By Larry Johnson
closeAuthor: Larry Johnson
Name: 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 February 5, 2008 at 9:40 PM in Current Affairs
Save this post. I will be telling you, “see, I told you so” or you will be feeding me a healthy helping of crow. But I am confident it will be, “I told you so.”If Democrats choose Obama they are signing the death warrant for their party’s presidential aspirations in November. Normally, given the Bush record of the last eight years, Republicans in general would not have a snowball’s chance in a blast furnace of winning in November. But this year will not be normal. The virtual lack of national scrutiny to Obama’s record and the media adulation for his bullshit “change” mantra will come to a screeching halt. When it does, expect the following:BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA.
Unless he sets up shop in St. Patrick’s Cathedral, he’ll have a tough time shedding the label that he’s a muslim (even though he isn’t). Although, as the media starts looking at his father’s side of the family in Kenya they will find practicing muslims and a relationship with the Kenyan opposition leader, who also happens to be a muslim. That could have been a heartwarming story except cousin Odinga is in the middle of an ethnic/tribal war pitting Luo against Kikuyu and muslim against christian. Not so sweet. If fighting in Kenya continues to escalate it won’t be the inspirational backstory Barack may have counted on.
Then there is the fairy tale fantasy about Obama opposing lobbyists. He’s against them unless they represent the nuclear industry in his state and then he will take their money. And that is just for starters. I don’t begrudge Obama taking money from lobbyists. It is how Washington works. But he is so disingenuous and sanctimonious. Just wait till the national media starts sorting through his past record of contributors. The shine will come off. They love going after preachers who decry homosexuals and then score a hummer from a male hooker.
Oh yeah. Look for the Patrick Fitzgerald backlash. Most Democrats have lauded Mr. Fitzgerald for hauling Scooter Libby in for perjury and obstruction of justice. But will Democrats be singing with similar gusto come end of March as Mr. Fitzgerald builds a case against Obama’s key financial backer, Tony Rezko? I fully suspect that Dems, angry over the legal assault on Obama at that time, will be hollering for Fitzgerald’s head. Fitzgerald has integrity but that will count for little when you are perceived as crucifying the black Jesus.
The real crock of shit is the praise of Obama’s brilliance. There is not a “there” there. That is the point of Susan’s piece below, challenging his backers to tote up the list of “accomplishments.”It would be one thing if he was getting busted up on a daily basis by Hillary. No way. Many of the Dems are such a bunch of whining pussies that any effort to challenge Barack on anything of substance was batted down as “gutter” politics. Jesus Christ!!
I would be prepared to make the case that Obama can resist the shit storm that will hit him in a few months if he had in fact conducted an effective defense of himself this last month and a half. But that has not happened. The Obama supporters, with the enthusiastic support of the mainstream media, are enabling the Senator.
Oh. I’m glad to see 80% of the African American’s in Georgia are supporting Obama. He’s going to need it. But there are other states where a black man (it does not matter his mother was white) with a direct tie to Africa will be savaged. Some of the racism will be overt and very ugly. But most of it will be quiet and insidious. If Obama had genuine and significant accomplishments he could probably deflect a significant portion of the racist attacks. But he doesn’t. Tiger Woods? Yes. Colin Powell? Yes. Being known for giving snappy speeches won’t cut it.
Like it or not, race will be an issue that will muddy the waters come November (and please, do not accuse me of being racist for using the phrase, “muddy the waters”).
And there is more to come. Republicans are doing a good job of beating the crap out of each other. Not a lot of new on that front. But not the same for Obama. I am familiar with a couple of stories that the mainstream media is sitting on. These stories will be very damaging for Obama and add to the baggage he will carry into November. The remaining question is whether or not the media counter attack will come before or after the Democrats make their final decision.
Preview of Coming attractions. Check out this piece by Peter Hitchens. This is but the beginning.
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
I am very worried - the racial split - as seen in GA says bad things for Dems. In essence we have met the enemy and it is us!
The silent bigotry is going to come to pass. If Obama is the ultimate candidate, we will need a lot to overcome this.
I don’t know anything about future stories but I wouldn’t be surprised if they exist. If not, the Repugs will just make it all up!
Yikes!
I’m not sure he will lose, but he would be ineffective.
It’s like this- we send Obama in, he helps the Repubs hold their base together, then confirms their previously held bias to the extent they are not a party slated to wander in the wilderness for forty years as the legacy they have earned.
He isn’t ready yet as a best case scenario. At the worst case instance, he’s poorly vetted and likely to got hrough ten times the amount of investigation Hillary did.
Whitewater was a mountain out of a molehill compared to Rezko and Auchi.
Actually, the Republicans are doing a good job beating the shit out of Hillary in their campaign communications. Considering Romney’s ads in particular, you would think that he was already matched against her. Now, I wonder why that would be? Anti Hillary ads and speeches by Republicans in the primaries? It all adds up to who they would rather run against.
With this difference. There is no new dirt on Hillary. I’ve been chatting with my buddies at Fort Bragg. They all hate Hillary. However, if it was a choice between Hillary and Obama they’d take Hillary.
Moreover, as someone who used to occupy the “I can’t stand Hillary camp,” I am quite confident she can turn the hearts of some of her opponents. The real Hillary has not been widely seen or known.
Face it, the Republicans can’t run on anti-Obama ads yet because most Republicans haven’t realized that he’s in the race.
Larry,
Seriously - Why is the Corporate Media sitting on stories about Obama? Don’t they have an obligation let voters be aware of what they are getting?
WHO is behind them withholding these stories?
Also, it seems the “OBorg’s” are in full swing mode about the post on Obama’s house. Seems to justify our feelings here that there is LOTS and LOTS more on the Obama Reko connection.
The media wants Obama as the nominee so the repubs can win the white house. The media wants the repub to win the white house because the consolidation has given a handful of corporations access to our airwaves. Corporations live those tax cuts, deregulation…etc.
The irony is that Bill’s 1996 Telecommunications bill laid the ground work for all the media consolidation and GWB’s FCC perfected it. I guess legislation has consequences.
The media also make fortunes from political ads. It is in their inter$t to stretch out the campaigns.
I have not read this persons work very often but I would like to know what the source for this came from.
Is this what you are looking for ?
SOURCES
rijj, I was attempting claify if the doctor selling the house had decided to split the lot prior to Michelle Obama becoming aware of the property or as cited in the link Larry posted;
implies he was not going to split the lot.
If he was not “willing” to do this, the way the deal went down takes on a different complextion than saying the deals where independent of each other.
Teak,
Wow are you good at detail. I doubt there is any IF involved.
It is fairly obvious the Doctor originally planned to sell the house in manner which he bought it, as one lot. Think about it:
• If it was just a pure Real Estate transaction, why didn’t the Obama’s have their Real Estate Agent contact the doctor, or the Doctors Agent, after learning the house was going to be for sale? It would have been a simple deal with TWO Realtors negotiating – and there would have been no need to involve Rezko. All the Obama’s would have to have done, as part of their Purchase agreement, is add the codicil that they accepted the restrictions for a Historic home. As the ordinances say – once in there no opting out.
• Obama’s told told the Chicago Sun-Times the Name of his Agent in this interview http://www.suntimes.com/news/124171,CST-NWS-obama05.article
Q: Who was your Realtor? Did this Realtor also represent Rita Rezko?
A: Miriam Zeltzerman, who had also represented me in the purchase of my prior property, a condominium, in Hyde Park. She did not represent Rita Rezko
•By going to the Illinois Association of Realtors at this link http://www.illinoisrealtor.org/FirmSearch/FirmSearch.aspx and inserting Ms. Zelterman’s last name you get this:
Miriam E Zelterman
Urban Search Chicago, Name of Company
4800 S Lake Shore Dr. #100 N
Chicago, Il 60615 (Zip code for Kenwood’s Historic District)
Tel 312-337-2400
Fax 773-285-7724
Instead there was 16 months of convoluted bureaucratic paperwork, permits, subdivisions of lots, hearings, fences and of course the help of Tony Rezko and his wife. That’s an awful lot of trouble to go through to buy a house.
Further, the reporter, Mr Hitchens, works for a British paper. Britain has extremely strict slander laws, so their reporters really dig in before they write anything. Otherwise, they could lose everything, including their jobs, if the facts are not accurate.
I honestly fail to see any IF in this.
I saw a quote attributted to Barak Obama saying the house “was on the market for months” which is not what I took away from what I have read. In fact, quite the opposite is what I take away allowing for
the permit process. Obama also stated there where two “offers” on the house and his was the better one. Perhaps better in that this doctor did not want to invite more hassles by not taking Obamas’ offer.
The thing about it is, if the doc did not go along and split the lot Michelle Obama was in a position to make things difficult for him and full price on the lot was what made him willing to “wait”.
“no need to involve Rezko”; It was that or the dog house for Barry Obama. My impression of Michelle Obama is that she does not take crap or no for an answer. Obama does not wear the pants in that household.
I have asked myself the same question. What is behind the blackout of obviously bad info on Obama? What is the press afraid of?
More, what can we do? Start writing to the networks with real info and daring them?
There are five media conglomerates that control what you think.
News Corporation
Viacom
AOL-Time-Warner
Disney
GE
They are in it for the money.
We could spend a couple of billion on this election, JUST ON THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE, so no matter who loses they win. Big.
The Obama candidacy is good for a very lucrative ride if they concentrate on two goals.
***First hype the rags-to-riches sharecropper angle of the downtrodden kid from the south side that makes it to the top. God, we love that story and have sopped it up since before Lincoln’s old log cabin days.
***Secondly, keep the primary race going as long as possible, up through June if possible. If the media spots stopped at the beginning of February, they’d miss the additional four months of cash flow from the Democrat donors.
It’s a honey of a conveyor that transports dollars from your fist to their income statements.
I think you are right Jim.
So does the New York Times today.
They make money off it
They report that they make money off it
We pay for the news that they make money off it.
What’s not to like?
I’m not sure that I agree with your final sentence. I think that Romney in particular would rather run against Obama, which is one reason why he is positioning a fair number of his ads in the “Hillary has never run anything” space. If Obama and Romney face off, then Romney is perfectly positioned to challenge Obama for the “Washington outsider” mandate and he will have already established himself through message repetition as the candidate with successful private sector and government executive experience (the substance won’t matter to most voters, just the message).
As has been pointed out several times on this blog, all he would have to do in the general election is zero in on Obama’s lack of accomplishment (What actual change has he brought about?)and his (Romney’s) record of accomplishment, executive responsibility, and the fact that he has never been to Washington (thus separating himself from the Bush administration) and Obama might well fizzle in the general election even with his true believer, ex-Clintonista advisors. Add in the political hay that could be made of his ties to the Kenya situation and he could easily be toast.
Tell ya what, pal. Whenever we hook up after November, if you have to eat crow, we’ll go to KFC. But if you’re in the “I told you so” mode, we’ll go out some place better for steaks and martinis. In the event of the latter, I’m fairly certain that several martinis may well be necessary.
“Republicans can’t run on anti-Obama ads yet because most Republicans haven’t realized that he’s in the race.”
Well, I must say you have provided them with ample material for those anti-Obama ads when and if the time comes that they need them!
Oh, please. Go to a few wingnut sites and you’ll see they have 38 page pdf’s just full of goodies on Obama. They’ll start funneling all that crap to the media if he wins. They won’t use that stuff now because they would rather he won the nomination. Then he’ll be fresh meat for their swiftboat machine. They don’t have anything new on Hillary that we haven’t already heard 100 times before. If they throw up any of that old stuff on her, we’ll all just yawn. They know that.
this is true. Media is waiting. so is GOP.
can you imagine the black community when Obama is made to look like the bum he is? Obama exposed? Michelle has quite a resume as well.
They don’t have anything new on Hillary that we haven’t already heard 100 times before
Are you joking? I’ve read plenty but didn’t post it because I’m not going to do what Clinton surrogates have done to Obama.
The GOP can’t WAIT to take her down, along with her husband.
Barak Obama said there was truckload of swiftboating waiting for Hillary and he was already vetted making him the better choice to beat the republicans.
what Clinton surrogates have done to Obama???
Done to Barak Obama? Everyone is running around having heart palpitations about what was done to Barak Obama. Freakin horse pucky. It does not matter if Obama was the one to play that card first;
During this primary season MSM demographics reached new lows.
I have watched the media talk about:\
Old people; black old people;white old people;latino old people divided by gender.
Young people;white;blacklatino;asian
20,30,40,50,60 70 somethings by gender and religion.
You want to complain about the alledged racial profiling of some preechy politician who thinks he can win it by giving sermons of false hope and dreams? “yes we can” my ass! The guy can’t even buy his own house with out screwing up and did not know about people freezing there buts off who he was responsible for! You want that for a president?
He will take money from the nuke indusrty of Illinois, but you hear him utter one word about the 1.8 billion dollars that state lost? Of course not! You know why? Because he NOT a fresh face. he is two faced and left Durbin holding the barf bag.
Go on now Cee please, take your best top 5 and give it your best shot. It will be like an immunity shot in the arm for us.
“I’ve read plenty but didn’t post it because I’m not going to do what Clinton surrogates have done to Obama.”
And the fearless few that have posted your vital information have departed this mortal coil?……….
Psst…… your shoe is ringing.
For those of you who have not run into Jackie O and Elvis at the 7-11 recently, there is an interesting article by Prof. Stanley Fish in the New York Times. His searches on the subject of Hillary Haters earned him an “email pal” which assailed him with his email file on Hillary, to wit”
For those of you of more pedestrian tastes there is the Tale of Two Charlies: An interesting assessment by Charlie Cook on the Charlie Rose Show last night in which Cook used the analogy of a stock price to describe the volatility of each candidates chances. He said that there really wasn’t much more to be known about Hillary Clinton (You’d think so after sixty million USA bucks, Ken Starr and the millions Scaife fronted in the Arkansas Project — DUH!!)
Her price would trade in a very narrow range with a fixed ceiling and a floor not much below.
Barack Obama, he reasoned, is still very much an unknown with a value seen to gyrate between excessive highs and dismal lows. As we get to know the candidate better and the tidbits gleaned from his background sink into the public psyche, his trading price will seek his true value (think Arrow-Debreu Model) and his trading range will narrow accordingly.
assessment by Charlie Cook ;Her price would trade in a very narrow range
Like a blue chip? Steady money.
Speaking of this, though, Clinton is just not afraid of the Republicans.
Maybe that’s why she and Bill drive them nuts;they just cannot intimidate her.
FWIW, nice to know, for me.
Dead on the money.
Currently if you lay five bucks on Clinton, you get nine bucks at the window if she wins.
If you lay five bucks on McCain, you get ten bucks at the window.
It’s that goddamn close.
If you lay five bucks on Obama, you get twelve bucks at the window.
This is why the California first family tried to steer the faithful towards McCains best hope of winning.
This is why the rest of the GOP looks on Obama as the dream opponent.
Christ, it’s not like it’s rocket science.
(A little money changed hands last night over California: Clinton was not favored to win on Betfair when voting began.
Neener neener neener Oprah)
One good indicator of why Romney’s campaign crashed and burned. He was already trying to run against Hillary.
Right now, Memphis, East Arkansas, and all of West Tennessee is getting ass kicked by wave after wave of storms and tornadoes.
http://monkeyfister.blogspot.com…lar- budget.html
What’s happening here is truly terrifying. Massive damage. a Mall was nearly flattened. A Sharp manufacturing plant was flattened with a whole shift inside. People are being ordered off the streets. national Guard is activated. Polling places all closed hours early as a result of these terrible storms.
Is this being reported anywhere in the National news scene? I only have rabbit-ears TV.
–mf
Be safe!!! God bless!!!!
Yes I read about this! How awful! I hope it gets better very soon.
Mr Murder,
A nasty Clinton hater said it served them right for voting for Hillary.
You better hope she isn’t the nominee.
Hillary talked about it when she spoke in her NYC headquarters after the NY vote was in. She talked about the death and destruction through the states that were damaged so badly last night. She was the only candidate I heard refer to it.
Your mantra is that Obama can’t win a general election. I question that. But mostly I’m surprised that you’re so negative about a Democratic Candidate. You’re beginning to sound like a negative image of James Dobson.
i am with you 100% larry. i competely agree. he is going to get clocked. someone had posted on taylor marsh the table of contents of the 37page pdf on the many attack points the repubs will use against him and it is unbelievable. if bo gets the nom - god forbid- it will be prez mccain.
ahhhhhhhh
thanks larry!
Link? 37page pdf?
INPUT! INPUT!
I think you have to subscribe to the icky place to get the Obama pdf.
http://www.humanevents.com/search.php
Gosh, I hate even putting that link in here. But that’s where it comes from.
Thanks. I’ll do it for the info; I can use an alias. Good to know what the Raiths are up to without being feed upon.
aka …MC Rove.
Teakwood,
It is 1:44 AM here - I am not sure what the questions are or if it is because I made more damn typo’s. I am tired right now - so I’d rather wait until morning to continue -OK?
Please email me (no links attached) at stefanikn at gmail dot com. Then if necessary I will give you another email address.
{{HUGS}}
Teakwood,
You are so funny. It is 1:40 AM here now, so is it okay if this keeps till morning?
Please use plain text, and no attachements, and email me at stefanikn at gamil dot com If there is lots of info needed or wanted, I will give you another email address. Having dial up does not allow me to use all the gmail features.
{{HUGS}}
I think that people who believe Obama can win the general election with his dismal record is just fooling themselves. He might win Illinois, DC and New York. Maybe! All those southern states he is winning in the primaries such as South Carolina will overwhelmingly support the republican. All those caucuses he’s winning with the walk-in republican vote will go the other way.
I think an Obama nomination really means that so called progressives are not serious about their agenda being enacted in any manner. We allow our nomination to be compromised by republicans who vote in our primaries. As a result we almost always get unelectable, dog butt candidates: Mondale-Ferraro, Dukakas-don’t remember, Clinton (was great but not the parties favorite), Gore-Lieberman where Lieberman almost single handedly sabotaged the election and then Kerry. Frankly, I am tired of supporting a party that doesn’t organize well, doesn’t get their message out, that gets hen-picked on by republicans and loses elections when the ideas they expouse are clearly morally, ethically and in practicality superior to anything the republicans have ever said. How do we lose when the majority of americans favor our ideas and policies? Sheer incompetence. If Obama gets the nomination I can’t vote for the guy, he isn’t qualified in any manner to be president. If he gets the nomination I may just say fuck it and vote a straight republican ticket because I don’t think democrats are serious about doing what is right.
And a party that can’t say no to Bush Chimp. They seem completely paralyzed to me. Take a look at Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. It is just gutless all the way. There’s no visible strength.
McConnell Hey Ried! Why don’t you go do the Leahy bird dance! BSlap!
Ried: “I say to my good friend from Kentucky….WAAAA….WHAAAA…YOU WON”T LET US VOTE…WHAAAAA
Completely Penniless.
Walter the Penniless
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_the_Penniless
The internet is an amazing thing. Who would of thought there was such a person.
It was my impression he expected to do better tonite, Obama seemed downcast.
He’ll probably feel better tomorrow.
We are being misled by the suits on TV. The Charlie Rose Show had a historian, several pundits, a Democrat strategist and a pollster on last night. They seemed to focus on the California primary except that Georgia and Massachusetts were mentioned briefly.
Two things emerged
Hillary’s glass was always half empty, Barack’s always half full. This, I presume because Obama surged to the point where the LA Times poll gave her a two point lead (a dead heat).
Today Clinton has nearly twice as many California delegates than Obama and a 52% to 42% advantage: There will be crow to eat yet again on Charlie Rose tonight.
The pundits were really up on the “momentum” and “spirit of change” thing with Obama presenting the fresh, thirtysomething future and Clinton mired in the legacy of the establishment.
The historian told them that older women were solidly behind Clinton and much more likely to vote than the thritysomethings. The pollster told them that Clinton was likely to win Texas and Ohio; also now that she was ahead and heavily favored in Texas and Ohio, that all she had to do was keep winning with scant margins to win the nomination.
Clinton has won California, New York and Florida. She is slated to win Texas and Ohio. I’d post odds that Clinton will take Pennsylvania as well. Obama has flyover America.
What do you call someone who wins California, New York, Florida, Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania in the general election?
Madame President.
I am watching Hillary make her speech on CNN right now and I must say I don’t understand how she doesn’t win the nomination in unanimous fashion. She also should win ever state in the general election. She is by far the best presidential candidate running. By FAR!! She is an amazing speaker and an amazing woman. I don’t get it.
Dan Abrams of MSNBC, last night had a mind blowing stat that explains why Obama is competitive with Hillary. Abrams showed that since Iowa or NH (I can’t recall which one) 83% of the media reporting on Obama has been favorable; Hillary’s favorable reporting number…wait for it…47%. This sounds eerily similar to the run up to the war. I believe the media coverage of the GWB’s war was in the Obama numbers.
Obama is being set up for THE Slaughter, me thinks.
He actually called it right. “It won’t matter what votes he gets, tomorrow if he loses them you’ll still be hearing the ‘media’ saying, ‘yeah, but isn’t he still so magnificent!’”
Well, low and behold, Claire McCaskill is on the tube all aglow about Obama while saying its amazing that Clinton took NY, NJ, California…Obama is still amazing.
This glow is a Rovian spin. This glow is the jesus juice the DEMs can’t resist.
Ya know, Lucifer’s name itself indicates that he was all aglow…not saying Obama is Lucifer, but that followers of Glowie things….
And I knew Britney’s manager was manipulating her!
Rove came out with the faux jab at LazyObama. That should have given away exactly what was planned. Then you have Bill O’Reilly gleeming to get so close to Obama…..When FoxNews is looking to crown the DNC guy, pay attention.
…..When FoxNews is looking to crown the DNC guy, pay attention…..
Last night, when Fox News was covering an Obama speach, they focused on a 40 year old, white woman standing behind him, while Brit Hume said, “Look at the woman behind Obama. She’s in love with Barak Obama. She’s smiling and hanging on his every word”.
The media is not going to give it to you, unfortunately. Anyone catch Chris M. sounding stunned off camera…Hillary Clinton is being called for Arizona????
Amazing speaker, amazing woman, sure. It’s her history and policies that are the problem for me.
For some debts don’t matter, others history…It is about the future; that other stuff? Just a bad “dream”. Nice to know the Bush administration thinks Waterboarding is legal.
But what would the world think if we called him on it? Not as bad if we won’t.
I not a big fan of Obama or Clinton. The former because I can’t think of anything he has done and the later because if she is elected to 1 term its 24 years of bush or clinton leading the country not very good for our democracy.
I was of course pulling for Edwards. In all this I am amazed no democratic candidate wants to come out and hold liars bush & cheney accountable for thier actions. I guess that would beg the question why isn’t Pelosi doing anything? It seems this administration can break the law over and over again with impunity with no consequences. I worked hard before the 2006 elections for democratic candidates donated money etc but no more.
To pile on Pelosi, we can note that she, too, is guilty of “signing statements”. One day, she took an oath to support and defend the constitution, then the next day, said, oh, except for impeachment. “Impeachment is off the table”. When does the Speaker of the House have the power to disregard part of the constitution?
She states that impeachment would be “devisive”. Hello, Nancy, we already have “devisive”. And isn’t it desirable to have “devisive” between those who believe in law and those who don’t?
This is very disturbing - yes. I can see it now. Can you imagine the swift boating coming Obama’s way if he does, in fact, get the Democratic nomination? It feels ominous.
The Swift Boaters just made up lies about John Kerry. With Obama they would not need to bother to lie.
Why doesn’t anyone talk about Michelle Obama? She appears to be a liability. Just do an internet search on her.
Usually Democratic politicians’ wives are subject to major scrutiny. Remember during the Clinton administration when Hillary said she doesn’t like baking cookies? How many times did we hear that Elizabeth Edwards’ health issues would distract John Edwards if he was elected president?
Why doesn’t anyone talk about Michelle Obama? She appears to be a liability. Just do an internet search on her.
And believe me, you will never hear from the MSM that she just hired Lieberman’s executive assistant to be her new chief of staff.
Really - WOW! This really is a set-up!
From what I have read about Michelle Obama, she and Imelda Marcos, of the Phillipines, would have much in common.
Michelle can reach across the aisle and go shoe shopping with Condi.
Rita,
I bet you whined like stuck pig when Hillary was being attacked, didn’t you? Now you want Michelle attacked? Pathetic!
I understand that today on a talk show Michelle Obama responded “I’d have to think about it” when asked if she would support Hillary if she secures the nomination.
“I’d have to think about it”?? Now imagine—just imagine—if the speaker had been Bill Clinton and he’d been asked about nominee Barack Obama. All over the media don’t you think the coverage would be Divisive!! Underhanded!! Out of control!! Subtly racist!!
And the coverage as to what Ms. Obama apparently said? Absolutely zero as near as I can tell.
And worst of all is that she’s irretrieveably validated all those arrogant Obamatrons who sniff “I could never vote for Hillary! I’ll vote for McCain! I’ll stay home and work my difficult level NYT crossword! The Sunday one!”
The Dan Abrams stat in a previous post is invaluable. But let’s be optimisitic and wait for the media to finally dig in on the nukes, on the Illinois Maytag workers he abandoned, on Kenya and yeah, really dig in on Rezko.
Last point: great stat tonight is that of voters who decided within the last three days, Hillary split them with Obama, even getting slightly more. Huge shift from previous where Obama got 60 to 70% of such voters. If accurate, does that mean he’s crested and that scrutiny is taking hold. Let’s hope so.
And SusanUn, God bless, be well and take care. All the best. And then get back to work. We need you.
Frankly Michelle Obama is a bitch and responsible for Obama’s aqwuisition of his landmarked mansion as she was on board [placed by Obama] of City Planning Commission and found this house and got Rezko to help! Rezko was neighbor.
She’s a greedy tough piece of work. Ungracious and super entitled….and angry. Remarks about Clinton are snarky and nasty.
Her career leaves much to be desired. Both are an extremely greedy calculating duo.
Obamas’ resumes are atrocious.
Can you refrain from calling people dirty names? As a woman, and a Hillary supporter, I resent any female being slurred in such a fashion.
Steve,
I believe was asked if she would WORK to support Hillary.
I expect desperation, spin and lies from Clinton supporters now. Keep it coming.
You’ll have more people like Michelle who may for vote for her but won’t lift a finger to help the campaign.
Let me say again that I’ll never vote for her.
The Obamas are likeable enough.
(/Barack)
I am surprised that some people who insisted right here on these pages that they were planning to vote for Edwards ended up voting for Hillary. For what little it is worth, I did vote for Edwards. As someone said here the other day, there is nothing to make me choose one over the other (interesting that the person who said that is one of those, I do believe, who ended up choosing one over the other - oh well).
[...] Interesting bias from kos. No one is saying "huge night for Obama" anywhere else. Over at No Quarter, Larry Johnson continues his love affair with Hillary with another bash Obama piece. I guess [...]
Hey Larry, does this mean that you can kiss off an appointment in an Obama administration?
It happens to be a great night for Hillary. If you’re looking for Hillary bashing go to Huffington Post, Alternet, and a dozen so called liberal blogs that I now find so stupid I can’t dig them anymore. You want Obama without bias?? It’s easy to find. just troll the liberal websites, as all they do is hit jobs on Hillary and love jobs on Obama.
Stop whining.
ritamary, “Why doesn’t anyone talk about Michelle Obama? She appears to be a liability. Just do an internet search on her.” What R U talking about??? Where’s the “liability?”
First I do not infer this is a negitive just another
example of trying to have both ways Saying that Hillary worked for walmart.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/396874,CST-NWS-sweet23.stng
First I do not infer this is a negitive
Teak,
Sure you do.
Hello to you too.
I see it as Obama telling his wife “Sorry Michelle, I just wacked 50k of our bottom line for saying I support unions.” Michelle does not come across a person who would respond with “It’s ok Barak…I don’t mind.”
what part of “example of trying to have it both ways” is unclear?
We(oops) Hipocrascy is not exclusive any one politician.One more point on electability if it’s McCain v Obama.
The Hispanic vote goes back to the reeps on immigration. They will reward McCain and trusted him on the issue since he stood up despite taking a big beating.
Hey Larry, Ft. Brag on the Hillary band wagon??? That’s a hoot! That’s a scream! What exactly was the vote from those precincts? Show us the numbers!!! Pa-leeeeeze. Ft Brag N.C. (Brunswick County) population 19,980 males, 9,203 females, median age 22, median income 31K. Come on man, if this is Hillary country show us the numbers.
One thing remains clear — whether winning or losing you Obama supporters are always whining. Fact is alot of us are not buying into the manufactured Obamas. DEAL WITH IT.
I can see it now. If Obama is the nominee, groups like Swift Boat Vets for Truth (remember them and the damage they did?) are going to eat him alive, especially if Huckebee is on the Republican ticket. Obama supporters better wake up now, smell the coffee, and vote for Hillary in the remaining primaries. Our freedoms are at stake!
Centrocitta,
The Swift Boaters have nothing on the Clinton surrogates. They’ll just use the disinformation they’ve spread here and elsewhere.
The Clinton surrogates have jeapordized our freedom. Blame them.
Listen to what Hill’s old FRIEND has to say.
http://www.nypost.com/ Picture (Metafile)http://www.nypost.com/
SUPER TUESDAY OUTLOOK: OBAMA’S SURGE
By DICK MORRIS
February 4, 2008 — AS we approach Super Tues day, Barack Obama has been surging all week - closing the enormous gap he once faced in most key states. But his momentum has yet to carry him over the top. Hillary Clinton still clings to leads, sometimes narrow, in the bulk of the states in play.
Of the 10 states with reliable and recent poll data, Hillary leads in eight, although by razor-thin margins in California, Alabama, Missouri, Connecticut and New Jersey. Only in New York, Massachusetts and Tennessee does her lead seem secure.
How did the Clinton machine falter so badly? And will the trend for Obama continue?
Every election is, at some level, a simple conversation between the two camps. Obama began the campaign by saying he was new; Hillary replied that he was inexperienced. Obama answered that he was a voice for change - and that was the state of discussion leading up to Iowa.
Then, after losing Iowa and almost failing in New Hampshire, the Clintons basically panicked and played the race card - injecting it into a contest that had been colorblind.
While Hillary emphasizes in every speech that she could be the first woman president, Obama had rarely mentioned race. He ran for the Democratic nomination like a Republican black - never summoning victim status and avoiding racial remarks entirely.
Had the Clintons shut up and let the black voters of South Carolina do their talking for them, the block African-American vote there for Obama would’ve brought the race issue home to undecided white voters, triggering a pro-Hillary backlash. But they couldn’t keep quiet. Their oh-so-subtle racial innuendo (for which I doubt they thought they would get caught), philosophizing about the relative roles Martin Luther King and President Lyndon Johnson in achieving civil rights, landed them in the hot water.
With nothing else new to say, Hillary, in effect, countered Obama’s message of change by saying “You’re black.” When Bill compared Obama to Jesse Jackson, the point was obvious.
McCain should have little real difficulty in consolidating the Republican and conservative ranks behind him - especially if his adversary is Hillary Clinton. Animosity to the New York senator may be just the elixir McCain needs to unite his party.
Morris was/is no friend of Hillary. She was on to him from the beginning, and warned her husband about him. That is why the toe sucker can’t stand the sight of her feet. Morris has never had a good word for Hillary, and he never will, thank God, as that would be as bad as the endorsement from Ann Coulter.
Morris is mentioned in Fish’s article, All You Need Is Hate, I cited above.
He also draws upon another article on the pathology of Hillary hatred in GQ, where one may gaze into the abyss in sartorial elegance.
http://men.style.com/gq/features/landing?id=content_6249
Larry,
We have a death wish if Hillary is nominated like the GOP wants.
Quote For The Day
06 Feb 2008 12:59 am
“There is no doubt … we hope and pray every night to run against Hillary Clinton,” - Ari Fleischer, on CNN last night.
And you take Ari Fleisher’s words at face value?
Yes, because he has Sheldon Adelson’s hand up his ass, working his jaw for him.
And you would believe anything that came out of Ari Fleischer’s mouth because…
Ahhhhh, Rita and Marge,
Everything Fleischer and his criminal enterprise wanted THEY GOT!
You ladies must not have been paying attention the last few years.
Been paying enough attention to know that you can’t believe one word that comes out of Ari Fleischer’s mouth. Seems to me that when you take the word of a well documented liar about anything you are the one that hasn’t been paying attention.
With HRC the risks in a general election are known; we know she can take a punch and lash back. I think BHO could win, but we do not know how he will standup to the inevitable, race-baiting Swift Boating that would undoubtedly be coming.
In the meantime, we Dems have a fratricidal demolition derby going on, consuming our money and our brotherly spirits.
I think the “Democratic Death Wish” can be summed up by the way some liberals like to parse information and/or columnists.
Example: Frank Rich is lauded as a liberal columnist and yet he eviscerated Al Gore. Guess that was back when we didn’t like Al Gore as much as we do now. But as long as he keeps his Hillary and Bill Clinton hate columns alive and well, Left Blogoshere will quote him as if he had some integrity.
Example: Anyone with more than a double-digit I.Q. knows that Maureen Dowd is a bitchy ninny who shouldn’t be allowed to write for a PTA Newsletter let alone a national column. Yet frequently, our pals in the Left Blogoshere use her attacks on Hillary Clinton as if they meant something. So long as she attacks Bush/Cheney/Clinton her drivel is fine by them.Hypocrites anyone?
Example: Left Blogoshere touts any negative article from anywhere or any source about Hillary Clinton and yet coddles their Rock Star Obama. Guess they don’t think he can take a punch. If they had integrity or common sense they would want him vetted as much as possible. No surprise would be a good surprise.
Example: Blogs like TPM post a hit job on Clinton, that her campaign was guilty of push-polling in California, and then oops, guess we didn’t vet that story enough, it turns out not to be true. They know full well that the first hit, true or not, will stick in pointy little heads and the Oops will soon be forgotten. Tactics worthy of a Republican?
Hell there are too many example for this tired old bat to list.
But another example might just be that even when Hillary Clinton wins, Most of Left Blogoshere makes it appear that she loses.
I may not have much respect for Obama, but I have a whole lot less for the so-called Liberal Blogs that have no more integrity or honesty than the MSM they pretend to loathe.
Blah, blah Marge,
Your divide, conquer and diversionary tactics don’t work.
The pollster who Clinton HIRED was wrong.
“The Hispanic voter—and I want to say this very carefully—has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates.”
—Clinton pollster Sergio Bendixen
Preliminary results of the most intense primary in recent memory indicate that predictions of a monolithic Latino “firewall” for Clinton have fallen short. The candidates split key Latino states in different parts of the country. Clinton won states like New York and New Jersey while Obama won states like Colorado and Illinois. Exit poll results also demolished widely-held notions that Latinos are unwilling to support a black candidate. Obama succeeded in dropping Clinton’s Latino advantage from 4-1 (68% to 17% according to a CNN poll conducted last week) to 3-2 last night. And in almost every Latino-heavy state that voted Super Tuesday, Obama received more than the 26 percent of the Latino vote he got in Nevada just 2 weeks ago.
Analysis of Latino voting patterns indicates that Latinos did not, as predicted, march monolithically into the voting booths to vote racially black or white. Instead, the Latino vote segmented along other vectors, the most interesting of which is the regional vector.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roberto-lovato/clintons-latino-advantag_b_85243.html
Blah, blah yourself Cee. I’m not trying to divide and conquer anything or anyone. I’m just stating how things seem to me. I guess we don’t have the right to see things from our own perspective and to say so. If people are so stupid or so gullible that a few words from an old lady in Wisconsin divides them, we are in even more trouble than I thought we were. And I thought we were in plenty of trouble.
And by the way, blah, blah doesn’t say what I said was wrong or not true. I think the Obama surrogates and supporters that have trashed a popular former Democratic President have done far more to divide us than my personal perspective.
…..The Clinton surrogates have jeapordized our freedom. Blame them…..
Sorry, Cee, I ain’t buy this one iota. Remember, the reason Al Gore lost in 2000 was because Bush and his thugs were busy planning a fraudulent election while Bush was governor of Texas. I was THERE in Austin. I saw first-hand what was going on while they were trying to impeach Bill Clinton because for getting blow jobs from an Israeli spy.
I saw first-hand what was going on while they were trying to impeach Bill Clinton because for getting blow jobs from an Israeli spy.
You already lost all credibility with every single person here when you plied that crap last week.
Some people never learn…
Larry, you’re scaring me. I was in a beauty parlor sitting next to an older woman in rollers recently, who told me that Obama is a muslim. She said the Democrats are wrong to have someone like him because the muslims caused 911. I told her that Obama is christian but I don’t think she believed me. Last night Hillary got the older women votes. As far as Obama and the media, Hillary and Bill get viciously attacked by Obama supporters and the media for telling the truth as the record shows but no one wants to admit it. The Clintons have never had a fair and balanced media. The NYTimes kept Whitewater on the front page of the paper for almost 8 years. Even Ken Starr couldn’t find any wrong doing for a land deal that the then Governor Clinton lost money.
I wonder who cuts Obama’s hair? If he were at a Farrahkhan rally, I would not be able to differentiate that Obama was a Christian.
See the Hitchens article from Larry’s posting:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=511901&in_page_id=1811
His barber is “Zariff” from the Hyde Park Hair Salon, and Zariff is impressed because Barack makes his own appointments every week.
Nothing about whether he (or Rezko) pays $400 for a haircut, but I doubt it.
See I have to argue vociferously at work that Obama is not a Muslim. Fox News planted that crap in the minds of people last year and it stuck. But I disagree with the notion of nominating a candidate just because we are worried about what Fox news or any other group says about them. We need to nominate the best candidate in the race, the one who reflects our values the most and the one who will not compromise their agenda or beliefs out of existence. Then once we nominate our candidate we need to make sure that we elect them. One of the great problems with our base is that we are way to quick to give credit to the other side when the reason that we lose elections is our own damned fault for either nominating knuckleheads like Kerry or not vigorously supporting our candidates by volunteering, donating money, etc. Democrats take way to much for granted.
If Hillary gets the nomination, she will almost be forced to ask Obama to be VP. The racial rift in the party is palpable.
I agree with most of Larry’s points, he’s going to be just as attacked by the GOP both during the campaign toward November and after he gets in (if he were to beat McCain) afterwards, just like Bill.
Similar to what Connie L mentions above, I met someone who said, “When did John Edwards ever build a house for someone?” Jeezey-wheezey, he started and ended his campaign doing just that. If that truth can’t get out, what the frell can?
That would be a terrible idea.
Clark or Richardson should be the VP candidate.
We can’t afford to lose 2 sitting senators right now. That would be just stupid.
“Forced”? Who’s going to force her?
I’m hoping she runs with Wesley Clark.
Because if we’re going to kick a$$ and take names going forward, we need some unity. If half the party is against her plus the necon cronies in the GOP, we’re doomed-ed.
“I have a whole lot less for the so-called Liberal Blogs that have no more integrity or honesty than the MSM they pretend to loathe.”
I agree. The Faux-Left Manichaean Naderite posse is happy to endorse Obama even though they STATE that Clinton’s positions on actual issues are way more progressive than his.
So, you know, what’s up with that? Hmm. Why would that be?
Ego.
yep.
Although I much prefer Clinton, and agree that Obama will be ruthlessly attacked, the Human Events PDF is very thin gruel. It’s a collection of columns by the usual suspects — O’Reilly, Coulter, Bozell, Malkin, etc. — most of whom are known more for name-calling than really digging up dirt.
If you want to find it, just Google “Obama Exposed” +pdf.
What about the word that McCain has promised not to
run ads that trash Obama? or does that just mean he
relies on “Swift Boaters” and their ilk?
what???? and their isn’t anything ( swiftboatish) you can find about McCain? you know the purple heart band-aid crap that belittles a man’s service ( like they did to Kerry )…I bet there are volumes of info that describe this mental case for what he is..a hot headed war monger.
McCain will get his ass handed to him.
the fact is, there are just more democratic voters, IF they vote MCain loses. If they don’t then off to the next war we go….
DRAFT to follow.
Yeah, the Republicans will attack Obama in the general election if he gets the nomination. They’ll attack Clinton too. So what? It’s what they do, and we’re already seeing signs that the American public is getting tired of it.
I can’t believe anyone would choose a candidate based on “I’m afraid of the Republicans doing X, Y, or Z.” If we let the Republicans intimidate us into picking a particular candidate, then we DESERVE to lose.
Doug,
I think you are missing the point. Of course the repubs will attack whoever the democratic nominee is–the presumption is the repubs want to win. DUH!
The reason why the Obama attacks will be more potent is because Obama has not been vetted. All the independents, young wide eyed and brushy tailed voters will be getting a closer look at Mr. Hope and Change and finding neither. They will go away in droves and where will the democratic nominee be in the GE—Cooked. Game, set, match. A republican will be in the white house and the democrats will be losers, again.
BTW, Larry Johnson. Those Obama stories you wrote that the media is sitting on; if you known about them you should spill the beans now and not let the MSM set the demos up for the slaughter in the GE.
I’m trying. I’m hoping the coverage will come in the next week.
Instead simply considering the “afraid of the Republicans doing X, Y, or Z” thinking…what about the propping up they are doing of Obama. You are seeing FoxNews folks glowing over Obama. You’ve got Karl Rove giving him tips from ‘afar’. Bill O’Reilly is glowing to get him, and their various coverage is, in my opinion, quite suspect.
Nothing like getting someone on camera for the splice and dice routine. ex.
Tim Russert: “Here is a tape of you from last year on our show in which you said_____. But isn’t that different from what you said last Saterday?
Got the ball tee’d up for a swiftboat 9 iron.
Respectfully submitted, Doug, you must not have been reading this blog much. To say that Larry or anyone else suggests choosing “a candidate based on ‘I’m afraid of the Republicans doing X, Y, or Z…’ is a gross simplification.
Susan, Larry, and others have laid out very sound reasons — other than this one — why Hillary is the best Democratic candidate.
Please.
We should remember that one of the cornerstones of Republicanism is white supremacy. There are masses of bigots and haters in the Party who will be switched on by appropriate dog-whistles. This is not an argument against Obama, just a reminder that he will face the same sick, clinical hatred that Hillary will.
Sandy, I’ve seen plenty of reasons why Obama is a deceitful lying shystering no-good blah blah whatever, but actual reasons to vote for Hillary? Not so much.
It’s the same campaign we Democrats tried to run in 2004 — “The other guy sucks, vote for me.” Remember how that turned out?
Remember David Brooks?
“Now he says …” What has he been saying for the past fifteen years? Is this a case of traumatic amnesia and recovered memory?
It would be easy to believe she was angry with him and made him uncomfortable - but the quote attributed to HRC “We’ll crush you, you’ll wish you’d never …” were Karl Rove’s words to the Clintons when they refused to postpone their run in the 1992 election.
The Rove quote was in the news sometime around 2004-5 (?), but did not make much of a splash and quickly disappeared into the memory hole. Wonder if a Lex-Nex (or whatever has replaced that service) search would turn it up.
“We will crush you …” is something a Leona Helmsley type might say but stiff-backed, diminutive, tightly self-controlled Wellesley Frost Maidens have other ways of intimidating associates. Anyway on June 15, 1993 the Clintons did not have the means to kick ass, much less crush anyone. They were reeling from Waco, the shit was in the fan in Somalia, etc.
Somewhere someone is making shit up and, once again Brooks is spreading it around; that is his function.
I will have to ask my niece who is attending Wellesley, what is in the historical acrhives on intimidating associates.
Seriously, for women of a certain generation with a certain type of upbringing, there are certain things one does not do because it would be too fucking crass.
bad sentence.
[gazing at ceiling with a pious expression.]
If i were Hillary or Obama, I would come out and say ( together, live on national TV) that we would pick each other as Vice president/ running mate if we win the nomination for prez,
this pretty much guarantees a win against McCain/Leiberman08…
no contest………and Limbaugh can go back to popping pills and talking trash…
Obama’s whining, simpering,’you’re not playing fair’ tactics may be enough to change the mind of some of the sensitive public. His substance-less ‘Hope and Change’ rhetoric may be able to sway many idealistic voters. What effect do you think these tactics will have when he finds himself playing with the insensitive, pragmatic, self-interested, greedy bastards who inhabit Washington? A vote for Obama would be a vote for four more years of Republican control, or worse, four years of the establishment feasting on Obama.
Why do you think the Repub’s and media have so many good things to say about him all the time? It’s because it’s win-win for them either way it goes if he is nominated.
[...] Democratic Death Wish by Larry Johnson [...]
[...] Democratic Death Wish [...]
[...] Democratic Death Wish [...]
[...] Democratic Death Wish [...]
[...] Democratic Death Wish [...]
[...] Democratic Death Wish [...]
[...] Democratic Death Wish [...]
[...] Democratic Death Wish [...]