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 March 9, 2008 at 4:17 PM in Current Affairs
Believe it or not, I do have friends who are fans of Obama. I don’t understand it, but I don’t condemn them for it. Here’s a taste from a now retired CIA colleague:
I agree that Senator Obama has less experience than I would like, but Senator Clinton also has no outstanding experience “managing anything.” The one thing both of them have managed is this year’s political campaigns and, from my perspective, Senator Obama has done a lot better job in planning strategy, raising and managing money, and providing leadership.
Still, I’m not arguing about his experience or substance. I’m not disputing the value of Senator Clinton’s experience or substance. One would always like more of both. My point is that Senator Clinton’s tactics threaten to destroy the chance of any Democratic nominee to be elected president. She is proclaiming that Senator McCain has more experience than Senator Obama–not what one says if you care anything about the party you represent–but of course Senator McCain has vastly more experience than she does, so she is undercutting herself as well. What sense does that make?
Then there was this note from a journalist buddy with Chicago roots:
This Chicago Trib piece underscores my point about both Clinton and Obama — you feign shock that Obama is a politician and that his advisors obfuscate and confuse. Look at Clinton. I had four years of covering these people, with their parsing, incompetence, and blowjobs. I’m no fan of Obama’s weak foreign policy team (tho you should note that Richard Clark is a key advisor) but Hilliary’s claim of experience is patently bogus:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-experiencemar07,0,51719.story
So let me try to address their criticisms and concerns. First, the Obama supporters need to stop whining about legitimate criticisms of their candidates. It is true that John McCain has more experience with national security matters than Obama. He served in the military, he was an officer, and he commanded troops. That is just a fact. Accusing Hillary of slandering Obama for pointing this fact out is like blaming Hillary for causing sunburns because she recognizes that the Sun shines during daylight hours.
Obama and his followers are having a tough time responding to Hillary’s attacks. Well, if they can’t handle that pressure what in the hell will happen when the Republicans launch a full scale attack on Barack HUSSEIN Obama, closet muslim, coke head, communist sympathizer, absentee legislator, Rezko buddy, and friend of those who hate Israel? Let’s watch Obama tap dance and explain why his grandfather was a polygamous muslim, his dad a serial adulterer and muslim, but he’s not.
So stop bitching about Hillary raising legitimate questions about Barack’s experience and judgment. Those are valid points worth debating. If nothing else, it gives Barack and his group of advisers a chance to hone their message. Because you can count on this–come September the Republicans and their 527 allies will pound the dogshit out of him. James Wolcott has an excellent, elegantly written post on the delicate nature of the Obama disciples.
Then there is the “experience” factor. I have never claimed that Hillary Clinton is the equivalent of Dwight David Eisenhower. Nor do I assert that she is perfect and has always made the right decision. But she has several things in her favor that Barack cannot begin to achieve. She has traveled extensively overseas and she has represented the U.S. Government in official diplomatic exchanges. While these were not negotiations with North Korea or the Palestinians, it still put her in the position of understanding how to interact appropriately in a foreign environment and make an effective case. She understand why it is foolish to agree to unconditional talks with Iran (or anyone else for the matter). She understands that there is power to be wielded in making the offer for talks and ways to achieve the interests of the United States without painting herself into a corner.
What happens if Barack is President and Iranian President Ahmadinejad announces on 21 January his readiness to meet immediately with the U.S. leader and oh, by the way, will also send arms to Hamas to help them defend themselves against the Zionists? Since Barack is already on the record for unconditional talks, how does he back away without discrediting himself. This plays further into the developing impression that he says one thing but means another. And every nation in the world–friend and foe–will try to exploit that to their own advantage. A seasoned leader understands you don’t paint yourself into such a corner.
Then there is Barack’s “I’m not a bureaucrat, I’m a visionary” nonsense. For the love of Christ!! What does he think government is? We have already witnessed the mess that George Bush created in Iraq by not settling the turf battle between the Department of Defense and State Department. Even today you have both bureaucracies claiming that proconsul, L. Paul “Jerry” Bremer worked for the other. Lofty speeches don’t get policy implemented. When you deliver a national budget you are forcing a fight among the various government agencies who will insist that their priorities are the most important. What in the hell is Barack talking about, letting someone else sort out what is important.
Hillary Clinton, whatever faults you want to focus on, understands the bureaucracies and understands the infighting that inevitably accompanies the task of governing. She is not going to need a crash program to understand the difference between CIA and DIA. She understands the mission and capabilities of NSA. She knows the difference between the Department of State and the Department of Agriculture. This is pedestrian experience, but is critical experience that someone who aspires to be an effective President must have.
So whine away Obama supporters. Let those crocodile tears cut ravines in your cheeks. Mean old Hillary Clinton dares to challenge Barack’s failure to hold hearings on Afghanistan, his failure to visit Europe, his failure to enforce discipline on his foreign policy advisors, and his refusal to take command of the bureaucracies that make up the U.S. Government? Well excuse me, but I think those are valid criticisms that Obambi better be ready to confront. If he cannot take a punch from Hillary, how in the world can he aspire to stand up to the likes of the Iranians or North Koreans. I just do not understand.
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
Well, if they can’t handle that pressure what in the hell will happen when the Republicans launch a full scale attack on Barack HUSSEIN Obama, closet muslim, coke head, communist sympathizer, absentee legislator, Rezko buddy, and friend of those who hate Israel? Let’s watch Obama tap dance and explain why his grandfather was a polygamous muslim, his dad a serial adulterer and muslim, but he’s not.
Larry,
The above isn’t legitimate criticism and I told you that months ago when you starting throwing that mud here on NQ.
The public won’t care either. Poll after poll showed that people (even some who voted for Hillary) didn’t appreciate the negative attacks and distortions.
As to what he would do regarding Iran, he’ll attack them because the neocons won’t let Obama or any of the candidates out of the grasp.
The realistic are well of this.
Calling it as I see it isn’t whining. I’m sorry you see it that way.
Winners have no reason to whine.
Winners plan to make great ads and don’t succumb to scare tactics.
[fade in to sleeping girl stock footage]
Casey [voiceover]: “Hillary Clinton recently used stock footage of a happy little girl sleeping in bed to make a political ad, but tinted it blue …”
[fades to dark, scary blue like the Clinton ad]
[Casey, cont'd.] “…and used a gravelly voice to scare you into voting for her.”
[fade out ad, fade in Casey in brightly-lit room]
Casey: “That was me, eight years ago. And I’m here to tell you I’m not scared. You could even say I’m full of hope. Before I even saw the ad, I was a proud precinct captain on Barack Obama’s campaign.”
[Barack Obama walks up next to her]
Barack: “Let’s put an end to politics of fear that uses scare tactics to drum up votes, and to justify bad decisions.”
Casey: “And instead of relying on scary stock footage to get votes, Barack’s campaign will rely on the people who’ve volunteered for his campaign. Like me. I’m Casey Knowles…”
Barack: “…and I’m Barack Obama…”
Both: “…and we approve this message.”
Casey: “And not that other one!”
[Campaign logo fades in]
————————————————————————-
Isn’t that a great idea?
Many thanks to our Independent friend, Steve.
Here’s Steve’s blog entry.
Update: Here’s a link to the news story about Casey, courtesy of fellow Kossak, nisleib.
http://www.youtube.com/...
PS.
Disagree with you Larry but will still save a place for you in the foxhole. Smooch!
Cee,
We have different views but you are always a welcome guest. And I would never accuse you of having thin skin. You are tough and committed.
Larry,
Observing the man you quoted, and Scheuer, I’m struck by the ignorance each exhibits, (particularly for people who were former intelligence), exhibiting poor decision making processes, poor decision making skills.
Obama may have accepted money from a man who is suspected of illegal arms trading, was involved in money laundering for Saddam, and who was charged with the bribery of government officials in Europe. This man may also support terrorists.
Why would someone, particularly someone who was former intelligence, support him?
Same with Scheuer, you’ve pretty much explained why you think he’s a moron, a failure, and I accept that explanation, I see how he cannot defend his choices, he strikes me as confused, mainly.
Is it your opinion intelligence agents aren’t aware of their own biases, their own fears, and doesn’t this leave them, and us, vulnerable to their bad judgement in matters of national security?
Do you think this is common, you don’t exhibit this trait?
I understand all entities are comprised of different personalities, different levels of clearance, different departments run differently, but this is twice now I’ve seen former personnel exhibit traits I would think not compatible with high functioning positions.
It’s just an insight, I don’t mean to offend you.
Someone helped clarify it for me.
Auchi supports American enemies, and Obama takes money from him.
This is not OK.
Cee,
Your youtube link didn’t work.
(Btw, I love strong, feisty vimmen. ;-))
Wet,
I’m sorry it doesn’t work. I can’t locate it again.
“The above isn’t legitimate criticism “
Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt, Moonbeam.
CEE — The way that I read this segment of Larry’s posting, he was not claiming those remarks to be “legitimate criticism” as much as he was pointing out that the eventual nominee of the Democratic Party will be subjected to mean, nasty, vile, criticism without regard to the validity of that criticism. You know, just like the comments section on most Daily Kos postings, or watching COUNTDOWN on MSNBC.
One other difference is when the Republicans attack him that way, his whiney supporters won’t have anyone to comment to about how it’s unfair that gives a shit. I fully expect exploding heads among his supporters if he gets the nomination.
Excellent point that matters in the end. Trying to use my desire to make sure McCaine doesn’t win, won’t work on Republicans or middle grounders that aren’t committed Democrats. I know people who don’t like Obama but are leaning a bit more for McCain than Hillary. They don’t care about nuances, they are very prosafety, jobs and the basics.
When you have me on the theoretical “same side” and I’m the enemy for asking questions…what will the enemy look like…when they don’t ask questions, just fire at you?
In the recent events many righties are glad to hit two birds with one stone. They launched a photo on Obama, then Drudge claims it comes from Clintons campaign, (no evidence provided that it did) and voila…Full Infighting.
Sun Tzu would be proud.
And the stupid Obamaniacs don’t care if it came from Freepers, they hate Clinton and her supporters. They have Hope, Change, and wee bit of the Newly Converted Arrogance on their side. After all, They’re Right.
As I’ve said before, I’ve spent time in a well known “Progressive” organization, and DISSENT IS NOT ALLOWED. I used to defend the “left” until I realized there is no right and left, just the whole. I’ve had more luck converting Rightwingers to a world view than challenging the view of Leftwingers for years.
Jim,
Moonbeam? Does that help your case?
Would it help mine if I called you a silly mofo?
This needs to stop.
Rob,
The well began to be poisoned right here and now the MSM has started repeating the same crap.
Hillary wants Obama damaged and I’m starting to believe that she’d rather McCain win if she can’t.
I want someone to ask her if Obama would be a better president than Obama. I bet she’d swallow her tongue before admitting it.
Early on a few people (who no longer come here) made arguments on the issues as to why Hillary would be better. I agreed with a few of them.
Mr. Murder commented on Obama’s campaign chair. That is a legitimate issue. This rest of these charges are outrageous.
Now Kos and Olbermann are enemies because you don’t agree?
Where will you turn when this is all over? WorldNetDaily? Fox?
“Moonbeam? Does that help your case?
Would it help mine if I called you a silly mofo?
This needs to stop.”
No.
Now Kos and Olbermann are enemies because you don’t agree
They got the “memo” Cee. I don’t consider anyone an enemy. Olbermann’ bias is not uncommon in the MSM. The echo chamber he is adding to creates some sonic cancellation….
Let him rail all he wants for all I care…
And as Mr Johnson has said…F**K KOS> for the overt effort to silence dissent. Surely you would agree that a vocal opposition is crucial for this republic’s survival?
“Winners have no reason to whine”
Winners whine all the time. In fact they often gloat. They shame the losers often. A good winner does not, but wins gracefully. Obamaniacs have been very busy gloating on TV, on the web, and in person.
‘You’re only saying that because you’re losing’
is an example
‘She only wants the rules changed because she’s losing’
is an example
‘I bet she wouldn’t be saying that if she was the one with all the delegates’
is an example
’she should drop out of the race and let him have the nomination instead of tearing up the party’
is an example
Well, this isn’t over. We’ve seen that this is going to the Convention. And those of us who support the other candidate have seen the real face of the Obama change, the “end of the politics of destruction”.
Chris,
You’re only saying that because you’re losing’
is an example
‘She only wants the rules changed because she’s losing’
is an example
True. When Bill Clinton was winning the caucus states nobody complained.
‘I bet she wouldn’t be saying that if she was the one with all the delegates’
is an example
Already we’ve seen “them” turning to the likes of Fox news. Susan at one point suggested Karl Rove was actually really really smart because he “got it”!
The one positive i can get out of all this is my head spinning is really developing my neck muscles.
Fun stuff.
That was intelligent.
Obama doesn’t need some cutesy “gotcha right back” ad to answer the “Unqualified” charge. He needs to explain why he thinks he’s qualified to be President, especially in light of the fact that in November, 2004 he said that would take someone of real arrogance to think he could be elected to the Senate in 2004 and be a legitimate candidate for President in 2008.
The cutesy ad you describe is, however, exactly what I expect from the Obama campaign- doesn’t address the issue, but gosh, it is awfully cute, it makes me giggle. Yay! Obama must be qualified! He makes me feel warm and fuzzy!
For Obama fans, pointing out his weaknesses is a smear campaign. Everyone supposes to a turn blind eye on his lack of qualification, flip-flop on issues, no real policy, and “believe” in the change he promises. How dare Clinton criticize Obambi? I can’t believe how many intelligent people buy into the rotten apple Axelrod is trying to sell us.
enough with the balance, please.
[/unsolicited opinion]
you’re seeing his campaign strategy that began as being the alternative to a HIllary blow-out. He’s consistently run a negative campaign, by ‘interpreting’ what she really means and then feigning (or worse, believing his own hype) outrage. It’s called manufactured outrage, and it’s a way that men in corporations step ahead of someone else. it depends on that person having some lurking haters who want to see her fall flat on her face, based on some kind of envy, generally meaning someone who hadn’t the ‘right’ to her success. There are stories like she slept her way to the top, or she had some other unfair advantage, and the newcomer first poses as her victim, by interpreting her as being somehow unfairly against him and then showing outrage. Then everyone can feel this outrage, it’s quite bonding and it feels powerful, and then the one ahead becomes a target for unfair criticism. Which she “deserves’ as she ‘brought it on herself.’ This is one reason that women can see the media bias while some fellows and some girls who have never bucked the power system, can’t say they see it. Those who’ve experienced it, and we are legion, have no trouble recognizing the essential negativity of Obama’s tactics and call it for what it is. It’s about who you identify with, if you think you’re as good as the guys and they’ll compete fairly with you, making you a ’special’ woman you won’t see it, and if you see yourself as just another person trying to get ahead on an uneven playing field, then you easily see it.
I may be a tad stupid, but isn’t an election campaign suppose to express and show the differences between candidates abilities, plans and promises?
Sort of like expressing to the population why one should be given the job to run the country?
Now that there is no way of GWB re-entering the Whitehouse unless he pulls some scam on Terror to stay in and suspend the Constitution, there is no one with complete experience to move in, like you could have hiring a CEO from CBS to come work for NBC!
So you have to hire the person who has the hire credientials to hold the job and do it! Now if it was a job of a minisrty of Hope, Obama would be a shoe in, but it is a job of actually sitting down and getting the job done!
People on security, former high ranking Military support Clinton 32 to 2, guess they have some sort of experience in things!
The pressures are going to be enormous in this new job, we sure don’t need someone who runs away when it gets hot there!
Rumour has it Obama is going to go to Europe during the long break to the Penn vote, guess talking nothings means more to him out there looking good than sitting down and working out things on the NATO commitee before the spring surge the Talaban said was coming last fall!
Priorities huh, myself over the lives of others continues!
Larry, my friend, a feminist author and best seller and, ironically (or so it seems to be me) a big supporter of Obama, sent me this today:
“I am really feeling sad about the election, or should I say the war that is happening between the camps. why is this how we pick a president? who can fight dirtier? who can withstand being torn down and who can’t. it makes me sick that that’s what this historic campaign has devolved into. I realized I finally got to the point where I can say that if Hillary wins, I won’t vote for her. I’m not sure that Obama is strong enough or flexible enough to show more of himself and a different side of himself at this stage in the campaign. I don’t think he’s showing leadership right now and I think he has prior to this point. Mostly I feel disheartened at the scorched earth that will exist after this campaign. So many people have felt excited and wanted to be part of a revitalization of this country, and most of them will be jaded and cynical after this election is over. I think that’s such a waste. I feel very sad about it. ”
Interestingly, when Obama was winning and smelling like perfume, she imagined a world where we’d all be weaving daisy chains together. Now that he’s been through a few bump, she seems convinced it’s Hillary’s fault and is filled with distress.
This whining and threatening not to vote for HRC in the GE doesn’t warm my heart to Obama’s devotees, especially women. What do they think this is? As my father, a veteran of three wars used to say to me when I was little girl, “Toughen up! Life isn’t a bowl of cherries.” Obama isn’t yet a veteran of even the media’s thrashings. But he will be, like it or not.
so she accepted the scorched earth campaign against Hillary, inducted in the Womens Hall of Fame, by capitalizing on traditional sexist images of cookie baking, screeching, harpy attacks. But now…
be clear, Obama and his campaign are why I would not vote for him in November. It is not Hillary’s campaign or her supporters that had me come to this conclusion. It was his followers, his Axelrod, his snotty staff when I call his campaign.
You know, I’ve called Hillary’s campaign to complain about how things were run or attacks early in this that I said I wouldn’t appreciate or tolerate to get my vote. And though I did get some disconnected people who have no damn phone skills, they took my complaint and said thank you.
When I call Obama’s campaign, I get stupid debates that are on par with debating religion with a Scientologist. They refuse to acknowledge any wrong doing, any twisting of facts, and especially they fail to understand why I’m not all in the glow.
They bring their fate upon themselves.
If it were down to John Kerry vs. John Edwards, and John Kerry were to make similar comments about McCain and himself meeting a foreign policy experience threshold, would we see this uproar? No, we would not for two reasons: 1) people would see Kerry has a point and 2) Edwards is not as thin-skinned and could absorb that kind of “attack”.
NO. This is a historic election between a white female and a black male. That’s a big reason why there’s so much emotion in both camps (and supporters). I don’t see that being talked about much.
Absolutely agreed. Each side feels like their dreams are being stepped on.
Since I started out for Obama then upon research moved to Hillary I must disagree. I am thrilled for the country that a president will not be a white male (nothing against white man.) Now I’d like the president somebody who understands history and has experienced life, ups and downs, and has proven he/she can perform under pressure.
I voted for Senator Obama in the primary but if he & Goolsbee don’t start stepping back from their proposed 24% tax on cap gains, divs & interest & maintain the current 15% rate on atleast the first 25K the luv affair will be over! It will be break up time! I don’t say this solely out of self interest, (although primarily) what they are advocating will really hurt the entire middle class & middle class wannabes. What’s next? Taking away the damn 3K annual deduction for capital loss? Yeah, that’ll “simplify the tax code” (another one of his recent refrains) This is my deal breaker & I don’t think I’ll be alone in the November.
Ok, I’ll ask you.
Are you familiar with Rezko, and Auchi?
Obama accepted money from Auchi, and Auchi was Saddam’s former bagman, even suspected of supporting terrorist groups, through arms trading, and money laundering. (start with rezkowatch.blogspot, all of those charges are well documented.)
Now it is suspected Auchi paid for Obama’s house, through Rezko.
Given there is enough evidence here to question Obama’s integrity, and there is, the Chicago papers are all over this, why do you still consider Obama electable?
Not looking to start a fight, here, I really want to know what you think.
And if it’s a matter of “well, he’s not convicted,” I guess that’s your choice.
Something of interest, for Obamamanias!
Obama claims to have superior judgement, sp where did all that judgement go?
He can’t even place any blame on Clinton, because those who claim they have superior judgement should have known and been at th ready, so what happened Obamamaniacs?
I just don’t recall the last several primary seasons being a love-fest of any sort. My mind wanders back to South Carolina in 2000, when Bush and Rove cleaned Mccain’s clock in the ugliest fashion. Guess what? The republican party (sadly) did not fall to pieces in a simpering little puddle because the candidates were mean to each other.
As much as I abhor everything the republicans stand for, I have to hand it to them for understanding the the primary season gets ugly, and that once it’s over it’s time to hold hands (and sometimes noses) and come together for the eventual nominee.
But this is the era of thin skins and faux outrage. David Axelrod is out-roving Rove lately. No one can deny that Rove is brilliant, but that doesn’t make him any less of a jerk. How fitting that the product Axelrod is selling is similar to Rove’s… a “different” kind of politician. An “outsider.” A “guy you want to have a beer with.” A guy that lets his surrogates do the dirty work and has devotees, not supporters. A candidate whose supporters will not tolerate any criticism of their messiah. While Obama’s ideaology differs from Bush, the packaging is the same. And in the end, a mildly experienced, unexamined, media darling that makes one lousy president.
A guy that won’t get rid on anyone around him no matter what they do?
Just ask Rezko.
Legitimate attacks or not, Obama will be attacked. I think the ‘absentee legislator’ is a legitimate one myself. I would like to see an Obama supporter who criticizes Clinton’s tactics provide a list of Obama’s negative tactics. Otherwise, it’s is just another issue not to be debated.
He does respond poorly. I don’t think a ringing telephone is fear tactics. The dems avoid talking about national security and by calling a mild ad fear mongering, just makes dems look weak. A witty/snarky come back to a commercial on the Obama side is just another dismissal of the issue and the refusal to have a discussion. He is developing a reputation of being dismissive and it needs to be corrected. He could have taken on the issue of national security, but the only feedback from that ad I’ve seen is that the little girl has grown up and supports Obama. I care less who some little girl supports. It was CNN that said Obama has a glass jaw. If he doesn’t like being seen that way, he needs to change his message.
He is the one who needs to prove he has what it takes to lead, the one who needs to prove he has what it takes to respond in a position of strength, the one who has to prove he wants it bad enough and has something to bring. I haven’t seen it. Why can’t there be a discussion of Obama without saying the word ‘Clinton.’
Peter,
The issue of presidential candidates missing votes is as old as Methuzula.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE3D61738F934A25752C1A961948260
Mark Penn called this a negative attack ad. I think he’s wrong.
This is what I have said before…. it is impossible to discuss Obama on his own merits. Thank you for not mentioning the name Clinton, but I really don’t care how any other politician votes or what someone from an opposing candidate says about Obama. I am evaluating Obama on his record. When comparing hard work, Obama is not the candidate that comes to mind. You might find his speech acceptable. I find his dog whistling future and past (young and OLD) annoying. If he is so ‘unifying’ why are half the dems not voting for him? I don’t find him unifying at all. It isn’t convenient to his message so he wants to exclude FL and MI. Clinton surrogates have stepped forward to pony up $15m to cover the votes for these states while Obama’s surrogate dodged. He could step up and use this as a party building exercise as the evidence shows so far that the people supporting him, support him and not any other candidates. If his supporters are so interested in change, why aren’t they donating to the DNC, (RNC if they are Repubs) or to any other down ticket candidates?
Yet again, I ask these questions… what the heck does past future present mean? You better focus on the past, it needs to be dealt with. What is it he is absolutely committed to for the future? If he has been able to articulate this, I missed it. Please do not refer me to his website. I do not visit websites created by surrogates and polished by public relations people. If they can’t articulate their vision for the future, they are not someone I will vote for.
When someone asks about Obama, the response is nebulous. I don’t care what Mark Penn thinks of Obama. I care what I think of Obama. I do not have a clear picture of him and what I do have is negative. I looked at the candidates records more than 6 months ago and knew I would never vote for Obama. He has done nothing to change my position. I absolutely did not want to vote for Clinton as I had bought in to the right wing talking points. I kept studying records and focusing on issues, watching debates. When I made my decision, my response was “Crap, I’m voting for Clinton.”
Peter,
Since you’re new here… long ago I said that I didn’t trust Hillary.
End of story for me.
Barack Obama’s armor was the corrupt Daley machine. Lucky for him the press can’t fluff him enough.
So now that his best buddy’s Federal trial for kickback scams and his spiritual advisors rampant racism is disclosed to a national audience -
well some of the shine is gone.
And the Barack Obama Advisors Amateur Hour is no longer playing to rave reviews.
Watching Barack Obama flee a press conference had to be shocking to his supporters who had only heard the hope and change mantra.
Who knows what the answers to Rezko and NAFTAGATE will do to Obama’s faint hearted followers?
And I don’t care because I’m supporting Hillary Clinton.
The kiddies and the kooks can call the paramedics and move on to their next fad or drug.
“Barack Obama’s armor was the corrupt Daley machine. Lucky for him the press can’t fluff him enough.”
I acceded to that view when I was casting about as to whose “useful idiot” Obama was.
Now I am puzzling about how it may be just the reverse; that Obama is the armor for the Chicago Machine.
The Bush Administration has been trying to take down the Chicago Machine for almost eight years. Fitzgerald has been probing the outfit from city level to the governor. Bush’s last year could see a string of indictments which could land the Chicago lads in very interesting times.
An Obama Presidency, on the other hand, would land the fox in the henhouse with Obama’s pick for the AG. This campaign, therefore, could be the Machine’s power grab to take over the Democratic Party.
Then, on the other hand, we could have an October Surprise the like we have not seen since the Hostage Crisis.
Smilin’ Jim -
You’re exactly right. And pardons aplenty from Pres. Obama. There’s no downside for the crooks.
Such confidence that there will be “no downside for the crooks” IF there’s an Obama Presidency. Nostradamus would be proud…
Why?
They have the same business partners, that would be silly, and risk exposure.
All I can say is wow, they really can’t see.
Wow.
Larry, I’ve been down thread all day and finally got to read your level headed artical.
We have a US Republican Congressman making comments exactly as you point out. I understand the Congressman is not of a mind to retract these statements leveled against a US Senator. There will be alot more like them and retractions will be not be offered.
I was down wind all day looking at all the LLC’s and names and places that are most fiantly going to be “brought up”. The Contracts at O’Hare and others are going to implicate even people very close to the Jr Senator from Illinios.
They don’t call Chicago the “Windy City” city for nothing From what this kite can tell, Senator Obama is standing on a house of cards that will be blowing in the soon. In fact, I am not sure why the Governor of Illinos is still in office after looking at the open source stink I waded through today. The Governor, Emil “the godfather” Jones, Mayor Daley and number of others including the senator are in for a rude awaking.
Smilin Jim;
Right out of college “useful idiot” Obama…is certianly upwardly mobile and politicians are like joey’s in mama kangaroos pocket when climbing on to new political clouds 9’s.
Hey All
Check out this video from this little AA girl who supports Hillary. It about broke my heart. When you go to the site, hit the “Video of the Day” button
This is just so wrong.
hillaryspeaksforme.com
Larry, you’re an intelligence professional. I invite you to ponder this question: why are so many Democrats so “severely underwhelmed” by Hillary? What is your clinical, dispassionate take on that?
I get your points about why you are so strongly in Hillary’s camp, and against Obama. I’m not interested in that right now. I believe there is a very loud and clear message being relayed by a significant chunk of the Democratic Party (and the American people) about Hillary. A message is being sent. Is it being received? And if I were a hardcore partisan advocate for Hillary it would a) concern me greatly, and b) I would want to understand all facets of it……..if only to counter it effectively in the primary and possibly in the g.e. (gen. election.)
(LJ, I may post an article from a Joann W on Counterpunch and ask you to read that.)
Do you think it’s because they’ve been conditioned to want an empty glamour candidate, like Obama?
Why the hell do people think American Idol contestants are talented, they’re garbage.
What is good food, when all you eat is McDonald’s?
They don’t know.
And you can’t really give the current democratic leaders as examples, they are to me, delusional, corrupt, fuck ups. And to say underwhelmed, well, that’s your view, I would disagree. Maybe you should open your perspective a bit, try to really see, emotional bias can cripple.
If people truly want terrorism to end, want it not used as a weapon against then anymore, they have to face the truth about the corruption our government condones.
It’s not OK to take money from a man like Auchi, not for Bush, not for Obama.
And this is what it all goes back to.
And your post is disingenuous crap, to me.
Maybe you eat too much Mcdonald’s.
And that makes you fat, and stupid.
Simon, and what do you have to say about the current republican leadership? Are they delusional, corrupt fuck ups to use your words?
You bet!
Both can exist in the same space. Sell-outs are sell-outs regardless of creed or party affiliation. I’ve experienced this with Democrats in Texas.
The best I can answer your answer with though agrees with Simon. Conditioned responses are being played here.
1. Mom is the nag, Dad’s voice comforts.
We experience this in my house. My daughter says, “dad doesn’t get mad, let him handle it” and “mom you get so mad”. And the cycle completes. Truth is, I get as mad as mom, and am just as much of a problem when my temper blows. But as a man I’m allowed to be this way, its expected. I’m so damn thankful I have a very tough woman in my life. She makes me work my ass off to get a simple point across sometimes, but god bless it.
2. We’ve experienced 16 years of antiClinton propaganda. This was directed at both Clintons, but as Bill Clinton disappeared from the scene, Hillary was the same target. The propaganda worked on me for all this time until a few months ago when I was blessed by the critical thought on this site. Now I feel I’ve had some time stolen from me.
3. Simon put it well about our need to have a celebrity association. When Obama realized he didn’t have much credibility he already recognized he had “star power” and was not confined by humility to exploit it. As my friend here once said, “sexy factor” always counts more than credibility.
4. Manufacturing Consent:
Walter Lippman wrote well in his book Public Opinion on the nature of public consumption of media. He postulates that we have self-centered desires that can be pitched to. By knowing what buttons to push, you can control the opinion to maintain “common interests”.
Noam Chomsky and Ed Hermann elaborated on the theme with their book, Manufacturing Consent. In it, they cut up many of the ways we are reinforced with “necessary illusions”.
well, I could go on and on….but I’d have to eventually turn it in for my thesis.
As an amateur propagandist, dabbling in film, audio, and graphic work, I exploit biases to get my point across. I have studied the propaganda we are very familiar with from WWII and the Cold War. The images are gross exaggerations of our worst fears mixed with an ounce of truth to get you to buy it. It isn’t hard to do.
John Pilger’s great documentary, “faces of the enemy” covers much of how this works. While examining well known propaganda he compares it to a man who killed his neighbors over the believe they were the Communists. He had really worked up a hatred based on false notions. The more these false notions become real to him, he finally acted.
Additionally, Lippman covered the fact that the news we get is picked for us. We don’t easily have access to information that is in raw form. It is sifted and filtered even by bad editors before we see it. Then we don’t even want to pay the value of good news. He concluded: “For a dollar you may not even get an armful of candy but for a dollar or less people expect reality/representations of truth to fall into their laps.”
How much do you pay for online news? Mine comes simply because I pay my ISP to get to Google. I then use Google News to go over the latest events, but this isn’t complete. I don’t have a subscription to LexisNexis…(will take one if someone helps me) but I love to research old articles especially so I can read things as they were written in their own time instead of anachronistically.
So, those who want a brighter day…who are more concerned with glowing revelation and change flock to a messiah figure. I saw that years ago in the New Age movement when they all flocked for the Harmonic Convergence…weeks later it was all over and they had to get their asses back to work in the real world.
Don’t sell me a dream, just fix the fucking world up a bit so I can just dream on my own, and let me be.
Regarding item number 2…. I bought in to the anti-Clinton campaign also. In response to another person, I stated that I actually said, “Oh crap, I’m voting for Clinton.” I reviewed records, positions and watched the debates, watched rallies on CNN. I discovered she wasn’t evil incarnate and came to the conclusion “I just have to do it.”
You finally wrote… Don’t sell me a dream, just fix the fucking world up a bit so I can just dream on my own, and let me be.
Here, here. BTW, my soul is just fine.
I was also one of those that bought into the propaganda. It wasn’t until I actually did some research of my own that I too realized that Hillary was the most qualified candidate. And the one with the most heart and grit.
Don’t sell me a dream, just fix the fucking world up a bit so I can just dream on my own, and let me be.em>
Omogod. I love this
Jay,
Here’s the reality. Total votes cast in Democratic primary elections to date give Hillary 247,349 more votes than Barrack. So while there are a significant number of Democrats who favor Obama, Hillary has won more votes. Part of Hillary’s problem is the media is certainly creating the impression that Obama is far ahead. Just ain’t so.
The caucuses skew things. You don’t get a full representation of the Democratic voters. In many cases you also get independents and republicans crossing over.
All of that said, I am astonished at the level of hatred the “progressives” direct at Hillary and Bill. The leftist end of the Democratic party just can’t accept that most Americans don’t want to follow them. Ironically, they see Obama as their best hope yet, all of his talk apart, he will toss them overboard if it suits his purpose.
Totals up to date in the primaries
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/candidates/#val=1918
Clinton
13,008,337
Obama
12,841,278
I’ll calculate the caucus votes too.
Total Delegates
Obama
1588
Clinton
1468
Pledged Delegates
Obama
1378
Clinton
1223
Popular Vote
Obama
13,007,968
Clinton
12,415,286
Popular Vote (w/FL)
Obama
13,584,182
Clinton
13,286,272
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
Ever wondered why no one has given you a position of responsibility?
Take a clue from someone who has.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/PA_Gov._Hillary_has_states_with_0309.html
Jim,
Keep scrambling.
Hillary is still losing no matter what she does.
Prove that “underwhelmed”comment. Democrats in the large states HRC is winning aren’t “underwhelmed”. Your’s is just some more Obama noise that signifies nothing. Face it, Obama is in no way a good choice for Democrats. HRC is fighting the good fight, something that Obama will have to do if nominated, but shows no capacity to do.
Also, it seems to me that Obama is winning in states where Republicans, Independents and One Day Democrats are allowed to vote.
So, the notion that Obama is attractive to more Democrats is not true. Otherwise why did he run ads in Nevada and California urging Repbulicans to vote for him? It was beacuse he needed to dilute the life-long Democrats who overwhelmingly supported Hillary.
“Senator Obama has done a lot better job in planning strategy, raising and managing money, and providing leadership.”
If Obama is so much better at strategy and providing leadership, how is he losing so many big states with all that money and the full support of the mainstream media? Also, a large part of is success has been from the African-American voting block. How much leadership did he exhibit in getting those voters?
People may not like Senator Clinton’s approach to the Democratic primaries of putting so little effort into the caucuses, but she is making a point. What would the level of conflict have been like in some of those caucuses if Senator Clinton had put maximum effort into them?
“The Only Way to Fight the Clintons” by Joann Wypijewski is one of the best articles I have read this (long) primary season. I consider her one of the best people writing about politics today.
Even though it is a little long I would recommend it to y’all. She interviews people and lets them speak. She offers her analysis. I believe understanding the Clintons and the reaction they arouse is one of the most critical tasks of an informed citizen. And specifically, here I am not talking about the right wing hatchet jobs, I am talking about why the Democratic base is torqued off with her or Bill or both. And what role did the Clintons had in creating this?
LJ, I would recommend it to you.
http://www.counterpunch.com/wypijewski03082008.html
You know Wethornet,
I have LIVED through the Clinton experience and times. Say what you will, the absolute garbage thrown at them makes me marvel they still have ANY desire to serve this country. Not knowing your age, you may not recall the FEEL and optimism of the country during the 90’s, as opposed to the constant miasma of doom we have had the last 7 years.
After GWB, I personally was appalled at the lack of vetting done on Obama, and undertook the task myself. What I have found through solid research, I can say I would never have anything to do with him as a person - period. He is dirty, corrupt to the core, and other than their exremely narcissitic selves, the Obama’s have absolutely nothing for anyone, expcept those that allow them to continue living well beyond their means.
Larry, the former intelligence, and Military officials are pretty hard headed and very pragmatic. And although I do sometimes double check something thats hard for me to accept initially, I have learned over the last couple of years, I have NEVER caught these guys in a lie or deception.
The Greeks used to say CHARCTER determines lifes path - or as we say CHARCTER does matter.
These intelligence officals I trust with my life, Obama I do not trust with the time of day.
wethornet -
I thought the article was just another hit piece albeit lengthy.
Here’s some info. for ya:
Newt Gingrich and his Contract with America and endless bullshit from Ken Starr.
Some of us lived it. And we were way better off during Bill Clinton’s Presidency.
Now to steal someone else’s name for him - Teak’s probably - Sen. Hope/Dope thinks it should be a big kumbaya.
Which is Reason #50 not to vote for him.
It’s a serious job. It requires a serious effort.
Ted Stevens & Co. won’t be singing Obama’s praises in the Senate.
Now to steal someone else’s name for him - Teak’s probably
??? What I do?
But the larger point is how they got away with it.
Wet,
Because Bill had a D after his name. The same thing will happen with Hillary who is JUST AS HAWKISH as McCain.
Won’t negotiate.
Will accept lies to preemtively attack other countries.
I do recall when Obama spoke up about unjust sentences,(I think they should get the same sentence and stay in the clink) Hillay was quick to rebuke him.
http://jackandjillpolitics.blogspot.com/search/label/Disparity%20in%20Drug%20Sentencing
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2614
From
Why Obama, Not Clinton?
http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/why-support-barack-obama-not-hillary-clinton-comparison-compare-records/
“why his grandfather was a polygamous muslim, his dad a serial adulterer and muslim,”
Larry, bad choice. You are not implying that Billy was a saint, right? And how would you feel it it was dragged into the campaign also?
As for unfair attack, how about this: How can you expect that Hillary will keep us safe from the terrorists, when she can’t even keep her husband safe from Monica?
Can’t wait for the primaries to be over
It won’t be fair for them to say that of Hillary, just as the criticisms that Larry brought up of Obama are also not fair. The point is that THEY WILL BE BROUGHT UP BY THE REPUBS FOR BOTH CANDIDATES, in fact, Romney actually did make a snide comment about Bill’s adultery during one of the Repub debates. I think what some Democrats are nervous about thought, is whether or not Barack can effectively take those punches and fire right back. I feel totally confident that the republicans will use those sorts of attacks on Hillary and that she will fight back with everything in her. Honestly, I thought Barack would too until he started whining about the 3 am advertisement…he has yet to respond to the very legitimate criticism, and in making an effort to respond, his foreign policy adviser cut both Barack and Hillary off at the kneecaps by saying that neither one was ready to answer the phone…
Sam,
The GOP has been trying to figure out how far they can go. Remember that article?
Now because the dems have done this, they feel they can say this crap as well.
This is like racist white folks who use the term nigger, then use the excuse that some idiotic black people use it.
cruz del sur -
I doubt if McCain’s supporters will want to talk about extramarital relationships.
Thank you for the excellent article. I am so tired of the Obama supporters’ childish displays. They act like spoiled children who can’t always get their own way. It is frightening to think that Obama could be in one of the most powerful positions on earth and not have the emotional stability to deal with world problems. We need grown-ups running this country. This is a political campaign for President of the United States; not President of the Senior class.
ALL Obama supporters are “shrill, unhinged, angry children”…therefore Obama HIMSELF is unfit for office because he too must be emotionally unstable.
Are you for real?
I listen to Stephanie Miller every morning. Shes an Obama supporter. The amount of vile, hate filled, shrill, unhinged angry letters and phone in’s from people calling themselves Hillary supporters she gets is pretty astounding. Am i to think then that ALL Hillary supporters are the same? By your logic. Yes.
Am i then to think that Hillary HERSELF is the same? By your logic YES.
How does that work exactly? Since when do supporters of candidate “A” = candidate “A” themselves?
If you understood the finer points of critical thinking, you would understand why your argument is spurious.
Obama’s supporters never question Obama, they simply remain enamored of a corrupt criminal candidate who is lying to them, refusing to look at the facts which surround their candidate.
Clinton supporters are well aware of Hillary, or Bill’s baggage, and understanding those points, have made a reasoned decision to support the Clintons.
You are making an incorrect comparison, based on a questionable generality, again, if it’s a pattern, it would indicate a general flaw in your thinking, an aberrant pattern of specious decision making, one that most likely manifests itself in every aspect of your life.
I take it you’re not a happy guy, right Neb?
Why?
Are you narcissistic, is this a common trait to the Obama supporters?
Just for starters…
Narcissism results in flawed decision making, as the narcissistic can only interpret facts as they relate to, and affect, his fragile infantile ego, his precarious self image. All that rage when the narcissist is threatened, loses, or is humiliated?
tsk tsk
I see the criminal, and I see a man who took money from an enemy of America, Auchi, you see the criminal and you think, “wow, I wish I had Obama’s charisma.”
An empty charisma, btw.
To answer your question, you dont feel real, hence the poor decision making skills, you’re projecting…
Dear Sigmund,
So you’ve diagnosed me as a person with poor decision making skills and a lack of critical thinking. You’ve inferred that I am a narcissist with a fragile infantile ego, a precarious self image and a general feeling of unhappiness in all aspects of my life.
All of these assumptions have been made because i questioned Toby. Toby argues that Obama supporters, and we must assume he means ALL Obama supporters as he does not employ any qualification, act like spoiled children. He then makes the leap that like his supporters, Obama is emotionally unstable.
Your thesaurus and psychobabble have done little to convince me that i’m wrong
At the end of the day I find it ironic that there is a consistent run of complaints about how Obama supporters are shrill, unhinged and impossible to have a reasoned argument with and then you spend 2/3rds of your response calling me names and making pretty nutty albeit funny assumptions about my personal life.
Is this then how ALL Hillary supporters make thier case? If I use you and Toby as examples and then apply your sweeping logic the answer must be yes. Applying this logic further then as Toby has, when Hillary picks up THAT phone at 3am in the morning will she be able to meet serious world issues head on without half baked philoso-generalisations and psychoblablah 101. I ask you, can America afford to have Dr Phil in a pantsuit running the country?!
Thank god i have the critical thinking skills to be able to seperate candidate from supporter.
I’m not an Obama supporter. I am a fan of reasoned debate, American politics and a neutral observer with no dog in this hunt. I like to visit No Quarter, it is always a highlight in my day, it’s just been made better.
One last thing - Hopefully you can answer this question a little more succinctly than my first…Who or what is “Neb”?
Fondest regards,
Douglas.
Larry:
I was curious about this line yo quote on your post from your Obama supporter friend:
I wasn’t aware Ricard Clark was his advisor. What is your opinion of him (Clark) and on the fact he is his advisor (why is he?)
Thanks !
PS: I guess should be Richard Clarke (?)
Is Richard Clark(e) an advisor?
I find that hard to believe.
Me too… I really would like Larry to comment on this….
Yep. Clarke is an advisor.
I guess everyone will start to hate him and say how wrong he is.
Who keeps saying Clinton is dividing the Democtratic Party, because lookingat the number of votes Cinton has received, with her being neck and neck with Obama, doesn’t make sense, people should be asking Obama where is his support, republicans who are playing games as usual?
Obama’s atics regarding caucusing are well known to be reprehensible.
Bullying and misdirecting older voters and very belligerent behavior in all caucuses [especially in biggies] has been well documented.
If his followers weren’t so needy they would think hard. But they won’t and if he committed murder in the AM they’d still love him in the PM.
Clinton is running neck and neck and while this is far from over the presssure wusses like Daschle, Mc Caskill, etc hit TV today talking down voters rights in Fla and MI.
They want to push this guy through at all costs. Not so fast.
Hey gang,
I have to put the kids to bed. And then myself.
Catch y’all tomorrow.
Wethornet, he who a) doesn’t have a dog in the Hillary Obama wars, and b) has 4 photos of himself with Bill, (solo), Hillary, (rope line), Al (7-8 of us drove in the motorcade, we’re front of Air Force Two), and Tipper (solo), and c) my relationship with any Democratic politican is like the Jesuits with the Pope, “I am always for them, sometimes with them, sometimes against them, but always for them.”
I don’t know whether this video has ever been posted here, but it is sure to make the Obama supporters whine because it encapsulates the cult of personality that is Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xtNr5-up0U
Bees -
It is, but it’s worth posting here too. Way good. The Messiah wants the White House!
Obama followers question nothing. They follow.It’s apparent that the need to be stoked is greater than the need to question. And the self righteous rage shown by his “foreign policy” disaster,Power is just part of his bankrupt cadre of advisors.
Zybigniew Brezinsky was a disaster when as advisor to Carter he failed miserably to end or resolve the hostage crisis. He is a bellicose hard liner and anti Israel hawker, a failed diplomat who writes books and teaches. Susan Rice who was minor advisor in Africa for Clinton, is another on his “staff”.
His ties to Reverend Jeremiah Wright, his pastor who loves and honors Farrakhan remain strong inspite of Wright’s approval of one of America’s famous anti semites.Obama never hesitated taking Farrakhan’s voters from The Nation Of Islam.
Obama has spent most of the past 2 year stints running for offfice and/or fundraising and taking from pal Rezko an out and out criminal.Today the NY Times highlights his lack of attention to his senate job, and his inability to carve out one single position that showed any stones.Or convene one meeting of his subcommittee and mentioned his timidity and caution as he prepared to run for president.
After observing his economic wonk telling Canadians that he wink wink will not say what he’s telling everyone to get elected, he has the hubris and inexperience to push a potty mouth wonk Samantha Stone to yak at the BBC that his statements about Iraq really don’t count, wink wink, and to “The Scotsman” that Hillary is a monster,blah blah and “we really f****d up in Ohio. A real gem of a diplomat.
This shows incredibly poor judgement,and Obama’s behavior indicates he’s sure he’s going to be super delegated into the White House. He’s a lazy narcissist.
The fix is in, and God help the Democratic party when the disaffected Fla and MI voters defect. The DNC is showing the usual cowardly behavior they are famous for. These caucuses are a joke. Obama says,”Do The Math”.
The Math: Hillary has won all the big ones with huge electoral votes needed to win.
McCain will run Barack down with a liberal ticket that will surprise, and as we speak, Carly Fiorina is looking for his VP.
Obama is a total lightweight in every department. Howard Dean has acted like a wimp, and the Party is still struggling for an authentic identity. The powerbrokers and backroomers, Kennedy and Kerry, Dodd, etc are all plotting Hillary’s demise.
These guys are losers.
“If he cannot take a punch from Hillary, how in the world can he aspire to stand up to the likes of the Iranians or North Koreans. I just do not understand.”
Then there’s a number of comments pointing out what’s wrong with the Obama criticism. I think I’m reading the same post as everyone else, so let’s clarify.
Unles I’m mis-reading, the point is that relatively speaking, Hillary Clinton is being polite to Obama in comparison to what’s coming. The point is not what Hillary supporters, or Susan or Larry think about Obama. Everything Larry is mentioning here is a small sample of the ammunition the GOP will use.
READ THIS - The truth and facts (or lack of) of these upcoming attacks will matter much less than how the GOP will be able to smear successfully. They are in practice, and Obama is not; get used to it. Hillary at least has done hands on time in this area.
And what about the criticism that is true? I would pay admission to see the conversation where Obama tries to explain his vision of hope and change to the career KGB Vladamir Putin who’s winning the energy control contest, or the Chinese who hold a bunch of our debt. The resulting vision will be more like a nightmare.
Mel makes an interesting observation (although indirectly). Obama’s support comes from caucuses, where republicans and Independents are allowed to vote for Democrats. Clinton’s support comes from primaries, where only Democrats are allowed to vote for Democrats. Says something about Obmma’s supporters, doesn’t it. Why aren’t the superdelegates seeing this?
Wow, not even a snarky remark to my comments about Obama wanting to hike cap gains, divs & interest tax to 24 damn %. According to Wikipedia: progressive dems just want to tax the hell outta annual incomes in excess of 1.3 million. Not you guys, your left of the progressives. Don’t you all understand how this type of investment & savings tax hike (without a set aside for chicken feed 1st 25K) hurts the damn middle class? Fine. Sit back & get all ideological partisan crazy while the entire economy tanks with absurbly low interest rates, tumbeling housing markets, financial insolvency, crappy currency, then hike taxes on Grandma’s dividends & 3% interest on savings to coinside with the rising C.O.L. inflation runnin at about 7 % (you’ll be taxing a nety loss) & become the next Japan. That’s if your lucky. Hillary only proposes a 5% tax hike on investment/savings income but she wants to spend about 15 billion more than Obama. Yeah, keep focusing on Rezko, Auchi, et al, scandal de jours & wave goodbye to whatever capital remains in the hands of the lower & middle class.
Don’t try to influence the platform. Just go for it like moth to a flame.
you know i read this blog everyday, dont comment cause in the grand scheme of things im no one with any special knowledge or expertise.
i’m just some hardworking lower to middle income schmuck, trying to eek out a living day to day.
i would like to just tell you what i find so depressing…
everyone is so happy about this big movement of obamas, happy that suddenly so many people are involved that were never involved before. happy that so many young people have joined up and want to be part of the process…
for me its too scarry, really!
we now have all these 18 year olds who know nothing about history, know nothing about the last ten years for goodness sakes, have no real life lessons, and worse, have no mind of their own, deciding our future…
and than if you add to that, all of the ‘outsiders’ that have lived on the fringes, and never wanted to be a part of the ’system’, people who wouldnt know what has gone on in the news for the last 10-20 years, influencing our future, based on who knows what far out reason, scary!
oh and i must speak truth, when people like ted kennedy and john kerry and so many past losers, try and have the winning horse in the race, i am truly disillusioned, what have those elite democrats, ever done for me? the only time these people come around, is when its election time, trust me, its always to beg from those who cant afford to give…
the only time kerry or kennedy see my side of town is when their limo takes a wrong turn, and they end up on the other side of the tracks… and trust me, the first thing they do is lock their doors…
i see ivy league barack the same way, he wouldnt know a hard time if he hadnt heard it from someone… thanks
This year should point out why it’s perfectly OK for young people not to vote. Even the best students will have a minimal understanding of history.
Consider a young person who has grown up with the MSM for a surogate “mother” with the replacement of facts and critical thinking for lizard brain emotional stimulus…
I know exactly how you feel skmf12. I’ve voted in every election beginning in 1968 and considered myself a Democrat and a moderate liberal. I marched for civil rights, women’s rights, and against the war in Viet Nam. Now suddenly, I’m just an old white lady and probably a racist to boot since I do not support and will not vote for Senator Obama.
When some “crazed” Obamatron starts their high-flown rhetoric with all the ruffles and flourishes I tune them completely out. I know what I’ve lived through and I know my quality of life was better under Bill Clinton than it is now.
I also am smart enough to know that a Hillary Clinton Administration would not be a do-over of the Bill Clinton Administration. Believe it or not, not every woman gazes adoringly up at her spouse and says, “yes dear, whatever you say.” Some of us gaze up at our spouse and say “frankly my dear, you’re full of crap.”
I believe that a Hillary Clinton Administration will be smart and competent. That’s a start. I also do not believe that she’s a war-monger. All the flag officers that are supporting her tell me that.
I believe she would be a very good president and maybe even a great one. I believe Barrack Obama would make a very good used car salesman.
skmf12,
I do hear you about the politicians in general. Though to be fair, Kennedy, Kerry have been there for their constituents.
Examples:
1. Major flooding in crap small city of Taunton Ma. Kennedy and Kerry came, checked things out and MAGIC -money and new dam fully built to prevent floodng in a space of 3 weeks.
2. Bush does raid on Factory in New Bedford Ma - ICE is so stupid they do not realize the paeople are NOT Hispanic but Mayan Indians. Kennedy, and Kerry spent 3 full weekends in the basement of a church in New Bedford working directly with the spouses and children of those rounded-up. Real credit here - because they were in a very dirty and run down section of the city - I know, because it is only 15 miles from my aunts house- They donated huge sums, paid and found lawyers to go to Texas and represent those people, twisted Bush’s arm so that Human Service workers could go to Texas and speak with each of the people. Upshot all but a few were deported, 97% came back home to their wives/husbands/children and Kennedy and Kerry facilitated the process so these people could become citizens and not have any future problems.
3. Just a few months ago, a place called Quaker MFG, was closing in the city of Fall River. Number of workers to be displaced, 928 - total population of city 91,000. Kennedy and Kerry came, forced owers of factory to agree to pay for retraining programs, health insurance and an extra 20 weeks of unemployment. Kennedy and Kerry then facilitated purchase of factory by an American Company and 92% of the workers were rehired and have a union contract for 5 years.
4. Saved this for last because there is some humor. After Katrina, Kennedy and Kerry arranged for poeple from NOLA to be housed at an old AF Base at begining of Cape Cod. Things went okay, until it was discovered that one of the “cultural differences” is that on shopping day men in NOLA go and buy pints of whiskey, then freely stroll down the street and around shopping malls taking sips of their “refreshment”. Well that is against the law in MA. - so Kennnedy arranged for it to be okay if they went to parks instead of wandering around. Everyone my aunt knows laughed on that one, as it was the first time any of them realized there are real “cultural differences” right within regions of our own country.
I do not know where you are from - I do believe in giving credit when its due.
“Our friend” McCain will cover many words of Obama.s that will destroy him in parts one thing, in whole means everything!
McCain will first get this out of the way without batting an eye! Watch it!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=LU6NiMEaHko
Then Obama on no Lobbyist money, McCain will simply ask for the bundled money be exposed!
Then the crap on a anti war speech!
Then Obama’s failure on healthcare, people avoid paying taxes you not think they will avoid paying for healthcare Obama’s way, get real!
Then talking to a foreign government behind peoples backs!
Then Obama’s sit down with enemies, January 21, 2009 the Whitehouse hone will be ringing off the hook for meetings, that is rediculous to say, but he opened his mouth to the worlds dictators and enemies!
Add to it Rezko, Auchi, and a host of other things, Clinton has had to bite her lip on because of Party politics!
The Presidential campaign is barely 60 days and I am sure a list of 60+ things are ready to attack Obama on, so all he will be doing is back peddling if he is the nminee, no one realize that is why Republicans want Obama?
Clinton, been vetted and can easly take a swipe or two, had 16 yrs of practice taking them and always came out on top!
The Fla and Mich, likely won’t be resolved, as Obama will lose there, Mich thanks to NAFTA gate and FLA not his type of folks!
Need a job? I heard F.D.I.C. is doin’ alot of hirin’ & with the economic plans that are being floated, why not?
skmf12, so Missy Hillary (net worth 50mil) she’s gonna do exactly what for you?
Once again, I wish I had said what Larry wrote. I’ve yet to hear any specifics from either Obama’s mouth or his supporters’. Yet I’m told to visit the website to read his policies. When I did, they sure seemed plagiarized from hillaryclinton.com, or at the least, many were paraphrased.
We have wasted almost an entire decade with a guy who had no experience. Ask the Japanese what it’s like to lose an entire decade of economic and political progress. Hillary knows we have a LOT of work to do just to undo most of the crap he and turdblossom left behind for future presidents and congresses. The last thing I want is a beginner who’s screaming about tax returns.
I dont know if she can do anything for me, to be honest. i remember during the clinton administration, there were better rules and benefits for lower income workers…
now i have no pension, my medical is so very expensive, i’ve worked for the same company 10 years and we’ve had our pay cut 25% in the last 8 years…
bill clinton, may be a loser to some, but he has spent more time trying to raise money for people in need than any other political figure i know.
twice in the last 8 years, i’ve seen bill clinton when he visited homeless shelters, and battered womens shelters…
may be no big thing, but its about those who recognized us long ago, you may not respect him or want him, but the truth is the clintons have been in the hearts of the poor a long time.
MAYBE HILLARY WONT DO ANYTHING FOR US…
but we know her, and we will ‘hope’.
obama is for the rich little frat boys, free to be ‘dreamers’ hollywood stars, and the ‘lucky to be borne right’ left…
Mike Howell, you said: “Watching Barack Obama flee a press conference had to be shocking to his supporters who had only heard the hope and change mantra.”
Hahaha! I doubt they are shocked. They no doubt blamed the whole thing on HRC and forgot about it.
Wethornet, the Democratic base is not torqued off at HRC and/or Bill Clinton. She has won more votes than B.O. and if B.O. hadn’t been able to use his race and convince peple the Clintons are racists, HRC would already be the nominee.
Some people out there think they need to have a Black POTUS. Others are misogynists. Some of those and many others have been drinking too much Kool-Aid and are diminished mentally. But the base is solidly behind HRC.
Yeah, yeah, yeah…Obama’s so bad Hillary wants him to be her V.P.
justsomeone;
Obama’s so bad Hillary wants him to be her V.P.Political Aikido, same with her comments on McCain.
I get what your saying on the money deal. That train left the station some time ago and the first stop will be at “Wallet Station” no matter who gets to squat at 1600…
JUSTSOMEONE,
no obamas not bad, he just needs life to kick the shit out of him a few times, before he trys to rule the world…
right now he thinks he’s a star, when he’s a little more aware of what a bitch life can be, he will be better prepared to face the ‘real world’. you know the one where you have to learn to make cake out of nothing at all…
Obama’s theme song:
I waffle with the winds
I hate NAFTA in Ohio
I love NAFTA in Canada
I don’t know Rezko
But we bought house and land
On the same day next to each other
I bought 10 ft of Rezko’s land
Now Rezko can not build his house on the land
My kids can only play in Rezko’s land
But they hate Rezko too
I am white in Iowa
Black in South Carolina
Regan lover in Nevada
Clinton hater in Texas
Hispanic lover in California
Asian hater everywhere else
I fight the senator from Punjab
I am everything for everyone
But in the end I am all about me
Look at Bush’s original team: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, Wolfowitz. They had a lot of White House staff and defense/national security experience. We have been living with the benefit of their experience for seven years.
Neither McCain, nor Clinton, nor Obama has the experience to understand the most serious threat to US security. The threat is not Islamic jihad or Osama bin Laden.
When the phone rings at 3:00 a.m., it will be
the Treasury Department calling to say that the dollar has collapsed in global currency markets. Has anyone noticed that it has dropped 30-40% over the last four years?
Hillary Clinton is a Senator from New York and by extension the candidate of Wall Street and money center banks. We have yet to see her separate herself from the influence of those who have precipitated the financial crisis we are experiencing.
I’m sorry, I hate to call you a fucking idiot. But…shoe fits.
“Hillary Clinton is a Senator from New York and by extension”
Did you not realize that Goldman Sachs got behind Barack Obama 4 fucking years ago?
When he arrived on the scene, they got behind him. He gets invited to the Council on Foreign Affairs. I mean, if you’re going to make shit up, do it completely and stick to some evidence instead of your bullshit associations.
Wall Street and “Money Center Banks” are not based in fucking New York, thats just where you see them operate. They are free from the confines of this sovereign.
You know, some of you wingnuts will make up anything. You vote for your Trojan Horse Obama, and I promise you, you’ll find out real quick how money backers switch sides and find Starry Eyed Idealists.
When the phone rings at 3:00 a.m., it will be
the Treasury Department calling to say that the dollar has collapsed in global currency markets. Has anyone noticed that it has dropped 30-40% over the last four years?
Nicholas,
I expect the bottom to fall out (if we even have an election) right after Obama takes office.
Chris,
You need to check the donors to Hillary.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F07
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008
Sorry Larry but John McCain didn’t “command troops”… so… spare me the bullshit.
You are probably right Hubris Sonic but if you think Larry is wrong and that the facts will help Obama you are dead wrong. Rove is back in the drivers seat having signed on to McCain’s campaign last week. Do you really think what the Republicans said about John Kerry in 2004 were truthful? How about when the Republicans said Senator Max Cleland wasn’t for defending America from the likes of the terrorist after Max had lost 3 limbs in Vietnam. Get use to some tough stuff being thrown at your man Obama because they have some special stuff waiting for the right time. You know how sneaky Bush’s brain is.
Flash memo to Hubris Sonic & Larry.
Larry, please do NOT respond to Hubris Sonic here. I can (if you wish) arrange for offline exchange between the two of you. That is my preference.
Hubris Sonic. I believe what Larry meant to say, and what you may or may not be aware of is this: McCain did command sailors if I’ve got this right. (Not soldiers, soldiers being Army types.) Iirc, this was POST his POW days. It, iirc, was the largest squadron in the Navy.
There is much about McCain that ain’t what the MSM would have you believe. I know this shocks you. That is for another day.
What is significant to me is that the Navy saw fit not to give McCain, the son of a 4 star, and the son of a very famous WW2 hero 4 star even one lousy star.
I am the grandson and son in law of Naval Academy grads who fought in the S. Pacific in WW2 and in Korea.
Those who know McCain best, his Naval Academy classmates and high level folks that he’s worked with in DC are “severely underwhelmed” with him.
Many of y’all don’t know Hubris. Let me tell ya about him. He is a former Special Forces NCO. I “met” him on the late great Steve Gilliard’s blog, which was my primary blog. When Gilly died last year about 4 of the intrepid souls and some of the coolest writers on the net created the groupnewsblog to carry on Gilly’s work, (he was simply the best out there on military/Iraq matters, as well as a slew of other things.) Doc Jesse Wendel, Subris Sonic, Lower Manhattanite, and Sara Robinson make quite a foursome. They also link to Driftglass who has some writings that are nonpareil.
ps. Larry email offline if ya want. (I may contact you offline about an unrelated matter w/i the next 24-36 hours.)
Hubris Sonic, I am going to groupnewsblog and wish try to get you my contact info there.
My intention was to avoid what I thought might be a nasty public spat between 2 guys I respect.
I also NOW realize that Hubris Sonic and that little envelope thingie (sort of) gave his email. It connects to groupnewsblog. From there you can acquire how to contact him. Or learn more about his background.
(My technical computer skills are v-e-r-y basic.)
Hubris!!!
Cee,
you would like Hubris. you can catch his act at groupnewsblog like i said.
(/says playfully: so many boys to share your foxhole with. CIA types, Special Forces, Rangers….Lions and Tigers and Bears oh my….;-))
WH, your favorite Airborne Ranger in Mizzourah.
Wet,
I know him. We haven’t always agreed either but I respect him.
Wet,
I wasn’t going to comment on the last part but I’ll just wink. LOL!
you sound like a bunch old guys, sitting around the bar, remembering when…lol.
“… they hate Clinton and her supporters. They have Hope, Change, and wee bit of the Newly Converted Arrogance on their side. After all, They’re Right.”
This comment and many others upthread pretty much sums up my feelings about why I will not support an Obama candidacy. He and his supporters DROVE me to this. I came to this site as a result of being on a ‘progressive’ site that really was anti-Hillary. It didn’t matter how much I said that my intention was to support the Democratic candidate in Nov. no matter who it was, they were simply nasty, ugly and downright disrespectful of my support for Hillary in what was still the early stages of the Primary Season and I was open to all of the candidates. It was the Obama supporters who first said that they, in no uncertain terms, would not vote for Hillary. Excuse me, but I thought this was about unity? NO unity applies to Hillary supporters giving Obama support.
The attacks were ruthless and relentless, all the while none of them could explain why they supported their candidate, only run off a litany of reasons why they hated Hillary. Finally, I had ENOUGH! And this AA voter emailed the Obama campaign to take me off their list and told them that THEY were they reason that I would not be supporting Obama.
Add the media’s DESPICABLE and OVERT bias and no I will not vote for Mr. Big Ears who can’t take a punch, has no experience along with some very dubious associations. Are these people for real? Do they know what time it is in Amreica?
They need to take the blinders off and hear some of the things that have been reported about Obama in the last few days. Things that even the media can’t cover up any longer. Hey you left wing nutjobs: What about what Samantha Powers said? Do you get it? After all of your vitriol towards Hillary’s one vote as the cause of the Iraq War, Senator “I was against the war from the beginning” won’t be bringing the troops home. (As I predicted, btw.)
But you see they are what Jack Nicholson described so accurately “they can’t handle the truth.” All they care about is hating Hillary and Bill Clinton. So it will be the Clinton’s fault when McCain hands Obama his sorry half-white/half-black ass to him in Nov. It’s the Clintons fault that Bush is an an asshole that’s led this country to ruin. It certainly isn’t anything that the left wing spoiled brats have done and continue to do.
Yes, these people are losers. I won’t vote for McCain. I will sit this one out. I feel exactly the way kenosha marge feels. I’m an AA, but we are on the same (p)age. This will be the first presidential election I have sat out since I began in 1968. Thanks Mr. Unity. I guess that’s what you mean by change.
mimi,
I know what you mean about the abuse and disrespect on other (so-called) progressive blogs. I would not have believed that other “progressives” could be just as dimwitted, nasty, abusive and dishonest as the Wingnuts I have jousted with for some time.
I feel stupid in having every thought that the “A” list blogs were any different than the media. And I feel stupid that I ever made it a point to listen to Air America or to Keith Olbermann. Without fairness they are no different than FOX or any conservative blog.
I suspect that all the blogs and media outlets thinks that all of us that have fled from their “spin” will come home to them once the Democratic nominee has been chosen. I for one will not. I don’t like dishonesty and unfairness in Republicans/Conservatives so why in hell would I embrace it, or forgive it in Democrats/progressives/liberals?
mimi and kenoshaMarge,you are so right. I was a John Edwards supporter until the day he dropped out of the race. Then the anti-Clinton invective really took off. All the old Republican talking points hauled out again, not by Republicans but by people like Randi Rhodes!
Just a few minutes ago I turned off Thom Hartmann. He is so biased it is sickening. No I won’t be going back to listening to Air America anymore. They have proved the Kool-Aid drinkers prosper on the right and the left. And I am really happy that I never got my cable TV connected to listen to Keith Obamaman, or Chris Tingly-Leg Matthews.
A few weeks ago I was criticizing local San Diego talk show host Stacy Taylor for calling Paul Krugman a neo-con. Amazingly, last week Stacy said he is coming around to supporting Hillary. Stacy was making fun of Obama for getting all worked up because Hillary supposedly darkened his skin tone in some photograph.
Anyone who is interested can listen to Stacy over the internet at cash1700.com. He is on from 3:00 to 6:00pm Pacific time. The rest of the day it is all right-wing talkers.
Please don’t sit this out. If ‘big ears’ does get the nomination, I think he’ll lose, but I’ll grit my teeth and vote for him the same. Let the Osama supporters say the same about Hillary ….
You guys sound like rush and hannity. Nuts.
Ah, another hit and a miss.
Poor thing.
Show your work, tuna.
It’s impossible for her to win. Give it up. The TX results are already added in at his site. He won TX. Popular and delegate vote. He’ll win big in MS and NC and split PA. She can’t catch up. MI and FL will split evenly the votes so the delegates can be seated. She should leave the stage gracefully, for her own good. Her legacy. I always loved the Clintons. The last few weeks have really changed my opinions of them. It will never be the same.
It’s no wonder your opinion has changed given that you don’t seem to understand a great deal of what you’re talking about.
There seems to be a pretty good chance that both Florida and Michigan will get to re-vote, Obama did NOT win the popular vote in Texas and it is highly doubtful that there will be a split in Pennsylvania. Most likely a big win for her.
And why would anyone want to deny the voters of this country the chance to have their say? That sounds like the kind of crap that Republicans pull not Progressives.
SherryB, how did Obama win popular vote in TX? Last time I checked CNN, Hillary leads popular vote by about 100K.
Sherry,
The scoundrel Morris (Hillary former friend who NOBODY trusted) said she lost.
http://thehill.com/dick-morris/its-over-2008-03-06.html
Dick Morris
It’s over
By Dick Morris
03/06/08
The real message of Tuesday’s primaries is not that Hillary won. It’s that she didn’t win by enough.
The race is over.
The results are already clear. Obama will go to the Democratic Convention with a lead of between 100 and 200 elected delegates. The remaining question is: What will the superdelegates do then? But is that really a question? Will the leaders of the Democratic Party be complicit in its destruction? Will they really kindle a civil war by denying the nomination to the man who won the most elected delegates? No way. They well understand that to do so would be to throw away the party’s chances of victory and to stigmatize it among African-Americans and young people for the rest of their lives. The Democratic Party took 20 years to recover from the traumas of 1968 and it is not about to trigger a similar bloodletting this year.
She detested that odious maggot, Morris.
IIRC, this is the second time you characterized Morris as a former friend.
So what does Rush have to say today, Cee?
rjj,
Hillary brought Morris into the tent and he stabbed them. He knows her pretty well.
Carville, Begala, Podesta and boys never trusted him but Hillary did.
Prove me wrong.
I don’t listen to Rush. I did read that Bill was on his show the day of the Texas vote begging for the support of conservatives who crossed over to vote for his wife in Texas.
Hillary can always BUY those delegates, like Barack “stench” Obama.
And in the long run, it’s best the democratic party leaders wake up and understand what is happening here, Clinton is their best bet, if they’re truly serious about winning the white house..
Why do you keep pushing this criminal Obama, cee, it makes me wonder about you, too?
Cee,
Dick Morris is a buffoon, a poor loser. He was always lousy and incompetent and was bad for Bill Clinton that some idiot brought him into his campaign for polling; Morris had always been
a Rep. pollster.
Hillary never trusted him nor she could even stand him then.
Morris is a shady character who always advocated the “politics of personal destruction” : what is he doing with the Obama campaign…Hmmm Interesting.
Andy,
The Clinton’s did share your view of him when he was an advisor.
Morris is not with the Obama campaign. He’s busy backstabbing his former bosses.
Dick Morris is a paid employee of Barack Obama. Obama sent him over to Kenya to advise his politician relative Odinga. You see how well all that turned out.
You are delusional - he lost Texas in the popular vote and he won’t come close to winning in PA. MI and FL will not have the delegates split in half; there will either be a revote which she will win or the delegates will be seated (unless the Democratic Party truly wants to lose in the Fall). NC will be close and MS will highlight the white/black fault line that is the Obama campaign (they played the race card to consolidate the black vote and thus made him the black candidate).
alexei, Well said.
Cee “Hussein” loves to emulate Rush with the drive by stuff.
Dick Morris? really Cee?
Give us your top ten reasons why you will vote for the Jr Senator from Illinois to be the next squatter at 1600. Argue with your own “bullets” ok? instead of the Walmart imports you post. The Clock is ticking.
Teak,
I’ve never been in Walmart.
1. He ain’t her.
Nuff said.
OT!
OMG! Elliot Spitzer is being attacked for being involved in some stupid scandal.
I really admire him. What a shame.
Cee,
Sorry, but it figures you would admire Spitzer. I live in NY, voted for Spitzer and was proud that he chose an AA runing mate. He’s been a disaster from the beginning, this just tops it all.
Spitzer’s also the reason that I didn’t fall for Obama’s ‘hope’ and ‘change’ crap. I’ve had enough of sanctimonious politicians pontifficating morality and being above the fray. I wouldn’t care about this if Spitzer wasn’t so sanctimonious or was a good governor.You know what bugs me the MOST about this Rezko thing: as an AA, that Obama was even involved with this slum lord especially because he is selling hmself as an AA candidate is despicable. These people ruin housing for poor defenseless black people. That AAs have closed their eyes to this is unbelieveable. I don’t need for Rezko to be tied to Sadaam Hussein, that he let apt buildings go down in inner city Chicago and then abandoned his responsibility to them is more than enough.
Mimi,
Don’t apologize. I don’t have a problem admitting when I’m wrong.
I just heard about things that Spitzer has done to others in the past that went way beyond investigation any financial malfeasance.
He’s a hypocrite. I wish his wife had thumped him in the head as she stood there.
We all need to be asking who authorized the bank to spy on him. Is it related to the Bush administration plans?
Has anyone addressed that?
Mimi -
I can’t get past Barack Obama’s being such close buddies with a guy who took millions and millions in public money and could have easily done public housing right and instead let people freeze in unsafe buildings.
All the while Obama keeps asking Rezko for donations.
And Obama writes letters recommending Rezko and represents non-profits that partner with Rezko.
Obama’s office had to be receiving complaints for years re: these slums. Yet he lied and deceived and chose to let black people suffer.
Obama’s greed eventually drives him to hit Rezko up for a mansion that was probably paid for by an Iraqi billionaire convicted of fraud.
Yet while running for President Obama pretends to be a friend to people in need.
It’s clear that Obama is Obama’s only true concern.
You don’t vote for a person like that. You prosecute him.
Mike, thank you for reminding us of what is really the worst part of that entire story. Obama knew that Rezko’s tenants suffered …. it was in all the Chicago media.
First off, no need for a Fla redo, voters in record numbers went out to vote and even though no campaigning was to be done there, Obama pulled the sneak way of advertising via cable news networks and still lost big time!
Mich, a mainly Union state won’t vote for Obama and Texas Democratic party wil likely be contested at the convention based on the documented Obama thugs at the caucus’s!
Now that McCain has won, watch the next primary and caucus numbers shrink substantially in the Republican vote and where will all those votes go, towards Obama in any open caucus and primary here on out!
The one thing learned this election season is the people of the DNP who manage the elections are stupid and played into a really remarkable opening left to slime politicians who have practiced the deception of eleimination in the past!
If nothing else, the DNP leaders and certain Super Delegates should at least come out and apologize to both Clintons for not defending and squashing the Obama use of the race card during NH and SC and make it clear that that sort of politicing will NEVER be tollorated again! At most, the DNP should penalize SC results based on the leaked 4 page Obama camp memo on how to inject the race card and keep it in the forefront during the days leading up to SC! Especially since the DNP people keep toting that you do not attack an opponent, which was clearly done both by Obama and his wife when tides turned on them by injecting the race card!
Excellent point.
I hope they understand the damage Obama has done to the AA community, and how it will be exploited.
But I doubt it.
Teakwoodkite, thanks atleast you get what I’m sayin’ & I agree no matter who wins it’s going to be a tough economic ride next January. Flexability should be in the tool box & so far I see no evedience of that. All 3 canidates seem like their economic plans were hatched prior to the exposure to subprime, especially on the Dem side. They can’t tax what isn’t there anymore.
No…I think the economy will crap out here shortly as CK points out. I don’t care where someone is on the political spectrum, ’cause in the long run it is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
In My view what we are witnessing is the destruction of the union by economic means, (among others) Global econ leaving the offset on the backs of Middle America taxpayers…like some Russioan revolution…
Last year I was filling the tank I told the guy who was complaing about 2.45@gal next to me…you have not seen anything yet, He laughed in disbelief when I told him gas was going to 4.00@g and beyond…
I can see it as 6.00 or even 7.00 during the first months of the next administration.
And it might get better, though I doubt it with competition for oil as strong as it is. America may become more fuel efficient, with a greater emphasis on green technology, giving it the energy edge, esp as peak oil seems to have passed.
Which would be ideal, btw.
I was reading, in the Economist, I think, where some of the hotshot silicon valley tech guys were investing in green infrastructure, as they see this as the huge next trend.
[...] “Thin-Skinned Obama Fans“ [...]