Barack’s Pyrrhic Victory
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 26, 2008 at 8:01 PM in Current Affairs
I hope the folks at Barack’s party tonight enjoy themselves because the worm has turned and he is painted into a corner of his own making. If Barack, after playing the race card, had garnered more than 50% of the white vote he would have reason to celebrate. Why? Because his victory was not dependent on black voters. But that is not the story line. Barack is the candidate of black voters and that won’t win him much in the rest of the country.
Perhaps it should be phrased this way–Barack, no se puede. Yes boys and girls, the largest and fastest growning ethnic minority in the United States is Latino not African American. And Latinos no son locos por Obama (they are not wild about Obama). That was a reality he bumped up against in Nevada and it is one that will clobber him come Super Tuesday. But for tonight, Oborgs, party hearty.
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
Larry,
I’ve read your blog for some time and really appreciate your political perception and your willingness to speak the truth. Keep up the great work.
B in SC
Betfair and Intrade had Obama favored over Clinton by more than 15 to 1. That is pretty damned close to dead certain. (Hillary is still favored 2 to 1 to get the nomination.)
Therefore, Barack Obama must lead Clinton by a landslide, say at least 20 points, if this is to be seen as another Iowa moment.
The converse is that if he wins by 10 points or less, it may be viewed by the flacks as a loss.
If the media conglomerates had souls, they would be seen to be fickle.
Seems to me many are forgetting way back when during the time of Oprah in SC and the huge stadium rallies…
There was much discussion of how she spoke…she dropped her billionaire speech and launched into “Southern preacher” mode, totally out of her usual speech (not a movie role). Many wondered about his “act” and whether THIS was playing a race card!! Remember??? Didn’t this really start the ball rolling??
Good Points. I’d almost forgotten about Oprah becoming what we Yankess call a “Tent Preacher” - because when I grew up the “revivalists” all worked out of tents.
I’ve often thought about that being the beginning. Or when Michele Obama said Black people would wake up. Oprah said that “they are telling us it’s not his turn, what if I had waited when people told me to wait my turn” something like that including where would you be if you waited your turn.
The analysis of Mr. Johnson and his co-bloggers has been a favorite of mine (lurking, not commenting) since the inception of NOQUARTER. But lately, whenever I want to read some seriously overbearing, in tone and number of posts, Obama hatred, I come visit this site. Larry and Susan are off the cuff in their disgust of this Democratic candidate. Which side are you guys on anyway? Apparently its not the Democratic or Republican side but the Hillary side. Maybe, Mr. Johnson, you shouldn’t change your current party affliliation. The hatred and holier-than-thou judgements such as what has been posted on this site about Obama are better suited on the conSWERVative Rethuglican side, not the nearly all-inclusive progressive Democratic side. FTR, I am an Obama supporter who admires Hillary Clinton greatly. She had my vote until Obama entered the race. I will vote for whoever becomes the Democratic nominee.
Maybe you could tone it down some and not lose a long time reader. Maybe you don’t care what I think and will continue the unbridled criticism of Mr. Obama. But rest assured, if you all continue your current tone and he gets the nomination, your bridges in the progressive community will be burned.
Maybe you should have contined lurking if this is the best you can do. Hatred and unbridled criticism? Where you been pal? For weeks on end the media and MOST liberal blogs have been swooning over Obama and portraying Hilary and Bill Clinton as evil incarnate. You object to there being one blog where that isn’t so? You object because criticism of Obama is acting like a Republican? What the hell do you call the non-stop Clinton bashing? I know one thing after the past few weeks, because of what Obama and his surrogates have done to the Clintons I will never, ever, vote for him. Take you self-righteous drivel and go over to Zsa Zsa Huffington’s Place. She slobbers over Obama non-stop.
Hey southern boy, You’re right, if I want to hear any anti-Clinton rhetoric, all I have to do is turn on the TV and watch Tweety, CNN & Fake News do their thing. This may be the only site that dares to be pro-Hillary.
Obama initiated a campaign, using republican hate techniques.
Republican hate techniques are harmful to our country, period.
Obama is a lightweight, not qualified to be President.
As the republicans are now making their move, in regard to bringing forward McCain as the “stable, mature candidate” (compared to all that democratic, ahem, hate,) Hillary needs to understand Obama is simply not a contender, not her presidential equal, to counter.
She should be gracious, understanding politics are still blood sport, but she should intellectually KNOW Obama isn’t qualified.
And he’s not.
He was fed a strategy of hate, he used it, and McCain is on the news today, receiving the endorsement of the FL gov., both republicans looking dapper and stable, compared to the exhaustion and confusion (cut to) Obama is exhibiting.
Clinton isn’t receiving the coverage, because of the south carolina loss –
So thanks.
and if Hillary gets the nomination…Dailykos bridges in the progressive movement is lookwise “burned.” The kids at the KOS are losing their MINDS!
I listen to Brad Friedman state that he was getting reamed by both sides (and he mentioned KOS) for getting all bent of shape when it came the request to COUNT the vote in NH…
Decent Folks that I have talked to who are inclined to vote for the big O have a deep need to be excused from the past; which is prolog. Poo Poo rezko says a liberal talking head… I’m just doing this for ratings ’cause the savior message is SO important to my ratings…
suthrnboy, you couldn’t have said it better.
I am not a supporter of either of these candidates. I will likely vote for Edwards when I get the chance, although none of these candidates really do enough for me in terms of moving things in the progressive direction.
And I will almost certainly vote for and actively support the Democratic nominee, whoever it happens to be.
This blog has been a favorite of mine since the Scooter Libby trial, maybe before. I really appreciated the great insights.
But now, I hardly want to come here, for all the Hilary shilling and bashing of others. It’s sad, really. You’re wasting your authority.
Did you look at the other posts on the site this week that don’t deal with the Democratic primary? There are several. We didn’t post as many this week because we changed servers, and we couldn’t post new items for almost two days. We try very hard to provide variety which, by the way, takes a lot of time and effort.
You do a damn good job. Thanks for that.
Susan, they don’t want balance, they want you to slobber, non-stop over Obama and bash Clinton just like most of the other liberal blogs are doing.
And you do an absolutely stellar job in providng well researched NEWS and in depth adult discussions. Thanks to all of you.
I did read them, and will continue. What concerns me is that there seem here to be HRC talking points (e.g., Jackson’s SC “win” in 1988) spewed verbatim without regard to the truth. (In that specific case, Jackson’s win was in a caucus, not a primary, and the nomination was already sewn up, so it was symbolic; for the Clintons to have used that to try to negate Obama’s win last night is disingenuous at best.)
You do a great job here, and I appreciate it, and I am no Obama supporter, but I look for truth, not spin.
SusanUnPC: not only do you know about politics, which is impressive, but you understand computers. For someone who majored in poly sci back in the 60’s, frankly, I’m more impressed with the computer stuff. New servers are good, I think.
It is amazing to me that “judgement” is being used as a moniker of Obama’s bonifides and how quickly it is ignored by the “Audacity of Hope” crowd. Since I have not heard it mentioned here, Obama is playing the Lieberman gambit. I heard him on the radio relaying an exchange with a young republican voter who whispered “I support you Obama.” Obama’s response was “That’s great, but why are we whispering?”
Pssssssst Obama, your healthcare commercial just said you were “going to cut cost and cover everybody”. If you believe that, then take a look what happened in the Senate this last week on FISA. The rethugs won’t even allow amendments from either side a vote. To survive in DC you have to have your ears to the tracks listening for the last train out and not be tied to them while doing so.
“Struggling with our own doughts?” you say Obama? NOPE.
Exactly - when BO rolled out I was one ready to fall in love, even with no clear solutions platform except “Change” . . . but the whinny, “why can’t we be friends” approach just doesn’t help to accept “present” as a political statement and the continued lack of solid proposals. We need an ass kicking MF with the street smarts and guts to take back America - first choice would be Edwards, close Hillary . . . but actually ANY Democrat.
My idea of happiness is a line of rusty Chevy sedans packed with dough faced unemployed Regent Graduates chugging out of Washington in a blizzard with a trunk full of lobbyists on January 22, 2009 . . .
Yea, I figure after they got done with the sand they threw in Fitzgerald’s face they used the rest on the Beltway roads. Now the Chevy sedans are so rusted out you can see the road through the floorboards.
Yeah, I’m afraid that Larry and Susan are in danger of becoming like the fanatical Bushevik “Kool-Aid Drinkers” they rightly despise. Also, I’m afraid this blog is becoming too much like the proverbial “Mainstream Media,” for whom the issues are nothing and the personalities are everything. By all means support Hillary if you want, but don’t make a FETISH out of it. Sure, Obama’s green, but so have been a lot of previous Presidential candidates. The Joke is that true statesmen like Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan never got more than a WHIFF of the White House, leaving the office to lesser men.
If you don’t want a “whiff” of the White House than elect Obama. You will be handing victory to the Repupublicans. Hope you like four years of President McCain!
“conSWERVative Rethuglican” ????
“Bushevik” ????
The political naive must answer for the death of the language.
It must be the writer’s strike……..
Just remember that Jesse Jackson won the South Carolina Democratic Primary in 1988 with 54% of the vote. How’d he do in the 1988 election?
LJ
That was a caucus, Larry, held after the eventual nominee had the necessary delegates. It was lightly contested, at best.
Larry,
That was in 1988.
I heard that Duval Patrick was elected by a sizable portion of the Latino community.
You don’t give people enough credit.
Cee, I’d be grateful if you’d look at my post a couple posts down, and provide rebuttals to the concerns raised by the Boston media consultant, a Democrat who wrote an op-ed for the Boston Globe. I think he raises some very important concerns about Mr. Obama — including one that doesn’t get mentioned often enough, which is that he has never had a tough race against a Republican. His Senate win was a joke against Alan Keyes, a true nutjob. Does he have the readiness to take on a tough Republican opposition? But don’t answer that here — go and read his other questions, and please respond.
Susan,
I don’t see the Globe op-ed you’re talking about.
I think Obama can handle any attacks from the GOP.
I thank the Clinton campaign for the rendering he has just endured.
Cee,
First of all let me say, I admire you coming here and to me that means you are open to learning. Otherwise you wouldn’t be here almost every day. I admire anyone who keeps an open mind.
Now, I know Deval Patrick and Obama is NO Deval Patrick.
First of all Patrick literally went stumping door to door and built up a solid grass roots organization from zero. Obama “Hides Out” on stages. Patrick had solid plans and proposals BEFORE he started campaigning. Obama offers “Hope”! Patrick was head of the DoJ Civil Rights Division under Clinton, and did a “heck of a great job”. Many initiatives, now destroyed by Bush, were Patricks.
I went to an event to check Patrick out. His speeches on the radio sounded too good to be true - and his speaking ability is about the equivalent of Obama’s. As my father used to say, “if it seems too good to be true - its ususally bad”. So I wanted to essentially see, touch, feel, and test the product in person. I was stunned - he actually IS what he comes across as! Oh, and Patrick events are FREE - Obama charges.
There were probably about 75 people at the event. Barney Frank was there also. Unlike Obama, who needs a teleprompter to speak - Patrick spoke extemporaniously.
What really impressed me, was that Patrick and his staff were the LAST to leave the event. He let everyone ask questions - and hard ones at that- and he answered without hesitation. If he didn’t have an answer, he took your name and address down on a little pocket pad. I got my answer on paying for health plans in a 2 page letter less than 10 days later. Obama on the other hand, has his staff pick out select “safe’ people to a ask questions. He and his staff are among the FIRST out the door, and he mingles only as a rock star would with his groupies on the way out. He does not answer questions that are not scripted.
Call his DC office and ask a quesstion and you can tell the staff has scripted answers. I did last week on FISA. The scripted respones were: “Senator Obama is trying to re-arrange his schedule” Or, “Senator Obama is doing his best to come back to DC”. I changed the question to “is his schedular there and could you ask them what Senator Obama’s plans are?” One of the same two scripted responses. Change question to Which is more important Constitution or Campaign Event. Same Scripted answer. Polite - but Robotic and uniformative as hell.
Deval Patrick does a two hour call in show every month on Boston NPR. He also responds quickly to calls to office about questions/concerns.
I have an aging aunt in Mass so I am well versed on Deval Patrick. In fact one of his staff, who lives in the next town from my aunt, still invites me to to events where Patrick will be.
Patrick is 100 times more the leader and he can actually “communicate with” not just “talk at” or “speechify”.
Cee, I am neither a Clinton or Obama Supporter. Would you do me a favor? Just Read these four links as if you are just starting research about people you barely know Okay?
Funding for Clinton and Obama http://nymag.com/news/politics/30634/
Obama’s demeanor with Money Supporters
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=14481
Comparison of funding for candidates. If you click on name you can see which industries/groups fund:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp?cycle=2008
Comparison of Economic Packages of ALL Candidates:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/opinion/14krugman.html?_r=4&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Then email me at stefanikn@gmail.com and let me know what you learned as well as what you think. AS a former professor, I really care deeply about learning and thinking.
Most of us here don’t HATE Obama the person. What is scary is the complete lack of VETTING done, and the media making it a two person race based on personality, or “ginned” up conflicts instead of FACTS and ISSUES that will impact all of us and our families. For me, its like being in an Orwellian nightmare, where there is a constant stream of Rush Limbaugh, or Fox TV running this garbage as NEWS - kind of like being surrounded by National Inquirer 24 hours a day.
nellie i just love your last paragraph:
i couldnt agree more … i find most the edwards and clinton supporters able to put principles before personality where the oborgs (thanks larry) dont show this ability yet.
Call his DC office and ask a question and you can tell the staff has scripted answers. I did last week on FISA.
The Judicuary Substitute went down 60 34 on a motion to table. As Rove said the Dems are going to be “creatively” beat over the head with the way they vote on it.
Obama makes no bones about going after Independents and “Disaffected” Repubs on the Sunday spin cycle. It apears he is attemting to use Reguns campaign strategy, just coming from the Dem’s side. When the primaries are over those “Disaffected” folks are going to “pick up the pieces and go home”, despite the compression of the center left-right.
Nellie: might I inquire at to what you disipline you taught?
Nellie,
I found this blog after hearing Larry on a national talk radio show. I respect his views (and others who post here) even when we don’t agree which is more often lately.
No matter.
I’ll read all of the articles and get back to you.
I’ll tell you now…on the issues that are the most important to me, I don’t see much light between Clinton and Obama. That troubles me. Still, I’ve made my choice. Obama is it.
I brought up Patrick because of what I learned about his attracting Latino voters.
I think Barak can do the same. I also believe that Patrick supports Obama.
I just checked. He does.
For Obama, support from a kindred political spirit
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/24/for_obama_support_from_a_kindred_political_spirit/
For me, its like being in an Orwellian nightmare, where there is a constant stream of Rush Limbaugh, or Fox TV running this garbage as NEWS - kind of like being surrounded by National Inquirer 24 hours a day.
Imagine what it will be like with another Clinton administration.
I found some of the information
Governor Deval Patrick received support of 87% of Hispanic voters. Want to guess his support among whites and blacks?
From a Survey USA poll conducted 1 month and a half before the Governor elections in Massachusetts.
White
Patrick(D): 63%
Healy (R): 26%
Blacks
Patrick (D): 74%
Healy (R): 26%
Hispanics
Patrick (D): 87%
Healy (R): 7%
On a city level (and a huge city that is–NYC), data shows that a huge Hispanic majority backed mayor Dinkins over white Rudolph Giuliani. Twice.
Yes Hispanics vote for Democrats, white or black. In a choice between two Democrats, they favor Hillary.
Oprah had a program in praise of the New Deal the other night.
Nice surrogate selling point for a guy who appears ready to restructure Social Security…
There’s little surprise at where his strongest support is coming from. People here admit to me as much their motivations for voting is that he’s black.
He’d have to change much of his current selling to convince me otherwise. He lost voters in the crossover support he was supposed to have gained as well.
The electoral map has been tweaked and gerrymandered to new levels in the past two decades. The Gingirch hijacking of Congress occurred by going after Governors seats first. There you could shape the voting precints better and mitigate the elctoral numbers of Democrats.
Dems are a majority party, two third of the declared major party voters in America. The districts get bottle necked to limit that influence.
The gains made may not be enough to offset the unlevel playing field, and we’ve learned before you can’t operate from the assumptions of a close race being yours. Diebold sees to that.
Whoever it is needs to be able to build a big enough lead to win, and the places he’s winning are places that are purple. States that still voted for Dems more in Primary and Caucus seasons past and then flipped on the day that mattered most.
Finally, I’ve yet to really see the uniting talk I hear of be attached to policy of meaning. If anything, the worst President ever this era, is pushing people to the other side.
You’ll need more than that to run against their narrative. It can be done, but it should be done by someone who takes on the full frontal fire of the GOP and has done so. Obama got a free pass for that, Alan Keyes as proof he can win a big race?
There’s some ways he could flip some of the narrative, we’re not there yet, but if he goes that far let’s just say the rust on his armour will be under a microscope.
This is going to be brokered. It’s going to be based on the swing vote of a certain third place person, provided he treads water for funding.
Larry’s correct, this has become a paradigm, the vote itself reflects much of that if you look at the internal results of this turnout. You know the saying about playing with fire…
Teddy Kennedy calls Barack Obama, Osama bin Laden:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APx2YJ-_jos
I tried to reply directly to a few posts but got some weird hidden form field error message by Brian.
Susan–Thanks for your hard work. I didn’t know about the server switch.
I am a displaced Tar Heel living in inner city Chicago, Pilsen to be exact. Pilsen is the Mexican immigrant neighborhood of Chi-town and I am the only white guy (that I know of)for two blocks. Larry’s contention that Hispanics will not come out to vote for Obama worries me as well. I have not heard the derogatory form of the N-word used more often anywhere than here since moving from the South. Hopefully these worries are misplaced.
Living in Chicago allows me to read the conservative Chicago Tribune newspaper every day of the week. They have had their gloved finger up the Obama/Rezko colon for more than two years and not found nary a polyp. In fact they are due to endorse Obama (and McCain) in tomorrows (todays) edition. There simply is no “there” there. Perhaps “yet” would be appropriate but we can only know what are known knowns, yes?
Voting ‘Present’ in Illinois state politics is a traditional technique used for time immemorial to imply a pol’s acceptance of a bill except for a few caveats. It’s like saying “I would have sex with you if either of us had a condom, but its late and all the stores are closed, so lets talk again soon”, or something like that;)
As for experience, many Illinoisians like to point out the last time an inexperienced native son was president (with less political experience than Obama has now), he handled the Civil War pretty well.
My point is
Oops sorry about that sudden drop off!
My point is there is something wrong with every person with an ego big enough to think they can lead and handle the reins of this hugh-noxious monstrosity we call the U.S. government. So lets save the invective for the other side. Namely the torture-apologist, no tax and spend, shoe tapping, soldier grinding for profit (I could go on all night cuz its fun!)assholes on the ‘R’ side. O.K?
southern boy i believe in principle with what you are proposing … one of the reasons i have refrained from too much invective when voicing my reservations about barak. this being said, it does not mean i wont ask tough questions to him and his supporters. if y’all feel this is being unfair … well i disagree.
btw, you said in an earlier post continuing to questions obama could create a divide so deep that we might be might no be able to build a bridge back to the progressive wing of the democratic party. i really have to disagree with this statement inasmuch as i’m one of the progressives who are far from sold on the progressive bona fides of obama. in fact, i have to rate hillary as being more progressive then he is … and of course my man, edwards, is the most progressive populsit in the race. if you can show me where barak has demonstrated his populist beliefs with talk and action please do so … i would be happy to reconsider. you might also speak to his positions on: social security, unions, media and election reform and health care.
If Senator Obama is the great “uniter” he claims to be he will have one hell of a job just to unite his party after this primary, should he win, which I doubt. But if he does, I know that I will not vote for him. I am a John Edwards supporter, but after what Obama and his surrogates have done to the Clintons I will never vote for him. Never!
We have watched the Clinton-hating media pull every dirty trick in the book on the Clintons for years. Now Obama and his surrogates, plus that dishonest media have tried to portray the Clintons as evil beyond redemption. Frothing at the mouth Republican Clinton haters got nothing on frothing at the mouth liberal Clinton haters. I hope Senator Obama and his supporters are enjoying their victory dance. I suspect it will be a short one. I hope it will be a short one. Cause I sure as hell do not want this year to be the first time I ever failed to vote for a president. If Obama is the candidate, that spot on my ballot will remain blank.
shame on you marge … i’m a strong edwards supporter and i dislike how obama and his people are attacking the clintons; but, i will vote for him if he does get the nomination. albeit reluctantly and with more then a little consternation.
why, first becuase i’m a democrat … i support the party even when i sometimes have reservations. if this means i have to place principles before personalities, so be it, i will do it. secondly, this type of statement seems to me to be more of a threat then anything else. thirdly, even with obama as the candidate … it has to be better then another 4 years of a repig. finally, i have heard too many oborgs make the same type of statement and i have spoken harshly to them about their attitude … not to do so now would make me no better then a repig.
Which latinos?
The mexican-americans
The Cuban-Americans
The Puerto-Ricans
The various south american spanish?
The dominican americans?
The Spanish Americans who predate the whites in the South West and in Florida?
Latino is not A voting bloc, it is a grouping of people for the convenience of the census, not a standardized political alignment, as they see it. Latinos are divisible more by culture of origin and religion than by skin tone.
Looking at the latino communities in the USA as being just another bloc to be taken for granted come election day is an egregious mistake. One that any analyst worth his laptop would not make.
Larry, You actually make me feel a little better today. I don’t dislike Obama but I know Paul Krugman of the NYTimes and he has been comparing Hillary’s health plan to Obama’s plan and Edwards too and he says that Obama’s is not what he says it is for all the people. Obama has been saying things about Social Security that the Republican talking heads spin all the time. Obama has to know that the republicans want to get rid of SS by privatizing it. Just what we need, look how well Wall St is doing right now. I just returned from a trip outside the US and the dollar has fallen to pathetic proportions. We need a leader who know the difference between getting along and true leadership.
I’ve avoided reading this blog because of how Larry and Susan write about Obama. I’m another reader who will vote for Edwards, but will support whichever Democrat is the nominee. We Democrats enjoy the best field of candidates in this fight, and I see no sense in damaging any of them in order to support one of them. I think Hillary or Obama or Edwards will make a fine president, certainly better than any Republican. I like Edwards because he frames the corporatism issue the best.
The point of this post by Larry is:
The SC vote last night elected President McCain into office. SC, that “freedom lovin’” state (think “Cradle of the Conderacy”) always votes heavily KKK Republican and will do so this year. At best, the SC primary is another nail in the coffin of how Dems pick candidates. It means nothing and hands Sunday Talking Heads more phony ammo to pillor Hillary!
(Yes, I’m a poet and I didn’t even know it!)
I am a huge fan of yours, Larry, but you’re kidding yourself about Obama. Barack did better with white men than HRC in South Carolina; not NY, MI, CA or NJ, but SOUTH CAROLINA. Last night’s performance was the beginning of a snowball downhill through Super Tuesday for Obama. HRC is toast.
You missed the point. Obama did not garner a majority of white voters. If he had, then the SC results would have been truly significant. It would have demonstrated he was a genuine candidate with appeal that cut across sex and race. But that didn’t happen. He won like Jesse Jackson. And while an inspiration to black folk in South Carolina and across the US, black ain’t beautiful in national elections.
The first black president will be a man or woman whose skin color really is a second thought. Imagine, for example, if Tiger Woods, after endowing and managing foundations that have enriched the lives of poor children, turns to politics. Tiger’s color is irrelevant. He’s a man of accomplishment that cannot be challenged.
Obama’s problem, and I ask it again, what the fuck has he done to merit the adulation as a man of brilliance?
Fair point. It will be a mute point in another week or so, but it is a fair point nonetheless.
I think the anger about Obama comes from the fact that Hillary is getting ripped apart by the media who are distorting the facts while Obama’s weakness are being ignored in a big love-fest. The whole South Carolina race turned on the false impression that the Clintons played the race card. Yet it was the media who brought up race to excuse their own disastrous performance in NH. Then Obama’s campaign put out a memo accusing the Clintons of playing the race card by twisting what they have said. Obama then denied this, but later admitted it in the debate. He then said the Clintons had not been playing the race card, but the damage was done since our unprofessional media tools kept on hyping the argument.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/12/obama-camps-memo-on-clin_n_81205.html?view=screen
Also so many Democrats who fume over the Democrats in Congress making deals with Republicans and over the Clintons “triangulating”(read compromising with the opposite side) swoon about how Obama is bipartisan and is going to reach out to Republicans. They need to take a course in logic.
More and more the message from Obama and the media is that any criticism of him is racist. Last night on MSNBC there was actually a big discussion about how when the Clintons said Obama was young and eloquent, they were perceived as using “code words” and were disrespecting him. This kind of whining and playing the race card will definitely turn off white voters and it is not coming from the Clinton camp.
What??? You must be the last person on Earth other than the Clintons who actually believe that it was the Clintons who initiated the race card.
Tha sheer magnitude of this victory was not just a Black rejection of Clinton if you looked at the exit polls and then look at the endorsements Obama is getting.
Also, Bill Clinton was a GOP President - his achievements were GOP initiatives he co-opted to save his legacy and not be another Jimmy Carter.
It is evident that your talking points are straight out of the Hillary Clinton campaign.
How old are you? Obviously not old enough to remember Jesse Jackson’s 55% victory in South Carolina. It does cloud your ability to do sound analysis. Obama’s team is tactically inexperienced and naive and are being enabled by a media eager for a new story line. But don’t forget. Obama’s status as the media darling is fickle and fleeting.
Older than you. And Jesse Jackson’s run was 20 years ago and has zero relevance to this time.
Your 24/7 castigation and slander of Barack Obama is filled with inaccuracies and hyperbole. It can only come out of the Clinton playbook.
Hillary Clinton claims to have 35 years of experience compared to Obama’s so-called relative lack of experience. Other than being the wife of a governor and of a president how does 1+ terms as a junior Senator translate to 35 years?
I frankly do not think either one of these two media darlings are qualified to be President and the Democrats that were have all dropped out.
But if I had to choose I would take Obama over a Clinton.
Bill Clinton was a GOP President ?
Thats funny coming from someone who believes in the Jack Welsh club for growth supply side econ. Hows that working for ya? Check your stock portfolio lately or are you flush?
this victory was not just a Black rejection of Clinton
SAD. Did not Obama say how he admired how Regan got people to vote against there own interest? Exactly how did that happen? CNN is airing an instructive program called “Campaign Killers”. It is nothing less than SyOps.
My stock portfolio is just fine. Down a little over the past month but a hell of a lot better than it was a year and two ago. Unlike the crash in ‘99/’00 which bankrupted my and other 401Ks. Supply side eco has been working just fine for people for a few decades now. A heck of alot better than double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, and double digit unemployment.
How are things working out for you Obama slanderers? How many more prominent Dems are abandoning Billary?
This is slander?
Did not Obama say how he admired how Regan got people to vote against there own interest?
Don’t make me laugh! I am being kind.
Just out of curiosity what’s your take on Obama’s economic policy proposals?
Supply side eco has been working just fine for people for a few decades now.
That is only a true statement if by “people” you mean the top 5%, the rest of us troglites are down in the mines with still more arriving everyday.
Just out of curiosity what’s your take on Obama’s economic policy proposals?
Hello?
I don’t recall reading any words of substance from any of the candidates thus far. All change, change, change. This article in the NYT’s Maz. sums up what we need in a President. I’d vote for a hairy dog if I thought it could address the problems outlined in this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/magazine/27world-t.html?pagewanted=all
The only thing I found remarkable about SC is the way blacks are coming out of the woodwork to vote because of Obama. They will still be there to vote for Vice Presidential candidate Obama.
Bob h,
You bring up an interesting question. Considing the massive turnout in Iowa and yesterday, if Barak isn’t the nominee, will those people sit on their hands?
I tend to think so.
GOP protests brandished confederate flags for canddiates of favored bigots in that state.
It was a reverse spin. People get offended by stuff and decided to vote enough to show people where Carolina stands in this day and age.
For all of the plurality of candidate preferences on display for the day, the part preference was clearly to one side.
How ironic that Huckabee’s dirty tricks either slime the Clintons, or inspire their greatest opposition.
I do not so much dislike Obama as I have been totally under whelmed by him. But then I see candidates as what they are; i.e. politicians. Thus I take whatever they say with the proverbial grain of salt. I found Obama to be a silver-tongued lightweight. Hillary is one tough and one VERY smart lady and I like all 3 of those things being an old feminist from way back. But still John Edwards was my first choice as I saw him as the most natural populist. So for me it was Edwards, Clinton, Dodd, Richardson, Kucinich, Obama and Gravel. What with Edwards’ campaign being on life support I was leaning towards Senator Clinton. Then New Hampshire happened and all hell broke loose. The media and many, if not most, of the liberal blogs went nuts. The Clinton bashing went on and on and got dirtier, nastier by the minute. One of my favorite liberal blogs, BuzzFlash has a headline right now that says “Bill Clinton, from Big Dog to Junkyard Dog”. Needless to say they are no longer one of my favorites and have seen the last contribution from me they will ever get.
My point is that while I wasn’t impressed with Obama I didn’t actively dislike him. Now I do. It may be unfair to dislike him for the swarming vitriol that has been unleashed at the Clintons but life’s unfair. I know one thing, I will not vote for Obama if he gets the nomination. For what he, his supporters,and his surrogates have done to the Clintons they can all go to hell.
Mr Murder, Have you spent much time in the South? I’d be suprised if you had. Many of the major cities are run by African Americans & have a large % of very diverse internationals. The days of rabid KKK racist types having influence is over. As far as state flags go & the Stars & Bars in particuliar, there are some Southerns who just plain do not appreciate being dictated to by Yankees & view it as a States Rights issue, as opposed to some nostalgic lament to re-enact slavery. It’s difficult to try & explain “heritage”. Maybe Jim Webb did it best in his eloquent writings about the Confederate Memorial. Don’t get me wrong I understand how some Republicans exploited the issue. Flags, gay rights, race, 2nd Amendment rights etc, all the wedge issues seem to take on a life of their own, but hey that’s politics.
just: surely you dont believe that rabid KKK types dont have political power in the south today? that is a totally naive conclusion that ignores the southern strategy of the republican party and the influence of the fundies in southern politics. what can be said, is the expression of racism has changed over the years. i can give you numerous examples of how the southern experience is still rife with hate for minorities and uppity outsiders. just to name one: new orleans/katrina which even transcends just southerners.
Obama nausea.
Those are the words I’ve used in two personal notes to larry. I thank both Larry and Susan for their work exposing the truth behind Obama.
The fact is that the Clinton’s are not behind the anti Obama rant, check out Obama’s OWN HOME TOWN PAPERS!It is right there for anyone to read. Also, thanks to both Larry and Susan, they have let us know that ABC’s Brian Ross is also on the case.
I do not hate BO, what I do hate is the un balanced and obvious place of blame onto the Clintons. I also hate the lack of VETTING, regarding his resume’ or lack thereof.
I am an Edwards supporter, I would love for him to get the national attention that he deserves, it is obvious now that this is not going to happen. A sorry reality for us all.
What is the REAL appeal of Barack? I have yet to hear one person give me tangibles. Just vague references to his speeches. A good orator does not a president make. Have we learned nothing?
I normally appreciate both the subject matter and insight at No Quarter, but the anti-Obama “National Inquirer” type rants are a bit much. I am not an Obama supporter and agree with the general sentiments of Larry & Susan about Obama’s qualifications.
But the root problem is the media’s obsession with Obama & McCain, not Obama. In this case they should be ranting about the messenger, not the candidate. Don’t try to change people’s mind about the candidates, but about using their judgment instead of following the herd. Or to be fair, point out McCain’s inconsistencies in relation to press coverage also.
It’s unfortunate that Larry has added his name to the the media who see elections as a (blood) sport or a “horse race”. they are more interested in the controversy than on the fact that we are choosing our next Preisident. Personalities are nothing but facades. Records, legislation, positions and programs are what is important. Yes, change is a nebulous word. But concrete proposals and positions are key to decision making. Hillary is from the Democratic Leadership Council. They are middle of the road. mReal change cannot come from the middle. Particualrly when the previous administration has taken us so far to the right. To correct, the pendelum must swing farther to tleft than Hillary is willing to take us. Obama is charismatic and a fabulous speaker, but, program-wise John Edwards is the candidate that will take us on the path to correction of the damage George Bushcheney has done to the american people.
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011834.php
These statistics show a far different story than is being told in the MSM…please report this….
Seeing how all of Obama;s own finance scandals deal with shady characters, he’s probabyl glad to talk about race instead.
Not like he’s inexperienced campaigning that trait.
probably*
I think the reference to the King of Epirus (Pyrrhus) might be a bit premature. Better to wait for Feb. 5th. Twenty+ states will provide a better picture of what is going on. Five are hardly representative of much of the country. We might not even pick a nominee before the convention. As for the schism between blacks and hispanics, I can recall reading such articles several decades ago. (Probably in the NY Times Sunday Magazine.) If you want to avoid a fight over the crumbs, then get a bigger pie. More slices to share.
One question about the Republicans. Which would be more humiliating for Rudy: ending up with no convention delegates, or a small handful- about half a dozen? Under those conditions, I would enjoy seeing his name placed in nomination.
Looks like the Kennedy family will endorse Barack.
( Except for the one who wants to be senator from NY he had endorsed Hillary ).
Lieberman endorses McCain, and Hillary and the mainstream dems were so nice to him in CT when he should have gone into the crapper of history.
Gov. Sebelius will endorse him too ( superb female veep candidate )
Is Gore next? Oh how sharper than a serpent’s tooth is the stiletto of revenge served cold.
The one place where the inhabitants should know the strengths and weaknesses of Barack and Hillary would be the US Senate. Barack is grabbing a pile of dem endorsements from there.
The Latinos love Ted Kennedy and he just went Obama as did Caroline K. What a heavy endorsement. Bill Clinton playing the race card is Obama’s best friend.
“This election is about You.” ~ Billary Clinton= LOL
Too bad, I liked Bill. He is blowing it big time.
“Independent” my achin’ back. You lot are scared to death of both Clintons, which is why your party and your lapdog media are pushing Obama so enthusiastically–and why you’re all pretending it’s the Clintons “playing the race card.”
The last time I voted Dem or Pub was 1972 when I was young and dumb. Since them I have made sure my vote was in some other column that says I think BOTH Party’s Suck.If you were smart you would do the same. Congress does not care what you think after they have gotten your vote. If you think government works for You then You are a fool.
When was the last time ANY Democrat had the support of 50%+ of white voters in the general election? Face it, black voters count!