillary’s policy. After all, what is ignoring the will of all but a tiny percentage of Iraqis, breaking up a few million Iraqi families, and displacing a few millions more Iraqis, who have lived together with normal relations for centuries, when it comes to doing what the empress and her court have decided?
I also have a report (unconfirmed by me at present) that Madeleine “who cares about Iraqi children?” Albright (whom I personally saw hiding by lying on the back seat of her SUV as the moral coward fled the very effective extemporaneous, and very eloquent verbal onslaught of twenty-one-year-old Palestinian-American UC Berkeley valedictorian Fadia Rafidi’s response to her keynote address to the graduates) recommends (in addition to dividing Iraq, against the will of its citizens, into three ethno-sectarian parts) maintaining a force of some 40-60,000 or so for who knows how long. And why not? After all, it would be a shame to waste all those billions of dollars spent on very American military bases there. I mean, what use have Iraqis for miniature golf courses, bowling alleys, Pizza Huts, and Burger Kings?
do you have a link to Albright’s address and the response from Rafidi. I will go looking.
I have heard Albright say diplomacy diplomacy with Iran.
she was on C-span’s Washington Journal recently and when someone called in and said that Jimmy Carter was a bigot and anti-semite…Albright disagreed but then went onto to criticize Carter’s book “Palestine Peace, Not Apartheid”
Those oil pipe lines from Kirkuk to Haifa are critical
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=332835&sw=Haifa+Mosul
Rudy G was the home to “remove them” from the streets of NYC. I remember seeing an old women taken away after she froze too death one winter night by Union and 14th. It was right out of a Dostoevsky novel.
The ersatz Gipper who introduced the term/adjective “homeless” into our American vocabulary
What flavor does a lie taste like?
OT:
Not a word of criticism’ before or after destruction of waterboarding videos.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22712048/
What is the difference?
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/obama-gains-access-to-big-dollars-through-kerrys-endorsement-2008-01-18.html
I don’t know what the difference is since I’ve heard from friends who were on Kerry’s list that they are now receiving emails from the Obama campaign. And they are pissed.
I got my first e-mail from Barack the day after the Kerry endorsement. I was heavily invested in Kerry.
I would be as well.
Invoking the mantle of The Addled Puppet Reagan may be effective for a time, but does little to protect Obama from his own and his staff’s screw-ups. There’s not a Democrat in Nevada who considers the Las Vegas Review-Journal anything but a mullet wrapper and house organ for the casino moguls and mining bosses who run the Silver State.
The Publisher of the R-J, about 3 months ago, ran a piece detailing the delightful lunch he had with Matt Drudge, and recommended The Drudge Report to all his readers.
Why would Obama, or any other Democrat, even cross the threshold of this paper or the other rag in Reno?
Gross stupidity?
I fall back on previous statements:
1. Obama will run out his string by 15 April or so;
2. The Magic Negro act will wear thin;
3. He is little more than Harry Belafonte with a J.D.
Absent a handler of the caliber of the late Lynn Nofziger, Obama is toast. He just hasn’t, “popped up,” yet.
I haven’t seen this many normally rational people turned to drooling idiots since the days of Bagwhan Shree Rajneesh…
probably the same people.
Fred,
Your girl isn’t going to win.
Bill Clinton is obviously playing a larger role in Hillary’s campaign.
Imagine that Hillary wins.
Either Bill will play a huge role in her administration, in which case the citizenry will be subjected to tedious hours of recapitulation of the clinton marriage/Monica/Bill is really the unelected president yadda yadda; or he will not play a significant role in her administration in which case the citizenry will be subjected to tedious hours of psychobabble relating to the Clinton Marriage and the structural flaws within it that have forced Hillary to cage Bill.
Either way she handles Bill’s role in her administration, will be a no win situation for her and the American populace. Can she nominate him to the Supreme Court, to the UN Ambassadorship, to head the DOJ? Does one expect the Senate to easily advise and consent to Bill holding any high appointed office? He is not the Bill Clinton of the 90’s, he is a modestly wealthy pal of the Bushes now. ( wasn’t his first suggestion that Hillary would use he and Bush 41 to solve the world’s problems? Surely Bush 41 used Bill to give bipartisan appeal to the Boxing Day tsunami relief but that shoe will not go on the other foot. Bush 41 is not about to give Hillary bipartisan support for anything substantive. )
If she wins, it will be all about Bill for the 4 years she serves, if she loses it will be Bill’s fault if he continues to function as he has the last two weeks.
I heard the name Monica Lewinsky when I woke up this morning. I won’t be voting for Hillary and Bill.
I’ve had enough of those cretins.
with you. I heard David Gergen on some news program report that when the Insurance companies offered Hillary a compromise on her Health care plan back in the early 90’s she refused to negotiate. Instead of being willing to be satisfied with incremental steps her whole plan was shut out.
The 2002 war resolution vote combined with her yes vote on the Kyl Lieberman amendment was just too much warmongering for me.
her whole plan was shut out.
And this won’t happen to Edwards or Obama?
With Edwards yes unless a whole lot of currently sitting dems are replaced in this election with much more liberal dems.
With Obama no as he will not offer anything much beyond pablum and uplifting bloviation.
With Hillary nothing will change, it will be Bush in a female power suit until Bush 45 wins in 2012. The law of political inertia will hold. There will be no grand changes in foreign or domestic policies under Hillary or Obama or Edwards. The troops will stay in Iraq, the fleets will stay in the Gulf, the Special forces will operate in the Pakistan provinces. As soon as the subprime lending mess works its wiles, redlining will again be used as a club to force new subprime lending.
So, who is, Cee? Obama? Heaven forbid! Edwards? Doesn’t look very hopeful. And in November? Which Republican are we going to end up with?
Ron Paul of course. The only republican who can beat any of the dems on foreign policy and domestic policy.
Before you guys became apoplectic about Obama and presidential politics, this weblog was a fascinating and important source for perspective on important policy issues.
Thank you for this article. Years ago a woman I knew told me an EST experience was just fabulous. After she kept nagging, I said, “Oh, all right” and went. I stuck it out just because I paid for it, but the whole time I kept wondering why these people were so vacant that they’d buy into this modern day prophet crap. The last night I was a few minutes late (a HUGE no-no) because my niece’s car broke down and she had a college final. The thug at the door started to bully me about it and I told him to shove it, that he wasn’t talking to an effing Manson chick.
Shocking
We used to refer to them as est holes in the Bay area. A buddy of mine went to a meeting of est in Marin county in the 70’s. He had only been back from VN for a few years and he was interested in someone (A young lady) who had dragged him there. It creeped him out and when they locked the doors and refused to let him leave, he punched his way out. I don’t think he saw her after that.
I knew a lady that went to EST and she was “snapped” mentally afterwards…she tried to get me to go…just like playin tunes on Market St. for change in the guitar case and getting invited by Moon’ys to dinner.
I just think he seems to ready to pander to conservatives to try and get votes, even on some pretty straight up and down issues that he really shouldn’t compromise on.
How does Obama feel about Reagan’s creation of the stereotypical black WELFARE QUEEN that he used over and over again?? (while, in reality, most on welfare were white).
What really bugs me is this “generational”/”cultural” CHANGE crap that is being shoved at us. Why does this hyped-up punditry and message from Mr. Change supplant having the courage to actually discuss POLICY which affects us all?? Isn’t this rather “divisive” politics rather than being uniting???
PS–sorry, I’m one of those “invested” in the fights of the 60-70’s.
Well, on various ‘progressive’ blogs, I’ve witnessed hundreds, if not thousands, of commenters and diariests attacking progressive journalists, progressive bloggers, and others just for making critical comments about, or asking critical questions about, Barack Obama. I’ve seen hundreds, if not thousands, of hypocrisies supporting Obama’s “present” votes, his lack of any Senate hearings on the Subcommittee he chaired on Europe and NATO, and his paltry Senate voting record. They’ve attacked Paul Krugman, for God’s sake. Even their idol Keith Olbermann is worried that he’s offended the ObamaBots. I’ve witnessed vitriolic attacks on former DEMOCRATIC President Bill Clinton, as if he were evil incarnate. These attacks come from people who, a year ago, would have vehemently denied they would do such a thing. I’ve witnessed racial divisiveness splitting the Democratic party, and Obama supporters claiming Hillary Clinton is a racist.
It’s just staggering to see so-called ‘reality based’ progressives in the blogosphere turning themselves inside out, and upside down, in a ‘cult of personality’ frenzy for a candidate who claims the mantle of Ronald Reagan. Do these progressives honestly think Ronald Reagan was a great president? That’s what they are now arguing at Kos’ site!
Wow. Who knew the progressive blogospher was gonna ‘crash the gates’ by warming to Reagan as a great president, huh?
Staggering.
What is staggering is that you think anyone listens to you when you use the term OmabaBots.
Desperation is saying that Obama said Reagan was great when he said no such thing.
The desperation you display is staggering, unflattering and not a winning strategy.
Well said Brighid.
Fred C Dobbs, this is the 2nd time you’ve used the term “magic negro” to describe Obama. The 1st time you used it Cee asked you to expound & you didn’t, so now I’m asking, What the hell does it mean? What is a “magic negro”? Obama is mixed race, black father/white mother, is that what you’re refuring to? Maybe Tiger Woods is the only public personality who doesn’t adhere to the “one drop rule”. Let’s hear it. I’m all ears.
I looked it up and posted the song that Rush Limbaugh coined. After reading the following I understand why Booty Shaker Johnson brought up Sidney Poitier.
The magical negro (sometimes called the mystical negro, magic negro, or our Magical African-American Friend) is a stock character who appears in fiction of a variety of media. The word negro, now considered archaic and offensive, is used intentionally to claim that the archetype is a racist throwback, an update of the “Sambo” and “savage other” stereotypes.
The magical negro is typically “in some way outwardly or inwardly disabled, either by discrimination, disability or social constraint,” often a janitor or prisoner.[5] He has no past; he simply appears one day to help the white protagonist.[6] He is the black stereotype, “prone to criminality and laziness.”[7] To counterbalance this, he has some sort of magical power, “rather vaguely defined but not the sort of thing one typically encounters.”[6] He is patient and wise, often dispensing various words of wisdom, and is “closer to the earth.”[3]
The magical negro serves as a plot device to help the protagonist get out of trouble, typically through helping the white character recognize his own faults and overcome them.[3] In this way, the magical negro is similar to the Deus ex machina; a simple way for the protagonist to overcome an obstacle almost entirely through outside help. Although he has magical powers, his “magic is ostensibly directed toward helping and enlightening a white male character.”[5] It is this feature of the magical negro that some people find most troubling. Although the character seems to be showing African-Americans in a positive light, he is still ultimately subordinate to European-Americans. He is also regarded as an exception, allowing white America to “like individual black people but not black culture.”[8]
To save the white protagonist, however, he would do anything, including sacrificing himself, as Sidney Poitier portrays in The Defiant Ones, the prototypical magical negro movie.[3] Note that Poitier’s character is also saved by the white protagonist.
Thanks, Cee. You beat me to the punch while I was trying to condense the same citation you used.
I am not so comfortable with that term as I am with the phrase, “Belafonte/Poitier Effect,” but that seems to be a bit obscure for anyone born after 1966 or so. By then these actors/performers had joined the mainstream.
Yes, Virginia, there WERE Black Activists in entertainment before Morgan Freeman and Halle Barry.
“Negro,” BTW, was a word banned in the Southern household in which I grew up in the 50’s, but then, my mother was always the Town Commie anyway, being a real Democrat vesus a Dixiecrat, running the, “Trick or Treat for UNICEF,” in the fall of the year, and complaining in public about the local school system’s MANDATORY attendance policy for religious sessions in elementary school run by a different Protestant denomination than the one to which we belonged.
Limbaugh’s use of, “Magic Negro,” makes it almost unavoidably perjorative (much more than the term “Negro,” in my opinion), and I am certain that his usage IS perjorative.
Mine is not.
For an illustrative example, one might care to watch the movie, “G,” once again.
ADDENDUM: One would NEVER call it the Robeson/Armstrong Effect, would one?
>>> “He is also regarded as an exception, allowing white America to ‘like individual black people but not black culture.’”
Back in kollege we called this, “Liking Soul Music, but Not Inviting Will Washington to your party.”
Standard genre stock type:
The magic black man or woman
The stoic Indian buddy
The manic hispanic pal
The grumbling Gabby Hayes sidekick
The schemeing supply clerk with an ethnic last name.
And now the waysmart Arabic/Farsi ally. The one who doesn’t deserve waterboarding but you still don’t want to be seen with him at a dinner out of the office.
If Clinton were not a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Health Insurance Industry, I’d agree with all this.
We can sit down at the table, and talk with the leaders of North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba.
But the time for talking with the leaders of the Health Insurance Industry is long past. They show no mercy, no common human decency, and no respect for the rules of commerce. Therefore, for the good of all humanity, and everything that we hold dear and decent - they must be destroyed.
That means we cannot elect their AGENTS.
We elected an AGENT of the Oil Industry president in 2000. And Oil went from $20/bbl to $100/bbl.
(Tom DeLay has been the AGENT of the Health Care Industry - against whom, we’ve fared no better).
Clinton’s Health Care plan is to MANDATE that we all MUST purchase private health insurance.
Don’t you wish you had enough money to bribe a President to pass a law to MANDATE that everyone purchase YOUR product?
While I’d much rather see Edwards elected - that’s not going to happen, because he’s got the stench of Kerry ‘04 on him still. The only viable option is Obama. Clinton has already sold us all out. Her extensive “experience” consists of SELLING her constituency. So now, she just wants a larger constituency to SELL to her clients: The Health Insurance Industry.
Look up people from the nuclear industry who fund Hillary.
Hillary Clinton continues to vote in favor of Yucca Mountain’s funding which has cost the taxpayers of this nation upwards $7 Billion dollars.
http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/4363
Hmmm…the health care plan of Massachusetts or Mississippi’s.
Hillary’s is very simlar to MA’s where it is universal and Obama’s is like Mississippi’s - where there is a high number of uninsured. Fifteenmiilion folks uninsured is not universal health care.
Taters: My sister in-laws Dad passed in Mass recently and was relieved of his earthly painful bondage. My brother comments about the difficult
… including the Medicare application, which itself is a shameful exhibition of punative blaming of the impoverished that seems to much a part of our noble state.
There will be much need of work, regardless of who’s “plan” gains support. Personally I agree with M Moore when he says there should be no profit in the health and well being of human beings.
As someone who has numerous family members, including a child, whose profession is health care, I submit that health care professionals deserve to make very good livings in accordance with the quantity and quality of the care they provide.
I have fortunately been very satisfied so far with the health plan I have through my employment, and find the cost to me not completely unreasonable. At the same time I recognize that not everyone is as fortunate as I have been. Decent, affordable health care should be a right of all members of a civilized society.
PS I should point out that prior to the imposition of sanctions in 1990, top quality, state-of-the-art health care was a right that was granted to every Iraqi citizen. The Ba`th government instituted programs to ensure that qualified doctors were available even in remote and rural areas.
It is true that the war with Iran over time brought significant deterioration in all government services, including medical care, but the system did not begin to break down completely until the systematic destruction of civilian infrastructure in 1991 (which included destruction of medical facilities) accompanied and followed by more than a dozen years of the most severe and comprehensive system of sanctions and import embargoes in modern history.
TeakwoodKite
I’m sorry to hear about that. You are right, TK there are difficulties when it should be so simple.
There was a big battle here in MI when Bill Frist’s folks (HCA) came in and attempted to change the not for profit requirement of hospitals through “the back door” by attempting to buy a finacially distressed hcspital in Michigan and challenging the constitutionality of the state’s non profit mandate of hospitals. Thank God the state of Michigan won, My friend who was asst AG in charge and who tried the case said it was his proudest moment. Shortly after, HCA was found guilty of massive medicare and medicaid fraud, paying 1.7 biilion dollars in fines, the largest at the time. HCA was also the largest provider of abortions in the US - for profit.
The glittering American ideal was 5 slaves = 3 whites, and the removal ( to be polite) of the indigenous population. Why does a significant portion of America need to see itself as better, more gifted or morally elevated than the rest of the world? That childish self-image is precisely one of our biggest problems and a major impediment to getting down to the hard work, the drudgery that real change requires. Why bother with better politics when glittering magic is available; when we can aspire to a fairy-tale America that never existed? Such waste.
>>> Why does a significant portion of America need to see itself as better, more gifted or morally elevated than the rest of the world?
Because it makes us feel better than the French, who bathe too rarely and smoke too much; the English, with their bad teeth and who drive on the wrong side of the road; and the Germans, who can’t help invading Poland and annexing Alsace and Lorraine periodically.
Also, it sure sells tickets to Rambo movies and keeps The Duke on in re-runs, doesn’t it?
Well, except for The Searchers, where The Duke plays a REAL deluded, compulsive racist murderer.
>>> Why bother with better politics when glittering magic is available; when we can aspire to a fairy-tale America that never existed?
Because Saint Ronnie (aka, The Addled Puppet Reagan) told us about The Shining City on a Hill.
Why waste our Beautiful Minds on ugly, poor, sick people, social inequity and crappy air and water when we can imagine ourselves the Smartest Sumbitches on the Planet…and, Hey! We have the Movies to back it up!
So, get your Jingo on, or be square! What, are you an Osama-lover?
U-S-A is Num-ber 1! U-S-A is Num-ber 1!
Why waste our Beautiful Minds on ugly, poor, sick people, social inequity
If you are going to caucus in Nevada today, please take a good look at Hillary Clinton’s chief strategist Mark Penn and his wife.
Mark J. Penn is worldwide CEO of the PR firm Burson-Marsteller (B-M), a position he has held since December 2005. [1] He is also the president of the polling firm Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates (PSB), which he co-founded in 1975.
Penn is also U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton’s top presidential campaign strategist. A biographical note states that he “has worked with Mrs. Clinton for over six years, since he ran the polling and messaging for her successful election to the US Senate in 2000.” [2]
In mid-2007, the dual role of Mark Penn as the CEO of the PR firm Busron-Marsteller and chief strategist for the Democratic Party’s Presidential aspirant Hilliary Clinton, irked some labor leaders. The New York Times reported that labor leaders Bruce Raynor of UniteHere, and James Hoffa of the Teamsters union, wrote to Clinton expressing their concern about B-M’s anti-labor work. “He cannot serve two masters, working for a pro-union candidate and working for anti-union companies,” Teamsters President Jim Hoffa said. [6]
Take a look at the Third Way:
The Third Way, according to New Democrats Online, the Democratic Leadership Council’s online community, is “a global movement dedicated to modernizing progressive politics for the information age. Third Way politics seeks a new balance of economic dynamism and social security, a new social compact based on individual rights and responsibilities, and a new model for governing that equips citizens and communities to solve their own problems.” [1]
“The core principles and ideas of this Third Way movement are set forth in The New Progressive Declaration: A Political Philosophy for the Information Age.” [2]
Here are their principles (with my explications in bold):
“The Third Way philosophy seeks to adapt enduring progressive values to the new challenges of he information age. It rests on three cornerstones: [6]
* the idea that government should promote equal opportunity for all while granting special privilege for none; [no more affirmative action]
* an ethic of mutual responsibility that equally rejects the politics of entitlement and the politics of social abandonment; and, [no more welfare]
* a new approach to governing that empowers citizens to act for themselves.[Bush's ownership society and the privitization of Social Security]
“The Third Way approach to economic opportunity and security stresses technological innovation, competitive enterprise, and education rather than top- down redistribution [high margin tax rates, capital gains taxes, dividends taxes, corporate taxes] or laissez faire. On questions of values, it embraces ‘tolerant traditionalism,’ honoring traditional moral and family values while resisting attempts to impose them on others. [no gays in the military, no gay marriage] It favors an enabling rather than a bureaucratic government [ending big government as we know it], expanding choices for citizens [privitizing entitlements and services], using market means to achieve public ends [subcontracting to Blackwater and Kellogg and Root] and encouraging civic and community institutions to play a larger role in public life [charity, not hand-outs]. The Third Way works to build inclusive, multiethnic societies based on common allegiance to democratic values.” [7]
This is the basic philosophy of Clintonism when the Clintons are not trying to court Democrats that largely believe in none of these things. These are the solutions favored by New Democrats, the Democratic Leadership Council, The New Republic, and the vast majority of the veterans of Bill Clinton’s administration. If you do not support these policies then, for the love of all that is Holy, do not caucus for Hillary Clinton.
And I haven’t even touched on foreign policy. Bill Clinton implemented the eastward expansion of NATO and the aggressive military basing strategy in the Middle East and Central Asia that has caused all this blowback from terrorism. There is no indication that Hillary Clinton will do anything but fight tenaciously to maintain this costly and risky strategy. Yes, she will not run the government like a neo-conservative. But she will not make the changes that need to be made for the simple reason that it would repudiate one of the cornerstones of her husband’s foreign policy.
Bushism needs to be tossed on the ash heap of history, but Clintonism needs to be rejected as well. Clintonism helped pave the way for Bushism in many ways, and in foreign policy, they both share huge amounts of blame for our current predicament. Both the Bushes and the Clintons desperately need to be rejected and repudiated. It’s absolutely vital that neither of them occupy the White House ever again.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/19/3427/51766/17/439321
I don’t buy the pied piper thing.
At least the Pied Piper of Hamelin started with performing a useful function by getting rid of the rats. He only led the children away when the mayor refused to pay.
Obama does have something in common with Reagan, which is a knack for persuading in a public speaking venue. Also like Reagan, he does not himself have any real ability to accomplish things. That, like Reagan, is left to subordinates. The question then is, like with Reagan, what are the goals of those subordinates who are doing the real work? And who’s going to keep them on track in the interest of the country? Certainly not Reagan or Obama.
Obama supporters are likely to counter this current Reaganesque criticism, by saying that they want a progressive version of Reagan, but without the policies of Reagan’s subordinates.
But Reagan, due to his in-expertise, allowed people even he himself didn’t like, to run policy. The name Oliver North comes to mind.
Also, both Reagan and George W. Bush believed that policy direction was made with their own mind; when in fact it was made based on filtered and manipulated information from their subordinates, who were actually in a de facto sense, Reagan’s and W. Bush’s masters. (i.e. one of Cheney’s skills is the ability to keep his boss’s desk clear)
The real danger with Obama, like with Reagan and also W. Bush, is that you don’t just get him, you get the whole package. In hindsight we know what we got in the Reagan and W. Bush packages. What crystal ball is there to tell us what’s in the Obama package?
While we’re at it, let’s apply the same question to all the candidates.
What crystal ball is there to tell us what’s in the Obama package?
The answers lie in finding the party that is using the lad as a useful idiot.
Bingo!
The the one missing from Texas?
“And he held it to the light…Look here brother , who you jivin’ with that cosmic debris?” Frank Zappa
Speaking of shining cities on a hill, did you catch Bill Clinton speaking to a crowd of university students this past week say, “America is NOT a place it’s an IDEA.” That’s kinda what Junior thinks too. I want a Pres who knows it’s a place. I’ve had enough napolionic pax americana to last a life time.
“Out of nowhere, a complete unknown.”
–Karl Spackler– in Caddy Shack.
Much of my analysis is based on (Short Version) studying propaganda memes and reverse engineering Propaganda and Psychological Operations techniques 10 to 16 hrs a day for the last 15 years. (Short Version)
Yes, Obama really came out of nowhere and as the buzz developed on this highly unqualified “Nobody”, it gave me a chill as though I could sense something huge, powerful and malevolent behind him. I had him pegged as a deep implant establishment mole early on and now I am starting to smell a Rovian stench about him. Remember Rove’s double top-secret new project when he “left” the Bush Mob.
The Ol’ Boys in Old south used to have a backhanded complementary term for their preferred type of black person; “Good Nigger”.Obama fits the term to a T. Yup, Clarance Thomas all over again!
If he showed up in my organization, I would have counter intelligence shoved so far up his ass that when he opened his mouth his voice would be that of the ghost of James Jesus Angleton.
This SOB is dangerous.
Ever So Sincerely,
Michael D. Adams
NPC Intelligence Associates
[...] vaporware attacks on Obama’s wife, says that all Obama supporters are “drinking the kool-aid” and call them “Obamabots,” and are otherwise generally racist. Possibly related [...]
[...] Well, Larry- that is what you call a LIE. Hey, can I be your friend? Maybe if I can, I will tell you I know that Obama will win! i wonder, will you take it as fact, or just call me crazy for worshiping someone who you call “The black Jesus“? [...]
Those are perhaps the most well defended sets of three periods in history.