Olbermann’s Cheese Slides Off the Plate
By Larry Johnson
Email: larry_johnson@earthlink.net
Site: http://NoQuarterUSA.net
About: Larry C. Johnson is a former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who moved subsequently in 1989 to the U.S. Department of State, where he served four years as the deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. He left government service in October 1993 and set up a consulting business. He currently is the co-owner and CEO of BERG Associates, LLC (Business Exposure Reduction Group) and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, and crisis and risk management, and money laundering investigations. Johnson is the founder and main author of No Quarter, a weblog that addresses issues of terrorism and intelligence and politics. NoQuarterUSA was nominated as Best Political Blog of 2008.[1] He has worked as a private consultant on issues of international terrorism and security for the U.S. Government and private companies. Johnson has appeared as a consultant and commentator in many major newspapers and news programs.[2]
Contents [hide]
1 Background
2 Views
2.1 1996
2.2 1998
2.3 1999
2.4 2000
2.5 2001
2.6 2003
2.6.1 Plame affair
2.7 2008
3 Notes
4 References
5 External links
[edit]Background
Larry Johnson moved to Washington, D.C. in 1979 to begin work on a Ph.D. at the American University. Although he completed successfully all coursework and comprehensive exams, he did not write a dissertation. In 1978 and in 1983-85 he worked in Latin America on community development projects as a community organizer. Returning to the United States in 1985 he joined the Central Intelligence Agency, thanks in part to a letter of recommendation from Republican Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) that helped to "open doors" for him at the Agency.[3] Johnson entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985 and was a classmate of Valerie Plame. Every member of that class was undercover. After a year in the Career Trainee program, which included a stint with the Afghan Task Force, Johnson was assigned as an analyst in the Middle America Caribbean Division in the Latin American Affairs Office of the Directorate of Intelligence. He received two Exceptional Performance awards and was promoted ultimately to Senior Regional Analyst for Central America.
Johnson remained undercover in the CIA until October 1989, when he resigned from the CIA and started a new job in the Office of Counter Terrorism at the Department of State. Johnson played an instrumental role in launching the Terrorism Rewards program international advertising campaign (working with Diplomatic Security officers Brad Smith and Michael Parks). [4] Johnson also was involved in a variety of crisis management response operations, including the release of hostages from Lebanon and liaison with the Pan Am 103 families. He left government service in October 1993 and started his own business as a consultant.
After leaving government service, Johnson became a frequent guest on many major television news shows when a question of terrorism came up. He was first interviewed by CNN following the capture of Carlos the Jackal. Johnson subsequently appeared on CNN, ABC's Nightline, CBS, the BBC, MSNBC, the Jim Lehrer News Hour, NBC, and NPR. In December of 1999, for example, Johnson was hired by NBC to serve as its terrorist expert for the Y2000 and was in Time Square with Tom Brokaw and Katie Couric ("a lot of fun and the best way to see in the New Year"). Johnson also was hired in January 2002 as a Fox News Analyst and remained under contract until February 2003.
Since 1994 a significant focus of Johnson's consulting work has been with the U.S. military special operations forces in scripting and conducting military counter terrorism exercises. He traveled under orders from the U.S. military to Iraq in May 2006 to work on a short term project.
A registered Republican who supported President Bush in 2000, Johnson became a strong critic of the Bush administration in May 2003 for its conduct of the war in Iraq and, a few months later, for its role in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame.[5] He was also featured in the 2004 political documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism. Since Robert Novak's controversial disclosure of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative in July 2003, Johnson has contributed to public discourse on intelligence matters, often sparking further controversy. He has been interviewed by both the mass media and the alternative media and published commentaries on a variety of issues, including the Plame affair, the controversy concerning Mary McCarthy, and the resignation of Porter Goss as Director of Central Intelligence.
[edit]Views
This article or section may contain an inappropriate mixture of prose and timeline.
Please help convert this timeline into prose or, if necessary, a list.
[edit]1996
In 1996, Johnson noted that terrorism worldwide was on the decline. "Terrorist incidents [both internationally and in the US] have fallen to levels not seen since the 1970s. Whether measured by the number of incidents, the number of fatalities, or the number of groups, raw statistics demonstrate that the level of terrorist violence has declined since the mid-1980s. In fact, the evidence suggests terrorism was more widespread and deadly 10 years ago."[6]
He also wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times suggesting that the newer and more deadly terrorist threat to the U.S. was embodied by "networks of terrorists, mostly foreign, working within its borders." Exemplifying this threat was Ramzi Yousef, one of the masterminds behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. In the article, Johnson suggests that enhanced cooperation between intelligence agencies, particularly the FBI and CIA, is mandatory to meet the growing threat of terror networks.[7]
[edit]1998
In 1998, Johnson argued that while overall terrorism was declining, the threat from bin Laden and al-Qaeda should be the focus of American counterterrorism policy:
The nature of the threat posed by Bin Ladin is highlighted by my final chart, number 7. Osama Bin Ladin and individuals associated with him have killed and wounded more Americans than any other group. This chart also illustrates that groups such as Hamas and the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) prior to 1998 have killed more foreigners in the anti-US terrorist attacks. If we take into account the bombings of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Osama's status as the most lethal terrorist is certain.[8]
In addition, he told USA Today that bin Laden had participated in "virtually every major attack of terrorism against the United States" in the 1990s. Johnson underlined the threat posed by bin Laden, saying that he was possessed by "hatred and craziness." If left unanswered, "he would continue to terrorize Americans around the world. He has no compunction about killing women and children. He's a complete egalitarian in his murderous attitude."[9]
[edit]1999
In an interview with PBS's Frontline for its 1999 program, Hunting bin Laden, Johnson discussed Osama bin Laden.[10] According to Johnson, Americans had "tended to make Osama bin Laden sort of a superman in Muslim garb." "Actually," he continues, "Osama bin Laden, in my view, represents more of a symptom of a problem, and the problem is this: the Saudi Arabian government, not just Osama bin Laden but many people in Saudi Arabia, have been sending money to radical Islamic groups for years." Johnson continued:
When you look at who's killed Americans in the last 10 years, the individuals he's supported and backed--I'm basing that upon the initial information that's been released in the indictments and conversations with others in the intelligence communities--Osama bin Laden has been the one killing Americans. No other terrorist group in the world has been out killing Americans except for Osama bin Laden.... Osama bin Laden remains out there as the one really targeting us. So, we recognize that he's the threat. He's serious about wanting to kill Americans, but as long as he's in Afghanistan, as long as he doesn't have access to a cell phone, as long as he can't just hop on a plane and travel wherever he wants without fear of being arrested, his ability to plan and conduct terrorist operations is extremely limited. We have to recognize [that] he would like to do a lot of damage. He would like to kill Americans, but wanting to is different from being able to, having the full capabilities in place.[11]
In the interview, Johnson doubted the ability of members of bin Laden's organization to plan and put their lives on the line:
There's not another Ali or Mustafa out there at this point and Osama bin Laden in my view has not been a very effective organizer or leader. He talks a great game and puts out terrific threats as far as stirring the passions in the United States and maybe firing up the imaginations of some young Muslims throughout the world. But when push comes to shove, can he get a group of people who are together who will say: we are going to plan an operation, we're going to put our lives on the line, we're going to go out and try and kill people and we don't care what the consequence is? It hasn't happened.[12]
Frontline asked:
[Is it] ... fair to say what you're saying is that the president of the United States, his national security advisor, his deputy national security advisor for counter-terrorism, are basically blowing smoke [about the danger posed by bin Laden] and his followers]?
Johnson responded:
They're grossly exaggerating the problem. They are hyping it. They shouldn't be talking about rising terrorism. Instead of saying "terrorism's rising," it's not. "Terrorism is spreading," it's not. "More people are dying from terrorism," not the case. But what they should be saying is, "There's one individual out there that really doesn't like us, and he's made it his mission in life to kill Americans, and we've gotta deal with him." But we need to have a voice of reason in that process instead of putting ourselves out crying wolf, because this is essentially what's taking place right now. They call it the administration that cries wolf.[12]
[edit]2000
Johnson co-authored an article in 2000 with Milt Bearden which focused on the threat posed by al-Qaeda specifically, rather than terrorism trends in general. Beardon and Johnson note that new information emerging about the bombings at Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 points to the threat posed by Imad Mugniyah and Osama Bin Laden will require "a coordinated policy that will employ a full range of covert, clandestine, diplomatic, and military operations," concluding:
The Clinton Administration has shot its bolt on the terrorist problem with small effect, and no last minute show of force will change the record. A new administration can start afresh with a more sharply defined set of terrorism goals – Mughniyeh and bin Laden and their protectors for starters – and bring the full, coordinated force of American diplomatic, military, and intelligence capabilities to bear on the problem.[13]
[edit]2001
After Johnson's testimony to the special forum at the U.S. Senate, Gary J. Schmitt, executive director and CEO of the Project for the New American Century, refers in the Daily Standard (blog) to an op-ed piece Johnson wrote two months prior to the 9/11 attacks, claiming that Johnson argued that the US had little to fear from terrorism.[14]
In an editorial entitled "The Declining Terrorist Threat," published in the New York Times on 10 July 2001, Johnson says:
Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.... None of these beliefs are based in fact.... While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across the continents, terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way.[15]
Ten days after the 9/11 attacks, after quoting the above passage, Timothy Noah concludes a post in his "Chatterbox" feature at Slate: "Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong."[16] Johnson defended himself against such attacks:
The rightwing is resurrecting an op-ed I wrote in July 2001. I stand by the full article. It is still relevant today. I am accused, incorrectly, of ignoring the threat of terrorism. In fact, I correctly noted that the real threat emanated from Bin Laden and Islamic extremism. President Bush, for his part, ignored the CIA warning in August 2001 that Al Qaeda was posed to strike inside the United States.[17]
After September 11, Johnson appeared several times on FOX News to address the question of military action against terrorism. On 14 November, he defended the FBI's proposal to interview 5,000 students in the U.S. suspected of having information relevant to the September 11 investigations:
I think they should talk to everyone that they feel they have a need to talk to. I mean, look, this is war. This is not a legal proceeding. This isn't the O.J. Simpson trial. The folks that attacked us -- they murdered Americans. And we've got to recognize that in wartime, we should do things differently.[18]
[edit]2003
In January 2003, Johnson wrote an analysis of the relationship between the upcoming U.S. invasion of Iraq and the threat of transnational terrorism. According to Johnson, Bremer's response was to tell him that "it didn't matter what Saddam did or didn't do, we were going to war."[19] The paper warned that an invasion would "do little to destroy the infrastructure of radical Islamic terrorism responsible for the 9-11 attacks." Noting that Saddam Hussein's regime has been a longtime supporter of regional terrorist organizations such as the PLO, Johnson examines contacts between Saddam Hussein and transnational terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda:
There is no doubt that Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism—i.e., a country that provides financial support, safe haven, training, or weapons and explosives to groups or individuals that carry out terrorist attacks. . . . According to Central Intelligence Agency data, there is no credible evidence implicating Iraq in any mass casualty terrorist attacks since 1991. . . .
Johnson notes that the period immediately leading up to 2003 saw a rise of activity surrounding terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, suggesting that "Iraq is willing to help a movement that it would otherwise oppose on ideological grounds. Nonetheless," Johnson concludes, "it is important to understand that Iraqi entreaties to Al Qaeda, are most likely intended as a tactic to bolster Iraq’s ability to fight off a U.S. invasion rather than a deep-seated theological and ideological commitment to the terrorist agenda of Bin Laden.[20]
In that analysis Johnson also warns that the U.S.-led invasion was likely to backfire:
In fact there is a serious risk that a U.S. led war against Iraq may crystallize the diffused anger in the Arab and Muslim world — a heretofore unattained goal of bin Laden and his followers — and persuade more Muslim youths to take up the terrorist banner against America and her citizens.... If we decide to invade Iraq we must be prepared for the contingency that our attack will inspire young Muslims to pursue jihad against the West in general and the United States in particular. Just as the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan rallied many Muslims, especially young adults to the cause of jihad, a U.S. attack may enable Islamic extremists to attract new followers.[20]
Johnson also gave interviews on the topic of what to do with captured al-Qaeda leaders; while he did not condone torture, he suggested that a "sleep deprivation and reward system" might be useful for getting information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:
I don't see a constitutional right to have eight hours of sleep. You shouldn't subject someone to freezing but they don't get to wear mink coats, either.[21]
In May 2003, Johnson joined members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) in condemning the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes:
It is a misuse and abuse of intelligence. The president was being misled. He was ill served by the folks who are supposed to protect him on this. Whether this was witting or unwitting, I don't know, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.[22]
[edit]Plame affair
After Robert Novak wrote a column identifying the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson as a CIA officer, the media invited Johnson to comment on the ensuing scandal because he had been a member of the same Career Trainee class with Valerie Plame Wilson. For example, in October 2003, he appeared on Democracy Now to discuss the Plame affair. He told interviewer Amy Goodman that Valerie Wilson's cover should have been respected whether she was an "analyst" or a "cleaning lady": "if she's undercover she's undercover, period. If the media allows themselves to get distracted with those kinds of curve balls, they ignore the issue."[23]
He told a Senate Democratic Policy Committee in October 2003, "My classmates and I have been betrayed. Together, we have kept the secrets of each other's identities a secret for 18 years. Each and every one of us have kept that secret, whether we were in the CIA, in other government service or in the private sector. But this issue is not just about a blown cover. It is about the destruction of the very essence, the core of human intelligence collection activities: plausible deniability, apparently, for partisan domestic political reasons."[24]
Johnson testified at a special joint hearing of Congressional and Senate Democrats on 22 July 2005 about the consequences arising from the Plame affair.[25]
[edit]2008
In 2008, Johnson emerged as a staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton and a strong critic of Barack Obama. Larry Johnson's blog, NoQuarterUSA, became a rally point for Clinton supporters wary of Barack Obama's qualifications to be president. Supporters of Barack Obama insist that a story that first appeared on Johnson's blog--a report that Republican operatives have a tape of Michelle Obama making racially insenstive comments about caucasians--has been "refuted" Barack Obama's Fight the Smears website.[26]. However, Johnson never claimed to have the tape and reported that the Republican operatives controlling it intended to release the tape sometime after the Democratic Convention in August 2008. On October 21, however, he asserted that the operative in possession of the tape had been instructed by the McCain campaign not to release it.[27]
[edit]Notes
^ http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-political-coverage/
^ Larry C. Johnson, "About Me," No Quarter (personal blog).
^ "Former CIA Official Larry Johnson Delivers Democratic Radio Address," transcript posted on official Democratic National Committee's website for The Democratic Party, July 23, 2005], accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Interview with Larry Johnson, confirmed by his supervisor
^ "Ex-CIA official Blasts Bush on Leak of Operative's Name: Democrats' Radio Address Focuses on White House Aides' Role," CNN July 23, 2005, accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Gail Russell Chaddock, "Why Terrorists Pick On the French," Christian Science Monitor (5 December 1996) p. 1.
^ Larry Johnson, "Terrorists Among Us," New York Times (20 August 1996) p. A19.
^ Terrorism Today
^ Lee Michael Katz, "The Hunt for Bin Laden," USA Today (21 August 1998) p. 1A.
^ See Transcript of original interview with Larry C. Johnson, as broadcast on Frontline in 1999. Cf. "Interview: Larry C. Johnson," for Hunting bin Laden, transcript of interview broadcast on Frontline subsequently on 13 April 2001. See also dedicated PBS webpages for media links: Iraq and the War on Terror, Frontline PBS, online featured programs, accessed 19 November 2006.
^ frontline: hunting bin laden: interviews: larry c. johnson | PBS
^ a b [1].
^ As posted in [2].
^ Gary Schmitt, [ 07/25/2005 "Meet Larry Johnson: The CIA official Turned Democratic Spokesman Has a Pre-9/11 Mindset," Daily Standard (blog), July 25, 2005, accessed November 20, 2006.
^ *Larry C. Johnson, "The Declining Terrorist Threat," The New York Times 10 July 2001: A19.
^ Timothy Noah, "(Not Exactly a) Whopper of the Week: Larry C. Johnson," Chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics (blog), hosted by Slate September 21, 2001, accessed November 20, 2006. Note the full context of this quotation:
It is, to be sure, a little bit cheap (and slightly at odds with the usual parameters of this feature) to criticize someone for making an erroneous prediction, particularly after a tragedy. Chatterbox is especially reluctant to tag Johnson because Johnson's op-ed was argued forcefully, backed up meticulously with factual data, and bravely at odds with conventional wisdom at the time of its publication. Add in that Johnson now makes his living as a consultant to corporations about terrorism, and therefore had everything to gain by exaggerating the dangers terrorism poses, and the guy practically looks like a hero. Chatterbox, who two decades ago was an editor for the New York Times op-ed page, would have published Johnson's piece had he still been an editor there this past July. In his capacity at Slate, Chatterbox might well have written up Johnson's prediction, and perhaps even endorsed it.
But boy, is he glad he didn't! Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong. Sadly, a mistake this embarrassing cannot be ignored. As a fellow skeptic, Chatterbox in all sincerity wishes Johnson better luck next time.
^ Larry C. Johnson, "Johnson vs. President Bush," re-posted and updated by SusanHu at DailyKos (blog) July 25, 2005.
^ FOX News Interview with John Garrett (14 November 2001) Transcript #111405cb.260.
^ [3].
^ a b Larry C. Johnson, "Setting the Record Straight on Iraqi Terrorism," posted in Booman Tribune: A Progressive Community (personal blog) 27 January 2003. accessed 19 November 2006.
^ Qtd. in Toby Harnden, "CIA 'pressure' on al-Qa'eda chief," The London Telegraph 5 March 2003: 16.
^ Qtd. in Nicolas D. Kristof, "Save Our Spooks," The New York Times 30 May 2003:A6.
^ Democracy Now (3 October 2003)[4]
^ U.S. Senate, Democratic Policy Committee Meeting on the CIA Operative Leak, (24 October 2003).
^ Letter to the Senate.[Needs full source citation; see "References" section.]
^ Tumulty, Karen (2008-06-12). "Will Obama's Anti-Rumor Plan Work?", Time Magazine. Retrieved on 20 June 2008.:"a story that apparently first made a big splash on the Internet in late May in a post by pro-Hillary Clinton blogger Larry Johnson"
^ Whitey Tape, API, Phil Berg, and Andy MartinSee Authors Posts (1090) on March 12, 2008 at 9:25 PM in Current Affairs
In August of 2006 I praised Keith Olbermann as the 21st Century’s version of Edward R. Murrow. As a result, Ed Schultz banned me from his radio program because I dared praise Keith. Sadly, fame and acclaim have maimed Keith’s brain, and he has become just another partisan hack. Taylor Marsh has the details.
Don’t watch MSNBC. Boycott that cable news outlet. If you need news, watch the BBC. They at least report real news with a modicum of balance. Olbermann either does not realize he has become a joke or he does not give a shit. Either way, Keith is not worth a minute of your time. Same for his sponsors.
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
I gave up on KO awhile ago and do not even miss it. Larry, I was wondering your take on the Adm. Fallon resignation. Could you write up a post?
I put it up yesterday. One Step Closer to War in Iran.
wow, I apologize, I don’t know how I missed that.
crikey.
Would Bush do it before leaving office with a bombing run?
I’m interested at the incandescence of the rage expressed against Ferraro.
Since her comments were quite mild, I think the reason is that she hit a nerve. Why can’t Obama admit that his appeal with black voters is because he’s a black candidate. There is nothing wrong with that, because he has convinced plenty of other people that he is Presidential material regardless.
It’s equivalent to all the women who are rooting for Hillary. It’s bloc politics, and I have no problem with it.
What Obama has tried to do, though, is pretend that he gets no advantage at all from being black, while simultaneously using his surrogates to paint the opposition as racist.
Ugh.
I think the rage expressed towards Ferraro’s comments are for the same reason and by and large from the same folks who attack Hillary. They are just plain sexist. From what I have seen of the Democratic primary this year there are still far more sexists in the good ‘ole USofA than there are folks who would accept an inexperienced and unready candidate as long as the candiate is a male.
Sexism has surely trumped Racism now, but Obama and camp O are playing the race-bait card to the hilt. As we watch Malcolm X and company take off in Rev Wright’s church we are hearing both KKK dreck against Whites,Hillary, and for this he should lose his tax ememption.
A huge effort must be made to the IRS to remove his status as he uses his church to perpetrate bias,hate,smear,and politics of the most reprehensible kind.
He’s crossed the line permissible for tax relief status, and if this is the atmosphere of Obama [and Oprah's] temple of worship it is deplorable, and frightening.
Aside from anti semitism, hatred of whites, anarchy, and 9/11 screeds, this is where Obama has been coddled and groomed for the presidency.
As Reverend Wright said, “He’s the Jesus we’ve been looking for”. Please watch this abomination on YouTube.
As a religious person I find the comparison of Obama to Jesus revolting and frightening.
The anger, the tone, the manipulation, are all part of extremism at it’s worst.
Should Obama ecome President, he will bury America.
I agree, but what has also escaped the context, and I know this is a factor to some degree, is that some white voters believe this will alleviate white guilt. I have a few white liberal male friends who have jumped on Obama’s bandwagon and think he’s the ticket, not because of him, but because he ‘galvanized’ the voters who feel disconnected, etc, and he’s not Clinton. But what they fail to mention is their own closet racism.
In one best examined case, a friend who cannot handle a conversation related to race with people in the black community without saying, “can you put the black thing aside please?”
Ah…
The complete disconnect to these same white people while interacting in the black community who do not trust them and in fact espouse nationalistic or other resentful views demonstrates that they still wish to dominate the view of our countries politics, the view of US history, and the context of racism within a white paradigm.
This isn’t much different than men who tell women, “but you’ve arrived baby, so shut up about it already” or “what do you mean? we’re equal in this society.”
several of these same voices cannot tolerate Sharpton, Jackson, Farrakhan, but love to associate with black men and women who make them feel more ‘comfortable’. Many of them insist that black people should vote for black issues lest they call them an “uncle tom”. And for a white man to call anyone “uncle tom” is disgusting opportunism. Many White Left Men love to bask in the black politics that make themselves feel like “we’ve made it”.
But take these same folks who cheer this “change” in America and bring them to an all black community meeting and they flounder in interaction, and understanding the different dynamics found in groups that are not dominated by white culture and perspective.
Just as I wrote here about the comments regarding Che Guevarra, not everyone holds the view that he’s a terrorist. Many younger activists I know see him as a revolutionary of his time, and this cannot be ignored, regardless of who he is.
I feel the same about Farrakhan or the Nation of Islam. While I agree with many criticisms and concerns regarding the Nation and Farrakhan, it isn’t as monolythic as that. I’m friends with many NOI and FOI members in Houston, and have seen more respect in events hosted by the NOI than in almost all the events held by other communities. I cannot ignore the considerations I was given. I will not disrespect the way I was treated every single time I covered NOI events for various media outlets in Houston.
Truth is, there is a portion of Obama’s white supporters that would not vote for another black candidate besides Obama because they’d be less inclined to engage black politics. Obama plays the middle very well and I’m glad he has perspectives in both the black and white community. But to exploit it, the campaign now is attacking Ferraro as a racist. Her comments were more directed at the electoral base and I feel it was a cynical view of our progress in the US. I don’t disagree with her at all, and yet I know that real hurt now lives in many people who see it as racist.
It shows how much racism has not left America. We are just beginning the conversation on some level. It was only 40 years ago (out of 350 years of slavery and jim crow laws) that the Civil rights acts were signed. And yet how many noose stories popped up this year alone? How many hate crimes were committed?
We are not past race. And worse we can’t even see the sexism that is present in our everyday lives. Its ignored that she also included Clinton in the “lucky category” because the same might be said about Hillary; that she’s lucky to be a woman running in this race because many will support her all the more to overcome the past.
If you gave me 5 candidates who were equally qualified and one was woman, I’d choose her, because after 43 men, I want a major shift in perspective.
If you gave me 5 candidates who were equally qualified and 4 were white and one was black, I’d chose him because I’d want a major shift in perspective.
But that is all fantasy talk, because the truth is, Clinton was in positions of influence and working on issue that affect us while he was still in college and sorting his feet.
Even he said it would be an arrogant presumption that he’d be a nominee for 2008, and now suddenly he’s arrived to the conclusion that he’s ready and qualified. I say he’s arrogant and dismissive and backed by many, not even talking about the electorate, that will do anything to prevent Hillary Clinton from becoming president.
I may not trust many folks, but I trust many of my friends in the local black community who say they don’t trust him.
One close friend said, “he doesn’t have the memories of America that I do. He couldn’t have the memories of the country that I do. But neither does she, and I’m not that much more comfortable with her…so vote as you choose, i’m probably not going to vote…again.”
For me, all of these worries are moot because I’m looking at his safe voting record, his lies about his own voting record regarding funding Iraq war, Kyl-Leibermann/Counterproliferation 2007 bills, and his sexist attacks, or his lack of support for workers in Illinois, his use of surrogates and campaign staff to attack while calling for an ‘end of the politics of distruction’.
His base has engaged in some of the most sexist hateful comments, and he has attracted some of the most vile sexist trash in the US to his side because they hate Clinton, and all the names they call her reveal what his message doesn’t. Its bullshit!
Show us people who can say, “Obama changed my life when he did this for me.” I’ve heard this from people about Clinton, so show me some from Obama. And I don’t mean people who are juiced on the campaign.
With all due respect, the right wing cynically uses this same precept to deny rights, to all minorities.
Yes, racism still exists, yes, we still need a dialogue, but the whole anti affirmative action campaign was based on the right wing numb nuts telling people “there is no racism, we’re all equal.”
And they knew it was shit, it was simply another ploy in conquer and divide. The right wing even worse than their Kos like counterparts, I really hope they don’t believe this shit spin, would explain the thinking behind Iraq ie, dumb, delusional white men. It’s very easy to feed disinfo to people with this type of ignorant, fantastical, intellctual and psychological reasoning, god help us if they ever gain political power. Oh, wait.
MLK, Jr had it right.
When it comes to men like Farrakhan, and Obama, all I see is corruption, race be damned.
“With all due respect, the right wing cynically uses this same precept to deny rights, to all minorities.”
True, but because White Left basks in it as what makes them ‘different’ and that it shows up often as what has been described as “benevolent racism”, they think they are above it and yet act upon the same illusion that “they’ve made it, they aren’t racist”.
In my experience, its not that its simply hypocritical, but…it is much more damaging because they often get within groups that they act out of the racist mode.
You make this assumption why?
I think it’s an example of narcissism, common to both left and right wing kooks.
Makes them different?
Like watching Scooter Libby parade like a peacock, “hey! I’m working for Dick Cheney, and you’re not! Aren’t we exclusive!”
That’s megalomaniacal narcissism, Scooter finally differentiating himself from the herd, resulting in god knows what, the unnecessary bombing of Iraq, because that group of flaming megalomaniacal brittle Aspens could?.
Right?
Narcissism.
As opposed to what?
A left leaning yuppie’s BMW?
They’re the same, the people you’re describing, the left wing kooks are the right wing kooks.
As a woman,I see that you have correctly concluded to your really excellent understanding of the real subtext of sexism in the mix, the issue of black fascism home grown in America.
Intellectuals are not known for their street smarts or political savvy. As you point out, there is redemption in going for Obama from closet racists who really are NOT comfortable with blacks, but either want to be, or think they are. They are playing themselves.
But as you say, he’s in the middle. He’s also cool. devious, sideward, and prates oratory ala chruchspeak.
Churhspeak has become very compelling of late even to PHD’s who would like to believe that Obama is whatever they want to believe he is.
The minute I started delving into Reverend Wright, Obama’s voting record, his contacts and backstory in Chicago, I became very alarmed. Why?
Because the rhetoric combined with his blind followers, many who are too young to even remember Selma, are finding it irresistible to overvome their guilt about their inactions and frustrations,
Their impotence is now being sanctified and driven by sermons.
This is scary stuff, and we are headed for a true disaster of proportions that cannot even be understood or imagined at present.
Thanks for your intuitive and instructive comments. At the moment I am not living with Hope.
Apparently we are supposed to drink the kool-aid and simply believe that Obama is winning the black vote 9-1 on the strength of his message. If he were a white, first-term US Senator, he’d be winning the black vote and the youth vote by exactly the same margin. His race is a non-factor.
Really. We are supposed to believe this. And if anyone doesn’t, and dares call bullshit on it, that person gets called a Racist. Not that race has anything to do with it.
Got all that?
Apparently ADD is part of the Obamabot’s problem. The Clinton’s did not drive the AA community away. In the early stages he was testing way below his expectation. Then Michelle gives an interview (youtube it under Michelle Obama) and she makes a statement about blacks being fearful to support a black candidate implying that we blacks were clinging to dependency on white candidates and that blacks lacked the courage to believe in a viable black candidate. Code language: blacks had a slave mentality, not the real truth, that most of us simply did not know Barack Obama very well at that point.
Then the debates started happening and the media exposure along with the win in Iowa dramatically shifted many blacks into his camp. The Iowa win sent the AA community into a whirlwind. It was a signal that Obama would receive white support. On the heels of that came Michelle Obama’s MISQUOTING of Bill Clinton in SC, which the MSM circulated as fact. Then Hillary’s statement which was interpreted as a slap on MLK instead of what it was, an historical factually correct statement. This was underscored by Ted Kennedy’s hysterical response at JFK being left out of the historical equation even though it’s a fact that JFK vacillated about signing the Civil Rights Amendment. The misinformation spread through the black community like Bubonic Plague. By the time the MSM timidly corrected Michelle Lady Macbeth Obama’s misquote, it was too late. Today, if you notice, when the conversation turns to Bill Clinton and SC they only talk about his Jesse Jackson winning SC remarks. Again, a factually correct statement, after all Jesse DID win SC. But Clinton’s remarks have been spun as Clinton trying to degrade the legitimacy of Obama’s candidacy by tying Obama to a racially devisive figure like Jackson. The reality here is that Obama wants to be black, but just not too black, like Sharpton and Jackson. Obama wants to be palpable to the white community the way these too polarizing figures can’t be.
This is what happened. So please let’s not have this conversation again!
At this point, blacks have invested a lot of self-esteem into this candidacy. They see centuries of validation in the achievement of a black president. I’m beginning to resent these white Obamabots who PRESUME to know more about my community than I do. I, who have lived in the black community ALL MY LIFE side by side with poor single mothers, jobless black men… I, who, have worked as an advocate for teen mothers, I, who, have personally witnessed the degeneration of housing by slum lords like Rezko and helped people negotiate housing court and written letters on behalf of people who have been miseducated and are functionally illiterate so that they can simply access their Civil Rights.
I can state with absolute certainty that blacks are supporting Obama simply because he is black! If you read the article that was posted on houstonpress.com entitled “Obama Screamed at Me.” There’s a quote by Harold Lucas, a veteran Chicago South Side community organizer with regard to why Obama can’t address black issues on the campaign trail. “Obama can’t bring those issues up if he wants to get elected.” In other words, he has made no commitment to black issues and there is a tacit understanding in the AA community of acceptance about this. This is why he turned down Tavis Smiley’s State of the Black Union 2008 Conference.
CEE, you don’t know what the fuck you are talking about!!!!!
It’s a black thing or so AAs have been led to believe about this bi-racial candidate who is exploiting our hearts and minds, although not mine. Do me a favor and stay out of the soul food kitchen and find other ways to defend your candidate. There has been NO MESSAGE coming directly from Obama regarding black issues. His commitment remains a mystery.
So buy a clue: this is why I’m supporting Hillary!!!!
Once again, I’m AA and I certainly approve this message!
Homer Simpson; Obama Screamed at Me. awww…
Harold Lucas points out an imporatant missed opportunity.
Respectfully re: soul food kitchen …smells great. Anything on the menu you’d reccomend?
We also know for sure that 90 percent of the black vote that goes Obama only goes Obama because he is Black. Or half Black, or African American.
This is the truth. And White “folks” as he likes to say are a different story but we have exhausted that subject in many of the comments today about guilt,inaction,frustration, etc.
Of course, the new Obama propoganda is that Clinton supporters are all trailer whites, lumpen proleteriat to be shunned, and other bullshit.They are the lowest, Obama has concluded.
I know dozens of Clinton supporters who do not fit this demographic at all. The blue collar story exists in states where people have been disenfranchised by unemployment,lack of health insurance, and other tragic circumstances.
But again…..the words are true….Blacks are voting en masse because this lightweight with a snarky backstory is BLACK. And whites who buy his dream sermons want to believe him.
End of story. It’s tragically true.Ferraro was right.
MarkL,
Obama shouldn’t have to address race.Let me remind you that black voters weren’t flocking to Obama because he was a black man.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1581666,00.html
Remember people saying Obama wasn’t black enough?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/01/michelle.obama/index.html
The Clinton camp drove them away.
Also, the remarks from Ferraro were just STUPID and since Hillary kicked her off the stage she shouldn’t continue to be a topic…unless the strategy is to continue to make her the topic.
Um, Obama won votes because he convinced people of the lie that Clinton is racist. Do you think that would have worked if he wasn’t black??
Don’t be silly.
MarkL,
Give me the quote where OBAMA said Clinton was a racist.
I don’t want anything a surrogate said.
Yeah Mark L. Give us the goods.
I haven’t seen or heard Senator Obama and Senator Clinton accuse each other of racism and/or sexism. All I hear are angry surrogates on both sides.
T-Steel,
McCain is rubbing his hands together with glee as he watches the knife fight.
Rush and some idiot talk show host Philadelphia are loving it that they have encouraged people to cross over into the Democratic elections to create mischief.
Nobody is attacking them.
This shit is RIDICULOUS!
You are not an honest debater.
Why don’t you take your silliness to Orange Republic.
You are not an honest debater.
Why don’t you take your silliness to Orange Republic.
ML,
And you’re acting like a punk. Give me the quote of Obama calling Hillary a racist or zip it.
Btw, why don’t you run back to wherever you didn’t have the stones to stay, k?
OBAMA said Clinton was a racist.
So if people are still working for him that engaged in this behavior what would recommend? mmm?
Back to ces’s “squiggly things. How many times you gona look under the same rock?
down thread you were critical of Senator Hillary Clinton when saying Vladimir “has no soul”.
This is one of many comments the senator has made that goes right over the MSM’s head.
When I heard that comment I thought it was interesting she had read the same book I had. The comment was directed to Vladamir via the MSM…I have no dought he laughed at inside joke and the way it was delivered. It was an inside joke referring to KGB in general.
Drumhillar’s book? I apologize I don’t time right now to find the attribution since I have been spending more time than I would like, researching why so many people around Senator Obama are corrupt with criminal intent. Frankly, I’ll be glad when I can go back to making kites.
TeakWoodKite..
Wanna Make Me One..I’m Tired of flying Tandems..They are wearing me out..
See Ya at the Beach..up in Oregon sometime..I will recognize your Kite..
About Ferraro, I didn’t know this before, but she has had incurable cancer, multiple myeloma, since 1998. And she’s 73 years old.
Given that, I have a lot of sympathy for the position that put HRC in when Ferraro ran her mouth off. Also gives me sympathy for Ferraro’s crankiness. Long-term chronic physical pain plus the burden that cancer drugs put on a system … just glad I’m not going through that.
that’s not it, he’s playing poker and anything he can spin into a worse negative for Hillary he plays, no matter how weak. If the news were doing their jobs they’d cover his 50 state strategy. His biggest base is Hillary haters, and he started by denigrating her accomplishments by making them her marital experience, it’s the old ’she slept her way to the top,’ which is a prejudice against powerful women in business. She gives him no good hands, because she’s a great candidate, but he takes whatever cards he can and runs with them. It’s not about any particular theme except to bully her, he wants her to throw in the towel and then he’ll never have to show his hands. The longer it goes on, the thinner his resume shows and the more he’ll be called upon to present plans so they can be compared. She’s faster, comes out with the detailed and well thought out plans and quick responses to what happens in the news. He’s trying to bluff with a couple of deuces. He’s very aggressive and bids up all his weak hands.
His biggest base is Hillary haters, and he started by denigrating her accomplishments by making them her marital experience, it’s the old ’she slept her way to the top,’ which is a prejudice against powerful women in business.
When did Senator Obama so what you said the Senator Clinton? Examples please. I’m not letting Obama or Clinton supporters off the hook when they claim a candidate said X,Y,Z and Z squared their rival. Come on. Give up the goods!
oh, neb, a two mutt shuffle.
Your stupid troll method, propaganda for the lateral mover, (he’s about a lateral mover, troll boi 101, speaking of doug(bots), sams, shams, and Pharaoh’s who can’t troll), anyway, your request is the Obamian equivalent of the verbal smurf, to hide, and confuse, obfuscate, and again, like the obama smurf, only works in your head, a sense of childlike security is better than none, I suppose, to the man playing with matches, and gasoline, my goodness this is how you cope, wow)anyways, do0dc, it’s not good. It’s analogous to smurfing, the verbal equivalent of money laundering, ask Obama about that, the oblique bribe, doing the E Street shuffle.
“I never took a bribe, my wife deserved that 200,000 dollar pay raise she received after I was elected chairman of the IL hospital planning commission, and Mercy hospital was given permission to build, the first such hospital in 40 years, after my political manager, my GUY, tony “tuna” rezko, spread some, um, fairy dust, around. And got some back. Really.”
Like that.
And not very good, either, spice it up, more creativity, you know, “a road like brown ribbon.”
Lol.
Yes, I know you have no clue what I’m speaking of, you never do…
What in the world are you talking about? I don’t understand Pig Latin.
And for the record, I’m a crazy Green Party member. I’m just watching this Dem nomination process with awe and breaking things down “my way”. If I’m a troll for asking examples on candidates statements, then so be it.
“Yes, I know you have no clue what I’m speaking of, you never do…”
Question is, who does know?
You read this site?
Larry mentioned smurfing the other day, you hip to the agency trolls, structuring money transfers, obfuscating to hide illegal transactions from the feds.
Rezko, and Obama, Auchi, and others, no doubt, do the same — smurf.
And what you’re doing, trolling, (and you are, you’re using a common propaganda method), is also obfuscating , but with words, as opposed to money, a word smurf.
My point being, you suppress honest debate, it is my contention, and the methods you use, (as the aspens are all connected at the root, and they are, it’s a cultural precept), have much in common with the way Obama smurfs bribes, say, you smurfing with words and concepts, (simplistically).
Your level of expertise is analogous to Rezko’s say, in my eyes, and being both of later American culture, and I would say the same IQ, I would look for similarities in Rezko’s methods of smurfing, and your way of trolling, as both involve a common fingerprint of struture, to hide, and obfuscate the same subject matter, ie middle east corruption, to which the republican party also has strong ties.
Was that simple enough, or do I need to break it down for you, a little more?
If you read poetry, this would be easy for you. Did you take ANY literature classes in college, any humanistic course, are you familar with the greater abstracts of painting say?
No?
I see, it explains a lot.
Of course you don’t understand.
My goodness, how do you handle Carlos Williams Carlos?
You can’t, can you?
heh.
God BLESS America.
The Red Wheelbarrow
William Carlos Williams
——————————————————————————–
so much depends
upon
a red wheel
barrow
glazed with rain
water
beside the white
chickens.
Try writing a 20 page paper around THAT, and the emergence of the visual in post WW2 poetry.
You see common patterns, after awhile, you know?
Called a troll and condescended to by one who quotes the work of “Carlos Williams Carlos?” Priceless! Let no one say that Simon lacks a sense of humor or always stays on his meds!
Too much money and a far-too-young girlfriend do strange things to a man’s ego. Olbermann has long since jumped the shark.
Everyone, read this at Taylor Marsh’s site:
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27217
They went nuts on Abram’s show.
I used to love love LOVE Keith. I liked him much better when he was castigating President Bush, though.
The BBC is good…I also like watching Jim Lehrer’s show, although yesterday I had to stare at Fred Kagan’s murderous visage for several minutes. Balance, you know. [shudder]
Desert Storm one got me off Lehrer. Was doing drive time newreading for an NPR affiliate. Had a marketing instructor who was former Army Intelligence and a business background in the oil and international trade industries.
PBS has long been co-opted to a great extent with the likes of Gwen Awful. DS One put CNN and Wolf Blitzer on the map.
Yet, Arthur Kent, the “SCUD Stud,” is strangely absent, save for an occasional History Channel gig.
I never thought it would happen, but I v-chipped MSNBC on my TV. FOX News was the only other channel I have excluded.
Larry, you hit the nail on the head.
If Clinton gets the nomination, I guess Olbermann will have nothing on his show except maybe water-skiing squirrels or something.
.
The irony being Fox is providing the best coverage of the democratic race, for the most part.
If you want truth about Obama, (with the spin of course, but you hold your nose) Fox has it.
Political pragmatism.
Fox has the truth? More likely Fox’s Venom of the Day just happens to be in line with what you want to believe is true.
Fox is and always has been the propaganda arm of the Republican Party. If they’re laying into Obama, it’s not because they’re so interested in the truth, it’s because they want him damaged, and either they don’t think Hillary has a chance so why waste their time on her, or they think that the last 16 years of mudslinging have already damaged her so badly they don’t have any more to heap upon her.
Thank you, Mr. Johnson & SusanUnPC for your excellent blog. I’m so depressed at how this has unfolded in the so-called ‘progressive’ media. Hillary a racist? How can they possibly believe that?! The same woman who’s worked so hard to give so many a voice. Marching, speaking, fighting…
And what, pray tell, have the 20-somethings at dailyObama ever done to advance civil rights? I’m sorry if that sounds ageist, but I’ve really had it. Scaife himself couldn’t have envisioned such a successful clearinghouse of smears.
I’m a Canadian feminist who’s reached her limit with this BS. I’ll never forget her 1995 speech in Beijing–I was 21 and it was the first time I’d ever heard someone say those things OUT LOUD, and for the world to hear. No, Clinton is not “perfect,” but she’s easily the better of the two candidates, in just about every respect. Sen. Obama is probably an intelligent person, but he will get annihilated in a face-off with McCain. And then it’s more war, more destruction, more…Bush. The world can’t afford it.
All the best,
GDK
PS: my own mother is besotted with both Obama AND Olbermann. She still blames Hillary for *Bill’s* infidelity! There’s no getting through to her
These folks don’t believe for a second that Hillary is a racist. They embody the very definition of cynicism. They are willing to do or say anything or hurt anyone in the process. I know what Obama and his surrogates get out of the deal. What I don’t know is what MSNBC, CBS, ABC, CNN and all the rest get out of the deal.
I don’t think Hillary is a racist. But I think she’s perfectly happy to use racist dog whistles to pursue a Tonya Harding strategy in this race.
Kneecap Obama, so that even if she can’t keep him from winning the nomination, she can run against John McCain in 2012.
Anyone wonder about the fact that Mark Penn’s firm also works for McCain? Doesn’t this raise questions about whose interests are really being pursued by Penn? Would you trust a lawyer whose firm was also representing your opponent in a big case? Doesn’t this then raise questions about Hillary’s judgement? Is she stupid?
Or is she in on the Republican game, the Plutocracy Project? What is one to make of Bill and HW becoming such pals? Have they perhaps concluded a separate peace, and if so, where does that leave the rest of us?
Fingal,
Penn wins no matter what and we all lose.
Oh please, Obama is going to be knee capped by his own skeletons.He’s pissed off women and working class people, but what will end him is the negative campaign run by the Republicans and his inability to offer anything. It’s hilarious that after months upon months of nonstop coverage of everything from Rezco to Wright to Michelle, his epic loss will be evil Lady MacBeth’s fault. If only she hadn’t asked “who has more experience” none of this would ever have happened.
If only she hadn’t asked “who has more experience” none of this would ever have happened.
If only that were all she’d said.
Please sign the new petition that has been set up by a blogger who supports Hillary. Thanks everybody. This is a BOYCOTT petition for MSNBC due to Keith ObamaMan’s HillaryHating rant. Hoping to get 5,000 to sign so send it out to everyone you know
http://noratings.blogspot.com/2008/03/boycott-msnbc-our-mission.html
Where/how do you sign? I went to the page but I see comments ..
How do you sign the petition? I went to the site but it wasn’t clear to me…
Both Clinton and Obama supporters need to chill. I don’t want to see a President McCrazy elected because of a fractured D Party.
“I don’t want to see a President McCrazy elected.” Putin puppet Medvedev would agree with you.
But Vice President McCrazy didn’t sound so bad to Kerry in 2004. Not much point in trying to scare Reagan Democrats over McCain. I wasn’t a Reagan Democrat, but I prefer McCain hands down to Obama, so I have no reason to chill. In fact, all the reason in the world not to.
I’m not sold on that notion that McCain is viable vs. Obama, but there’s key elements they appear to aim for that could be compromised either way(Social Security) that I neither has demonstrated the slightest level of competence to direct.
It could be like the 2000 nightmare where he loses electorally but wins from the result of how districts are apportioned, combined with an implicit media and some outright vote stealing by states rights types.
It’s a matter of having already surrendered the positions we have made legs of the party. Plenty of major Democrats are already wanting to do that. Hint: billionaire tax cuts and war spending have tapped the Social Security fund to new levels, challenging our ability to minimally correct challenges to currency having its own faith and credit reflected in the dollar’s value.
We hid this at the very first two year mark by accelerating currency buybacks, of late it appears we simply hand them over the Saudis for oil to spike back and let them pay themselves at our expense, or with the same model to China for trade. Deficit on top of deficit.
I resent getting the “fear card” tossed at any of us who are criticizing Obama. SOMEBODY has to vet this “Elmer Gantry” before it’s too late. Most of us here are willing to stick our necks out to try to get the truth out.
There is nothing as poignant as Taters’ post tonight — ‘Deal Breaker” — about why he decided he couldn’t support Obama. (It’s a couple stories down, and it’s also linked in the far right column.)
Keith Olbermann should have used his selective outrage towards Obama for ignoring the horrific plight of his constituents going without heat for weeks and living in deplorable conditions in Rezko’s slumlord buildings … after Rezko got over $100 million in taxpayers’ monies to refurbish those buildings … and then most of them ended up in foreclosure and are uninhabitable.
But Obama, knowing about those horrific conditions, stayed cozy with Rezko and used him to make sure that he and Michelle could have that mansion they couldn’t afford. That exemplifies the values that Obama has. He focuses on whoever can get him what he wants, and get him the $$$ he needs. Screw the little people.
It would appear that KO’s lopsided program isn’t doing him a whole lot of good in the ratings department either.
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/24/oreilly-vs-olbermann-through-thursday-february-21/2738
I haven’t watched the big blowhard for a long time. He was mildly amusing in his near hysterical outrage during some of his “special comments” and I like a good Bush-Bashing as much as the next liberal but he’s long winded and in time he became boring. He also never seemed to have any guests on that didn’t agree with his point of view. In that case why not just call his program “Olbermann’s Viewpoint”?
I also was bored with the sheer stupidity of the bits with whoever the woman was who was so in love with American Idol. Fine for teenagers but nothing there for people looking for serious information. I thought he had jumped the shark a long time ago.
First of all, Senator Obama isn’t getting the nomination. It’s going to the convention, Senator Clinton’s case about winning the big states that are rosy blue will win over the Superdelegates. Senator Obama will not take a VP slot but will work on her campaign for President. In a close race, Senator McCain will win using nasty tactics that insinuate women can’t lead America. Senator Obama will deliver his greatest speech blasting the McCain campaign’s tactics with Senator Clinton by their side. And we will have 4 years of the most bitter politics between Dems and Repubs seen.
Damn I love America!
>>> “…It’s going to the convention,”
You betcha! The Rules Committee will, ultimately, decide whether or not to seat MI and FL delegates.
Too bad Dean couldn’t butch up and do it. Makes me glad he got eliminated in the primary process.
“Butch up”: Yeh boy, why couldn’t he be man enough to seat delegates for someone who ran unopposed? What th’hell’s wrong with him? Letting all those voters push him around!! Where do these voters get off, anyway, thinking they … oh, wait.
OMG, I know! So damn what if Obama took his name off the ballot to avoid losing? Damn it, he should have done that everywhere, then we could disenfrachise everybody!!!
Obama sure as hell won’t let mere voters push him! Whaaa waa, million votes, well they weren’t for God’s son, were they? Vote the right way or don’t vote at all. Where people vote, Obama loses, so disenfranchisement is really standing up for people who are prevented from voting by not showing up or not existing, and stuff. War is peace, get with it! And we got 6 fraking votes in Alaska,the blue states can shove it. We’ll get at least as much there.
OMG, I know! So damn what if Obama took his name off the ballot to avoid losing? Damn it, he should have done that everywhere, then we could disenfrachise everybody!!!
Uh, do you not know why every Democrat except Clinton and Kucinich took their names off the ballot? Or are you just funnin’ me? It was because the national Democratic party decided to actually enforce its rules on setting primary dates which MI and FL had flouted, and declare their primaries invalid.
But hey, so damn what if you have no clue what you’re talking about.
The Clinton campaign, with its (initially) massive bank account, “vetted” Obama back to his kindergarten days. If they haven’t found anything, you guys aren’t going to find it either.
The Clintons, on the other hand, still refuse to release their tax returns (for 2006) or the fundraising records for the Clinton Library.
Where’s the new ugly truth more likely to come from?
“If they haven’t found anything”
*blinks*
Holy $%&&.
God, you are actually going to be *surprised* at what is left of this man when McCain’s finished with him, aren’t you?
I guess the consolation is with your active fantasy life, you can pretend anything. You can have a mock inauguration and declare him supreme ruler of his living room, maybe.
Did you think the purple heart bandaids from 4 years ago were a valid point, or something?
I’m saying that anyone who thinks they need to “vet” Obama, that there’s some kind of skeleton yet unturned, some detective mission they must participate in, to help prevent some kind of hoodwinking, is delusional. It’s been done. The HRC campaign has spent millions on it. Keyword: kindergarten.
In terms of what has been dug up, it looks to me as if you folks incline to the Starr/Scaife mode of continual, obsessive digging even when it’s been established that there’s no there there, then huffing yourselves in to a frenzy about the nothing that you’ve found. Failed, money-losing Whitewater land deal, meet unwise guilt-by-association Chicago real-estate deal. Cocaine-running out of Mina, AR, meet guilt-by-association nutball preacher saying ridiculous stuff like a lot of nutball godbotherers do. Vince-Foster-suicide, meet stupid-n-word-can’t-press-the-right-button.
And that’s about it, isn’t it? Your hallucinations about Obama just aren’t as colorful as the Scaife projects were about Bill and Hil. They must have had a better drug dealer, is all I can figure — the hate-weed you folks smoke looks like it must be kind of harsh.
Not Chillin.’ Ever
I always hate that feeling you get when someone you think has good principles betrays your trust. I feel that way about Donna Brazille. Thankfully, I never have been fond of most of the cable news people. I do like Lou Dobbs, although he sort of goes off the rails at times over immigration. Where are all the reasonable, angry, old, white men when you need them?
Given a choice between living with Grandpa John or Uncle Wacky Baracky for the next four years, I will choose Grandpa John every time.
We don’t need the voice given to anger. Think of an old man speaking to the issues, Bill Moyers comes to mind. He’s seen to it that some of the best words ever written in support of Civil Rights were spoken by one Lyndon Johnson.
You know, the guy that if you mention his contribution you impugn others’ legacy on the topic.
I never understood why Gore had her be his staff chief.
Fuck you, Larry. And the horse you rode in on.
“A equus of a diversus colo colui cultum”
is this your finest poetry? your comp teacher must be proud.
He didn’t ride a horse, he’s waiting for the ponies to appear….
what color might they be?
Multi colored, like a rainbow.
equine copulation frowned on here. Unless it is between consenting equines.
You’re saying he spent money of horses?
Isn’t that Chertoff’s hobby?
Suppose the oil sheiks who own the breeding stables at Churchill Downs and flew out of here on 9-11 could hook up with their former Counsel who now directs Homeland Security?
I think it was “Heck-of-a-job Brownie” that was involved somehow with the Arabian Horse Association. But “Brownie” just happens to be the name of a pony I had about a million years ago. But, sigh, it wasn’t a magic pony.
http://marketshare-unlimited.com/images/republic.jpg
David Boggs was suing Brownie as a member of the Arabian Horses Association of America. Before Katrina, this was the most details oriented task that got Brown’s attention. The Boggs name is legendary for beltway lobbyists.
Let them eat cake, etc.
That’s right, Shakira is the one meeting that pony. There was a more fine picture of the two, her on horseback, on the same story.
Changing comps, I lost it somewhere….
The ‘ponies’ reference is a pop art item that has been online slang for the ‘throw flowers at us/greet us as liberators’ media talking points we were inundated with.
A “Friedman Unit” is the “we’ll know better if this was a success in another six months” time” that is the reset/default position for every failure of Bush’s two wars.
So ponies will be handed out every FU. Then all will be better, goat stories, guitar playing(like Nero fiddling), visits with John McCake while NOLA drowns in the meantime.
Larry, Susan,
see: http://www.c-span.org/ Members of Congress, including the Democratic and Republican leadership of both chambers, mark the five years of the Iraq war with a Remembrance Ceremony. The U.S. launched the invasion of Iraq on March 20, 2003. Thursday on C-SPAN3 at 9:30am (ET)
i don’t know who i’m madder at, the repubs or the dems, the repubs for getting our kids involved in an unnecessary quagmire, or the dems who know its a quagmire and let our kids spin and die in it instead of extracating them from the mess the repubs created.
i don’t know who i’m madder at……..BOTH! friggin ball-less bastards!
forgive my french, but the actions of BOTH really rubs me the wrong way, the way BOTH are leaving our kids to die on a daily basis instead of getting them the frig out of the iraq quagmire!
It’s a different mentality, you’re applying standards of rational democracy to what is essentially french aristocratic rot, in our Congress.
Good news?
It can, and will change.
Don’t tolerate the corruption, it is what drives the war, and our government, at the moment, bottom line.
Yeah, something happened to Keith on the way up his career ladder, and it wasn’t a good thing. I started watching less frequently a while back, but when he started in on Hillary Clinton without a hint of reasonableness, I quit altogether. Don’t get me wrong–I know she has some “warts,” but his unfair and unbalanced portrayals made him, in my book, “The Worst Person in the World.”
I notice that his ratings are headed south. No surpirse there.
nonplussed seems to be very plussed. I will be happy to go back to watching Olbermann again … just as soon as he resumes supporting America and not the Holy Obama Empire. But not before.
You mean not gruntled but disgruntled? go figure
I’ve never been a Kieth fan, never even seen his show. I’ve seen a few utube rants, and have read a few. Now he just seems like another drama queen with his boxers in a knot.
I’m playing catch up on the recent posts. Thanks Susan for the Honorable Mention.
MSNBC has been officially a porn station since Super Tuesday. Totally v-chipped. I don’t miss it or the advertising.
But, like with the plagiarism charge, we’ve’ been head-faked yet again. The steam went out of Senator Fugly and scapegoating Ferraro with a racist charge does what? Helps people to forget that memorable revelation by Samantha Powers about Obama going back on his word on the Iraq War. It keeps the Rezko stuff off the tongues of reporters.
Obama very cunningly took advantage of the Spitzer distraction and caught Hillary’s camp off guard. Naturally, she was in defensive mode over this type of scandal coming from the governor of her home state.
Time to get back on message and stand up for your right of choice in a democracy. Let them challenge your constitutional right. Time also to beat Obuma up on his ’stellar resume’ exposing the holes and downright lies. I also think it’s long overdue to turn up the heat on Dean, Kennedy and Kerry and call them on their fiddling while the Democratic Party crashes and burns. Because it is crashing. The polls speak for themselves! Call them a liar and racist!!!!
Just saying…..
Your honesty is refreshing. Some subjects require sensitivity, but should be discussed. Obama has antagonized the race issue and set back any progress in this area. He did it for political gain without a care. Sad thing he is.
I take it differently, Obama’s reaction seemed weak, muted, simply more chaos, making Clinton look better. How will Hillary handle world diplomatic crisis? Effectively, and diplomatically, intelligently.
WHAT a difference, a chance for real progress, as opposed to empty posturing, and tantrum throwing when the Iraqi people don’t cooperate, goddammit, for instance…
And given what appears to be coming out of the Rezko trial, as much as Obama’s camp tries to sock and spin, Obama must be petrified, this is nasty nasty stuff.
And the government knows the truth, nowhere to hide.
Gave up on MSNBC months ago. But then again, I have almost given up CNN as well.
It is going to take a month or so for the numbers to show but I suspect that O’Reilly may live to see his numbers rise over Olbermann once again.
I admit it perplexes me how seemingly intelligent people can so randomly become stupid.
Rachel Maddow, I mean you!
Donna Brazil, I mean you!
Feel free to add …
Good news though, I’m getting a lot of other things done now that I don’t watch as much TV or listen to the radio.
Ed Shultz, I mean you!
Randi Rhodes, I mean you!
Stephanie Miller (still love ya babe), I mean you!
It’s amazing; the only people that seem to be making sense anymore are Pat Buchanan, Joe Scarborough (albeit only recently), Lou Dobbs, and Hillary.
Everyone else is too busy drinking the koolade.
O’Reilly’s numbers are way better than Olbermann.
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/24/oreilly-vs-olbermann-through-thursday-february-21/2738
Keith had a chance to build a solid, liberal viewing audience. He blew that.
I quit watching him a long time ago. His “special comments” became boring.
KO made mistake when he jumped on the bandwagon of one campaign over the others. It’s different when he cover the story of Bush. He is the president and KO can go all out on Bush. But for the campaign it’s different. He need to remain impartial. If he want to do a indept coverage like this on one candidate. Fine!. He need to do the same on other to be fair. Where is the indept coverage on McCain, Obama, or Edwards (when he was still in the race). All KO’s was one side on bashing Clinton. When he jump into the bandwagon, he becomes part of the campaign to persuade voters decision. And that where things went wrong for KO.
As a result, Ed Schultz banned me from his radio program because I dared praise Keith…
Yea, he says he doesn’t screen the callers, never knew he screened his guests.
Why not? CSpan does.
Learn something new every, why then is it the same ole Sh*t?
You know you can say a lot about the Clintons, good and bad. But they are NOT racist in any way shape or form. For all they have done for blacks and the poor in this country, they do not deserve this.
I am with most of the people on this post. I too stopped watching Olbermann on Super Tuesday. I mean my god, Rachel Maddow looked like she was going to cry on air becasue she could not crunch numbers on her computer that showed a win for Obama. And Eugene Robinson, what an ass. I won’t even metion that other guy’s name…you know the one with the leg problem. I could not believe the rampant misogynist and sexist remarks all night long. I stopped listening to Air America soon after for the same reason.
And I know sexism when I encounter it. In the late 60’s and early 70’s I entered two male dominated professions - one after filing and winning a grievance. So I know in my gut what sexism looks like, sounds like, and even feels like. I lived it for years. I thought we have gotten past it. But I was wrong. And I saw and felt all those same feelings Super Tuesday on MSNBC (Misogynist Sexist National Mens [little boys] Club.) I couldn’t believe it. Sexism still sounds, looks, and feels the same.
KO is no longer a journalist. He has single handily turned MSNBC into the just the FOX News on the Left.
SHAME ON HIM!!!!!!!!!
Let’s face it, Obama is KO’s falafel, and racism is just his loofah for the day.
That was awesome!!!!
PLEASE WATCH THIS VIDEO AND SPREAD IT TO ALL OF YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY. THIS VIDEO NEEDS TO GO VIRAL ON YOUTUBE.
HERE IS OBAMA’S “SPIRITUAL ADVISOR” REVEREND WRIGHT GIVING ONE OF THE MOST HATEFUL SERMONS I’VE EVER SEEN ATTACKING HILLARY CLINTON. YOU HAVE TO WATCH IT FOR YOURSELF:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hAYe7MT5BxM
BALL GAME!!!
Obama may get the nomination, but this video will be circulated in the general and everyone will be frightened by this.
After watching this I realize that the Campaign of Hope and Change had only one objective:
STOP HILLARY!!!
The Democrats can’t possibly think he has a snowball’s chance in hell come Nov with stuff like this circulating. The Republicans ain’t gonna flinch at being called racists the way Dems do. They simply could care less.
They thing that’s bad about his comments is how much it diminishes all that women have gone through: discrimination, violence, rape, sexual exploitation. Hillary may never have had a cab pass her by, but how many men have to fear getting into a cab whether or not the cab driver might rape you? Years ago, I had to jump out of a cab to save myself.
Yes, by all means circulate this. It’s disgusting. And as an AA, I am really tired of blacks who support Obama name calling blacks who don’t. Obama, a poor black boy being raised by a single mother? That’s an insult to all the poor disenfranchised young black mothers stuck in Rezko-like slum dwellings with no heat and hot water. Obama’s mother was an educated white woman who had the full support of her family throughout her life. Obama’s grandparents raised him in Hawaii a state not known for a black community. Sure, Obama knows what it means to grow up poor, black in white America.
Black people ought to be ashamed of themselves for supporting this man. He’s diminishing our history, our heritage and trivialing racism. He is threatening the ability to have any meaningful dialogue on race in the future. Blacks are going to be STUNNED at the aftermath of this candidacy.
I now officially DEPSISE BARACK OBAMA!!!!!!!
wow. that was pretty shocking.
it’s hard to believe that Obama has such a close relationship with this guy.
yes, “Reverend,” Hillary HAS had to be twice as good as a man. but I wouldn’t expect him to get that, being so one-sided in his suffering one-upmanship.
what a disappointment. no wonder Obama plays the “race card” at every opportunity. he’s just following his preacher’s lead.
but how many men have to fear getting into a cab
I was 15.
had guitar and forgot to change at 59th. It went express;Got off at 120st…walked up to these two large police officers, 1 white and black; both musta been 6′5 230
I ask ‘em, “How do I get to Riverside Church?”
White cop looks at the black cop they both chuckle. White cop tells me…”for a white boy?…take a cab!” now both officers laughing… I go out on the street to get hail a cab. I finally flag one down and tell the cabbie “.
“Riverside Church” He was stuffed on MD 2020 and zig-zag’ed his way there.
so yea, I think twice about it, even though I have hitch hiked across the country a dozen times.
Right, only watch shows that echo back your own spin. Never read anything that doesn’t prop up your own beliefs. You guys sound like you’re about ready for a good ole fashion book burning.
And you are here to broaden your beliefs? LOL!
This is a gross over simplification of the conversation and the point. If Olbermann were simply criticizing a candidate, that would be one thing, but he has clearly taken on a consisten sniping disguised as criticism for someone he clearly loathes. I didn’t tune in to him to seek personal validation of my loathing for Bush, it was because for a period of time he would cover the story about Bush nobody else would dare.
But now he’s not covering new news, but rehashing hit points about Clinton and playing softball on Obama. When Obama makes an oops, he may mention it, but only in a lead up to how much worse the Clintons are (from his point of view).
I knew where this was going when I contacted his staff about a story related to the campaign and got asked who I supported. It was irrelevant, but there was a specific attempt to see who I supported. And though the facts about the story were given over, they have never been updated by Olbermann because they didn’t make the Clinton’s look bad.
And then look at Dan Abrams who does the same thing. He has his lil segment about how “maybe the media is unfair to the Clintons” then plays his little checks game, that all but 2 times left Clinton with more checks than Obama. But I took tally of all the fact checks too, and noticed how many times he missed Obama slips, slides and lies. Did he play fair in his supposed, “keeping them honest?” not at all.
One assumes that because i’m highly critical of Obama that I’m not critical at all of Clinton, and that is simply false and further demonstrates the dualistic zombie nature of american politics.
Olbermann started his special comment by claiming it was Clinton’s campaign that he held responsible and that he applauded her for all her efforts. But then watch how he ties Ferraro’s comments around her neck and pulls with out abandon.
And “shows that echo back your own spin” fell apart when I even got tired of his Special Comments about Bush when I realized he was getting a bit too much of an ego boost from One Too Many Pats on the Back over them. They were no longer about Bush being a freaking traitorous asshole, but were reflections that Keith was becoming full of his own shit.
and one more thing:
I knew how far off he had gone when he compared Clinton’s 3am call to the “nuclear daisy” ad by showing a Clinton head with a mushroom cloud behind.
This blew his credibility on the topic of Clinton sky high because she did not suggest in the commercial a nuclear threat, and for the record folks…SHE ISN’T ANSWERING A RED PHONE, ITS OFF WHITE for christs sakes.
But do the details matter when you’re smearing and bandwagoning? NAAAHHH.
The only fear-mongering related to that ad was by the Obama campaign and the media outlets stupid enough to spin it as such. I’m not someone who is afraid of terrorists, the cold war, or even the right wing. So scare tactics jump out quickly when used. The question about who knows the world leaders and has the wherewithall to deal with them was on the table.
The crisis could just as easily been something like the assassination of Benezir Bhutto, or such, that isn’t a direct emergency for the US. It could just as easily be a great number of events that require the right voice. If you think Obama is that voice, fine. But don’t insult my fucking intelligence by calling it a Red Phone Ad, or a Nuclear Daisy like ad, or that she was fearmongering, or being a racist.
Pot meet kettle.
I like how you imply that you battled the forces of evil on Keith’s behalf, when the fact is that you probably owe a great deal of your success and your audience to having been given a voice on his show.
It’s nothing but fucking laughable to hear you calling anyone a partisan hack when your blog has devolved into one of the most nakedly partisan sites imaginable….all under the guise of “vetting” Obama because the goopers will do the same if he’s the nominee.
The simple fact that you and Susan shamelessly post more links to goopers (in support of your views) than most Repug sites doesn’t even seem to phase you people. Amazing.
I’m as staunch a Clinton defender and admirer as you could ever find in the last 15 years, and would pull the lever for her in Nov. 2008 quicker than a cat covers shit, but I’m also disgusted by both the ineptness and awesome stupidty of many of the things her campaign has done and said.
Just like I find this site, which I once greatly admired, disgusting and awesomely stupid.
You simpleminded fucks brand virtually anyone who disagrees with your views as a partisan, or naive. or stupid, etc.
The level of projection and the sheer lack of self-awareness is stunning. In other words, you act just like fucking goopers.
So thanks Larry, thanks for coming over to the progressive side for awhile— I admired your work on behalf of Ms Plame and the great coverage of foreign affairs and intelligence issues– but you really belong back with the other goopers who will say anything, do anything, to advance their cause(s).
“The level of projection and the sheer lack of self-awareness is stunning”
Pot - Kettle - Fuck you.
Keith was doing moral equivalency jokes about filegate and travelgate for his share of time. Don’t act like he was on vigil for years.
It took viewers asking him to say something to get his sensibilities sharp enough to observe.
He’s thrown that out the window, but such is the nature of the business. He sees the ratings, now he sees where they’re going. Others note the same thing, he’s on track to become Hannity’s mirror image.
Both sides blaming the other and hoping their support of the vested interest secures them enough favors to keep on message.
You’re aware Obama was the primary Democrat feeding Politico(nothing but former GOP staffers annd operatives) and it’s suddenly become the lede of most items from everyone left in the race? That’s where the ‘Clinton as racist’ talks started, right wing sites encouraged by others. Now you assume this banner bravely armed with the same talking point?
Was Barack about change, or only changing who gets to aim the attacks at certain Democrats?
Oh now let me guess….. you support Obama don’t you?
Why even come here when you have the whole MSM on your side?
If it wasn’t for sites like this Obuma would have been coronated king of the ‘kool-aid generation’ already.
We’re trying to save Democracry here. OUR RIGHT TO CHOOSE. And we don’t choose Senator ‘Not-Ready-For-Primetime.
So fuck off and go get your kool-aid IV replenished.
Go get-um mimi! Just like every other Obamatron the very thought of someone having thoughts,feelings and ideas that do not agree with them sends them into a frenzy of adolescent name-calling.
We’re acting like Goopers? Hey pal, take a look in the mirror. This crap has been overwhelmingly done by Obama supporters that have insulted and harassed anyone that dares to support Hillary Clinton and chased such people off most “A” list blogs.
There are damn few places we Hillary supporters can go and talk to others that agree with us without getting haranged by Obamatrons as if we had suggested supporting Neil Bush for president.
Like it or not, and obviously cbear does not, there are people that, gasp, do not support, like or want Obama to be president. There are a zillion blogs that sing Obama’s praises 24/7, find one and hang out. Cause we ain’t gonna change just cause you are having a hissy fit and like to throw the word “fuck” around. We’ve all heard it before. And we ain’t impressed.
And before you call anyone “stupid” you should learn to spell it.
Comment by cbear:
People are angry with Geraldine Ferraro (especially in New York where we know her), pretty much for the reasons they’re saying; that she’s been saying this for weeks and it was NOT just a response to a question on why Obama is doing well, that she misrepresented what she said when she was on Fox, that after attacking Obama on a race-related basis she accused HIM of playing the race card when he had the nerve (the NERVE!) to respond to her, and because her initial statement was just stupid and her followup (”they’re attacking me because I’m white!”) was worse. Leaving aside the merits of what she said - as hard as that is to do - what would you think of someone who slapped someone in the face and then sued them for assault when they held up their hands in defense?
That’s why “people” are annoyed. What bothers me personally is that she doesn’t even realize that no one would even know who she was if she was black. Being white is a virtual requirement for elected office in most parts of the country. Yet Ferraro saves her outrage for the advantage that she thinks Obama’s skin color lends him. If you listen to most of the inteviews (the one with John Gibson is a good one), her tone is like “It’s just so UNFAIR!”
The power of words met her resignation.
That people want to ask her past that appears tobe a plausible lever for a certain result.
This will solidy some votes, but mostly from sectors already set in their ways. Hillary haters don’t really stand at the middle ground. Using it as a campaign item past this point would cause some to start looking at why that is being done.
Then the same items might come back once again. Say one thing do another items pinned to every policy designed to court nationlism or protection in trade.
Ferraro said some things, people are mad she said it, she’s resinged already. It hasn’t changed the jobs outlook for Americans.
The Carlyle Bond fund can’t meet it’s margin call. That echos familar. Capital flight meet Forest Gump.
McCain wins.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/13/mccain-in-statistical-tie-with-clinton-and-obama/
Then Obama can always drop out. He can also promise to support the nominee, even if it’snot him. Because he’s all for the Dems’ best interest.
The sexism continues.
Obamabots are so ready to yell racism — and they fail to see the misogyny of their own words.
You, sir, are a male chauvinist pig.
Obama’s whole campaign has been based on misogyny — he apparently hated his white mother.
GF has endure more sexism then YOU will ever know.
Shirley Chisholm has remarked that she experienced more prejudice as a woman then for the color of her skin.
Obama plays the race card — he started this race basing crap. And Obama IS also playing the gender card.
Obama had it made growing up in Hawaii — he could pass as a local because of the color of his skin. He also was able to go to one of the most exclusive High Schools in Hawaii — Punahoe. He live in a rich culture where the color of one’s skin didn’t matter much.
Then he shows up in Chicago and gets the “black” experience — and finds religion, mentored by a racist, xenophobic minister.
Obama is a user — he will use whoever can give him what he wants. But apparently he also pays off his “debts”. What did he do in order to get the backing of the Chicago political machine to run for the US Senate? We don’t know because he was part of an exclusive BOY’S CLUB.
The Old Boys Club is still alive and well.
How dare you condemn Geraldine Ferraro — she is only speaking the truth.
Of Barack Obama was Beatrice Obama — we would never have heard her name. A woman with such a thin resume and only two years in the Senate — and having spent most of her time fund raising and lining up supporters for her run for president??? Give me a break — it wouldn’t happen for a woman.
Women have to be supremely superior to any male to get as far as Hillary Clinton has gotten. No woman with Barack Obama’s LACK of experience would even get past first base.
You ass h*** Obamabots are a bunch of sexists pigs out to trash a women who is a National Treasure.
If you idiots believe that Clinton supports are going to fall in line and drink the Kool-aid — forget about it.
Anyway — Obama has lost — he does NOT have the support of the core Democrats. But he and his idiot followers are out to destroy the Democratic Party.
Insult Geraldine Ferraro and you insult me and a whole lot of people who respect her for breaking the boy’s club barrier. You aren’t even good enough to Write her name.
Anyway — Obama has lost — he does NOT have the support of the core Democrats. But he and his idiot followers are out to destroy the Democratic Party.
Yeah right, by massively increasing Democratic voter turnout and by failing to insult 40 “don’t count” states, yeah, that’s how Obama supporters are destroying the party.
I’m not sure what part of this you missed, but Obama leads in the popular vote, and in number of states won, and in terms of delegates. What in the world can you possibly mean by “Obama has lost?”
And a “core Democrat” is, … someone who doesn’t support Obama? Mkay, better living through tautology.
Who is “out to destroy the Democratic Party?” Who is throwing charges that will be easy for the Republican candidate to quote in his ads? Hint: it’s not Obama.
This is classic, textbook, psychological projection. Your own characteristics are attributed to the “other.” Notice I haven’t mentioned your remark about “idiot followers.” That’s called restraint.
Ok, so she has beens saying this for weeks and an obscure little piece elevates her comments to the national level on the eve of an election in Mississippi? Wow, that is just coincidence, right?
I do agree that the lucky comment was ill advised, but come on, do you really think that Obama would be where he is today if he was white? His coalition is the so-called creative class (mainly, upper class liberal whites), young people and AAs.
Take a look at Dean - he had the creative class and young people but not many AAs and where did he end up?
BTW, I also believe “your attacking me because I am white” is hyperbole and should not have been said. However, the point is that Obama playing the race card when he needs to consolidate his base is shameful and divisive and must stop. So, I hope that Ferraro’s rejoinders do end this digusting ploy.
Ok, so she has beens saying this for weeks and an obscure little piece elevates her comments to the national level on the eve of an election in Mississippi? Wow, that is just coincidence, right?
Alexei,
I think it was idiotic for anyone to even focus on this distraction.
People better wise up.
I know a person or two who don’t have a nickle to rub against another who are supporting Obama.
Keith Olbermann’s Comments on the Clinton Campaign…
The title of Larry Johnson’s review pretty much sums it up: Olbermann’s Cheese Slides Off the Plate,. he recommends that we just boycott MSNBC Done and done! We used to be BIG Olbermann fans at Buck Naked Politics, and now we’ve all pretty much una…
Olbermann has become O’Reilly. The only difference bettween them is that KO is a propagandist for one particular politician, while O’Reilly favors an entire political party/philosophy. O’Reilly also has the virtue of being slightly more honest in what he does than KO. Olbermann actually appears to believe the nonsense he spews about being unbiased and a “journalist”, even though it is increasingly clear that he is neither.
Agree with Larry on this. BBC is a good news source as is Al-Jazeera (English). I mentioned here previously that it’s really a treat to see Israeli representatives receiving the tongue lashing they deserve on Al-Jazeera from their Arab counterparts. Now, pray tell, Israel is slapping sanctions on Al-Jazeera and will no longer allow their spokespersons to appear. GOOD! BRAVO! The world is fed up with having to listen to Israeli lies and propaganda anyway!
Larry
You were right the first time - Keith is the modern day Edward R. Murrow.. You’re just pissed he’s called out YOUR CANDIDATE. To say don’t watch Keith after all the attention he brought concerning this corrupt administration, is beyond petty. He was Valerie Plame’s biggest defender for God’s sake.
Time to look in the mirror, you’ve backed the wrong horse…
“Ain’t it hard when you discover that
(S)he really wasn’t where it’s at”
Valerie and Joe Wilson are supporters of Hillary, and neither of them believe that Obama is ready for the presidency. But hell, what do they know, they weren’t former sports anchors, and probably couldn’t name all the NFL teams. Olbermann has stck by his contention that Hillary, and not Obama called the Canadian government to advise that she wasn’t being truthful with the voters about her NAFTA stance. EVen when the Canadian government made sue to correct the error, Olbermann won’t make the correction, but AEdward R. Murrow would make the correction in a heartbeat. Keith Olbermann, you’re no Edward R. Murrow.
Olbermann as Edward R. Murrow is a joke. Most liberals, me included, liked his bits cause he was bashing Bush. We didn’t seem to care much then that he showed no signs of fair and/or balanced and we should be ashamed of that. Just seemed like there were plenty of Bush cheer-leading programs and one program tilting our way seemed fair.
Shows what happens when one man without integrity tries to pass his Opinion off as news. We bit and now we are the bitten. Our bad.
But he never was anything like Murrow to me. And Edward R. Murrow was the next thing to the voice of God in our house when I was growing up. Murrow was a man of honesty and integrity. Olbermann is neither. He’s more like Joe McCarthy. (And I quit watching his rather boring stchick long before he became an Obamatron.)
Suggestion for new, more honest title for Olbermanns rants: Olbermann’s Viewpoint. That way at least people wouldn’t confuse what he says with actual journalism. Unless you include his reporting on American Idol of course.
No, Larry Johnson and Hillary Clinton were Valerie As Joe WIlson
I’ve only listened to Olbermann once, an interview on Bill Moyers, I think, and I came away thinking he was just parroting what his writers told him to say. A man of no depth or convictions of his own.
Yeah, he’s just like Edward R. Murrow — with a fatter ego.
Perhaps Keith remebers Rezko from some Bulls games? Certainly they traveled in the same circles on the jet set circuit for a few years?
It would be irresponsible not to speculate, he appears to do so quite often.
With all respect Larry, this blog has come to remind me of a political hack. The unabashed partisanship is shameful.
“unabashed partisanship is shameful”
You mean..like the way Obama supporters ruthlessly attack Clinton and her supporters? What you fail to acknowledge, perhaps because of a conflict of interest is that these issues have been raised about a candidate for the presidency. This candidate has followers that engage in partisan, sexist attacks on Clinton without reservation.
Where should the recipients of those attacks go?
And what of the people who may not support Clinton fully but definitely hold serious reservation to Mr. Obama’s qualifications?
It would indeed be a shame if NoQuarter simply became HillaryClinton.com part deux, but those who think this is the case have missed something entirely. I for one have spent very little time applauding one candidate then smearing the other. I consistently and will do so until November state that I do not support the other candidate because I cannot ask questions about his record, stance, experience, wisdom, and wherewithall without a scoff, dismissal, snub, or insult in return.
What that has led me to conclude is that, though I have criticisms of Hillary Clinton, I’m safer criticizing her than Mr. Obama.
Have you record of Hillary Clinton supporters issuing death threats to “superdelegates” if they don’t vote for her? I have many records of supporters of Obama receiving death threats for not being in his corner. ( don’t pin it on Obama himself, but it is still indicative of a crime by his supporters ).
Do you have evidence of a heavy handed set of attacks on Obama by the major news outlets over his comments or “misstatements” or his votes the way that Clinton has been scrutinized?
See, you can’t make me like him because you don’t like partisan hackery or think that someone is engaged in it. All this is watered down name calling. Many substantive questions have been raised about Mr. Obama and the only responses have been, “well that isn’t so” or “you sound like a Republican” or “she’s a bitch” or, you name it.
I’ve heard all sorts of great things Obama has done, except that he didn’t really do them or they were exaggerated.
er…uh…but…what about…Loose Nukes!
oh how how original, like I never heard of the Nunn-Lugar work. It is a good thing he was there to restore the act to its greatness but to act like he’s some leader on this…nah, not buying it.
Ethics? please…he doesn’t know who Rezko is after 17 years, cleared of wrong doing in Rezko’s case or not,…he didn’t seem to bat an eye at what is now seen as “everybody knew”.
And what about the Kyl-Leibermann amendment he didn’t sign along with John McCain, yet he did sign on to the failed Counterproliferation Act of 2007.
See he wants to have it all work out his way, yet he hasn’t convinced those of us who pay attention to votes. I too knew Saddam was no threat, and there was no Link to Al-Qaida. I didn’t have to have the intelligence, I paid attention and didn’t fall back on any fears I might have had. But i’m a child of the cold war, the last of the duck and cover kids. I’m worn out on that shit and I watched Rambo and Red Dawn, the remnants of Vietnam and the rise of the Reagan Reich.
I believed in lies about Hillary Rodham Clinton for 16 years and it didn’t allow me to have a proper critical look at her, instead a fluffed up parody of her. But now, I’ve got a little less idealism as a parent and child, between two generations yet with responsibility. I have learned to temper my idealism with practicality and know that sometimes hard work is more valuable to a dream than babbling sweet songs about revolutions.
The Revolution will not be Televised my friend.
I believed in lies about Hillary Rodham Clinton for 16 years and it didn’t allow me to have a proper critical look at her,
Chris,
Really? I’m afraid to ask what you thought was true.
I was a defender of Hillary and Bill for years. Not now.
It really infuriated me one day to have a Clinton hater tell me “I told you so” and I still don’t believe the worst of what they were accused of.
I just believe they are willing to win at all costs.
I previously mentioned their attachment to the odious Dick Morris.
Listen to an insider who hasn’t endorsed anyone:
The permalink for the article is
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2008/03/will-hrc-spoil-party.html
Or if that gets mangled by line-wrapping,
http://snipurl.com/21q40
Don’t confuse ideology with information, folks, that’s what sank the Soviet Union.
Frankly, Markwatl - if you don’t like this blog, then leave, but you don’t have time, money, blood, sweat, or tears invested in this blog that would entitle you to offer criticism. It is what it is, and if its not to your liking, then STFU and leave.
Done!
You guys go and vote for McSame and I’ll move this blog’s bookmark to my “Hypocrites” section.
On what ever it is they right it on up there…just watch out where the Husky’s go…
I’m with you Larry. I stopped watching KO months ago but now I am boycotting MSNBC at night. I can’t give up my Morning Joe because Joe Scarborough of all people has become the sane reporter of the campaign. He has his republican reasons but I still like what he has to say.
The rest of MSNBC is off my TV.
Here’s some artwork for anyone who’d like to use it
Here’s the link
http://entertainment.webshots.com/photo/2240830470101620085nITLqy
Joe Scarborough said the other morning he hopes his daughter gets some of Hillary’s tenaciousness in her.
Scarborough and sadly, Fox News have been my guilty pleasures this primary.
Not sure why you ever gave Keith Overhimelf any credibility. There is nothing in the man’s past as a sports reporter and commentator to remotely qualify im to suddenly join MSNBC with is own show and be regarded as a qualified, credible political commentator - certainly no more than an average guy in a bar with an opinion.
Concerning Ferraro, what she actually said and the context she said it is true and not defaming. Obama and the media have taken a small piece of that and grossly misinterpreted it.
The fact is how many first term Senators, with no other national political experience, zero accomplishments, and even limited accomplishments on a local level have ever run for President as the party nominee? So what factor could have possibly set him up for this opportunity, regardless of how well he has done since getting that opportunity?
I stopped watching Overhimself after his first show when I realized how unqualified and sophomoric he was.
Larry, it hasn’t been too long since you were a regular on Keith’s show, what happened? He hasn’t changed that much. What has happened is that you became blinded by your Hillary partisanship. That is all that this blog has become, Hillary defending and Obama bashing. You should take a break, and take off your Hillary blinders, while you still have an ounce of integrity left.
an ounce of integrity
in Politics? Thats funny coming from an Obama groopie.
No, you are wrong. Olberman has changed a lot. Olberman has over the last several months had many political commentators on his show whom he portrayed as unbiased political experts, knowing that they were completely in the Obama camp and would opine only in terms of pro-Obama talking points.
Example, one day after Lawrence O’Donnell posted a piece on HuffPo demanding that Edwards drop out, he had O’Donnell on as a guest opining that Edwards was toast, without ever mentioning that post. More recently he has had Johnathan Alter on, again presented as an unbiased political expert, knowing that Alter has been demanding that Hillary give up and anoint Obama. Same with Chuck Todd. Not unbiased but presented as such. And Fineman and Rachel Maddow. Except she is really over the top beyond the others. They at least pretend not to be completely irrational.
Not once has he ever had a Hillary supporter of any kind on his show to balance out this nightly Hillary hatefest. That is why we stopped watching MSNBC. They do not have even one political commentator who does not openly despise Hillaty Clinton. Completely unbalanced.
Olberman pretends to have a pro-democrat but otherwise balanced view, and it is a lie.
And Olbermann somehow sees himself as today’s Edward R. Murrow. He’s a lot more Joseph McCarthy than he is Murrow.
And he probably truly believes this, too. Funny how people will pump themselves up in this way, set them up to knock them down.
Can you imagine being so delusional, your whole identity not based on your accomplishments, ie, how respectful you are toward others, but instead on some delusion of who you WISH you were, rather than what you really are?
Isn’t that the definition of narcissism?
And imagine a whole American cultural elite propped up on this obtuse notion of self, no control, at all.
Just feed it twice a day, and take it for a walk.
It won’t be difficult for me to not frequent Olbermann’s advertisers because when I used to watch, it seemed like the only advertisers he had were for Viagra, Levitra, and Cialis; which says alot about Olbermann, Abrams, Shuster, Scarborough, and Matthews.
Well that pretty much confirms the misogyny. If you want to judge the target audience of tv show, look at the advertising.
Or the reasoning behind the misogyny, they have to blame someone…
I stopped watching this show a while ago because I couldn’t stomach a guy who attacks O’Reilly (rightly) for his bias and then does the same thing on his own program. In the end, he will have to pay for this in terms of ratings in that he has already lost and will lose more viewers.
O. is another example of how real or perceived power and influence kill off peoples’ judgment.
The problem is not that Olbermann is supporting Obama. That’s his right as an American. The problem is that he has his thumb on the scales. He makes statements slanted against Hillary Clinton that are demonstrably untrue, and tidies up Obama’s record while he is doing so, but pretends he is being an honest broker. It appears his new-found fame is going to his head, and the financial opportunities available to him if he jumps on the Jack Welch bandwagon are quite tempting, I’m sure. It’s probably the quickest route to acquiring a nice large Nantucket estate between Russert’s and Matthews’ little hideaways. I had numerous email exchanges with Olbermann back when his MSNBC show was new, and he seemed real, but something has definitely changed in the last two months or so.
Olbermann, Buzzflash, and you name it have been bought out just like all the rest of them who brazenly bash the Clintons while pumping up Obama as the hero. I’m sick of it. Thank goodness for the Internets!
Is Buzzflash so desperate for money they have sold out! Something has changed. All of a sudden it’s glorify Obama, and trash Clinton! Smells like a buy-out to me!Buzzflash has vigorously chosen sides in this Democratic primary, and I hope it will be the distruction of a once informative websight, one in which I supported with donations. But maybe my little donations weren’t enough so they have sold out for the bigger bucks!I feel betrayed because I once believed they were honest and fair in fighting the take over of corporate greed, but now I’m wondering if eventhey may have succumbed to the greed themselves!can’t even bare to look at!
For years, I naively thought the hate and misinformation about the Clintons was all coming from the vicious right-wing, but now I see that Buzzflash has decoded to join faux news and given up a fair or balanced commentary I am so sorry, I even donated a dime to Buzzflash!You are not who I thought you were!!
In all due respect Mr. Johnson, this site is squarely in “Partisanhackville”. BUT…..
Your damn fine security and “war on terror” analysis more than makes up for the hackery (AT TIMES). That’s why your THE MAN!
cbear - you are correct in your personal assessment of what has happened to this site.
DIFFERENCES of OPINION are important and should go well beyond “group think”.
I have read this site for years - tired of the shift to constant harping about Obama while making Clinton THEIR SAINT.
Enough! That is why our country is in the mess it is in today.
Work together people!
Or are all the people here part of the same problem?
Too connected by money and blood ties to disconnect from the Militiary Industrial Congressional Complex?
What about restoring the RULE OF LAW - OUR CONSTITUTION?
———–
“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views.
That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.”
Noam Chomsky
YES!
Olbermann was dead on on last night!
All you HRC lovers are nuts if you think Hillary has a snowballs chance in hell of uniting the Democratic Party after this episode. Until now I thought If Clinton was our nominee I would hold my nose and vote for her and place my efforts toward working to get our great local Democrats elected. Now I will not vote for her period!
Larry your Republican roots are still showing.
And all you BO supporters think Hillary people are going to unite behind BO if he is the nominee after his campaign played the race card against Bill Clinton, at this point speaking for myself, much like the proverbial snowball in hell, not a chance.
Give me a break!!! What was it in Alabama and South Carolina, how much of the AA communities’ votes did he pull in? He would NOT have pulled these votes in if he were not black. Even the networks point out constantly that he gets the majority of the AA vote, are they racist?
Incidental example my neighbor (my son’s other mother) across the street is African American and has three kids. She is very excited about Obama and voting for him, because he is her color!!!! 2004 she did not vote for anyone, she is largely apolitical (wore slap out from having three kids and being a single parent, finances, etc.).
In 2000, she voted for GWB because he touted tax cuts and then complained because she didn’t see any reduction in her taxes in the years after her vote.
If she votes in the primary, she will vote for BO, but ONLY because he is an AA candidate. I don’t even know if she will vote down ticket dem, normally she would not vote in a primary. I seriously doubt she would be able to name one policy that he, Hillary or McCain has.
I really think BO is cutting his throat in NC with going after Ferraro and the Clinton’s, acting like they are racists, crap like this, you already have a large part of the population that think confederate flags are cool and refer to the civil war as the war of northern aggression and these people are registered democrats!! I won’t even get into the independents who are able to vote for a dem in the primary here. You want to meet some real racists, come to NC, any area, any city, strike up a conversation with a white person about race over the age of 30 and more than likely you will hear the N word and not in a kindly way. BTW, the population of NC is only 22% black so I welcome you to keep up with the ridiculous tactics.
What Hillary Clinton is a racist? Good I’ll vote for her they are thinking….
[...] I am reminded of France and Germany, close friends and allies who, in the run up to the Iraq war warned us not to invade, warned us to be patient, and we proved to be terrible friends and ignored their advice and made a mockery of them. We laughed and assailed them for performing the most solemn duty a friend can perform; saying the things you don’t want to hear, and giving you the tough advice you need to follow. Keith Olbermann did that last night, and the thanks he received from another ardent Clinton supporte…. [...]
When it was the Republicans…we as progressives said that they lacked nuance to see the big picture; that once they set a course, nothing could dissuade them from their objective, no matter how ill-conceived or misguided it was.
Now our party has the Obama supporters; many like Olbermann who are in the MSM. No matter how clear it is that Obama does not have “cross-over” appeal to anyone expect those Republican’s his supporters are “wooing” to play havoc in our nominating system for a day. They will support him to the very end and continue to tell us “rational” folks that up is indeed down.
Let us look at what Obama says to the “latte” crowd, versus what he says to the AA community in the South, versus what he has his underlings say to foreign leaders. I have indeed heard of “re-tooling” ones message to fit the moment but this is ridiculous!
So now we have a situation where these delusional Obama supporters will tell you that his wins in red-state America and the U.S. Virgin Islands are a mandate from the American people, but staging new elections in Michigan and Florida is paramount to voter disenfranchisement? I do not care what all parties agreed to in August. No one thought, least of all the “so-called” Democratic party leadership, that we would still be hammering out who will be our party’s nominee. That being said, now is the time for we, as a party, to stop digging in our heals and using right-wing talking points. We are not lemmings. We are not 48 states and various held territories, but rather 50 states. The situation has changed and therefore the rules that apply must also change. Otherwise, we are no better than the Republicans we have been railing against for the last 8 years. As Howard Dean said, as a presidential candidate 4 years ago, “…I am a Doctor, and as a Doctor, when one thing doesn’t work you TRY SOMETHING ELSE.”
You do not go on a Joe McCarthy tirade because you are a middle-aged white guy with a 20-something girlfriend, who probably stopped having sex with you until you railed against CLinton on your little cable tv show. You do not cut the “gold medal” in half and give 50% to each person, regardless of who came out on top in the first place. You hold new primary elections and you determine an overall winner. Plain, simple, and above all nuanced and balanced!
Euro,
There are Republicans who truly support Obama and will vote for him in the general. My mother and a brother are a few of them.
The majority of those “for a day” voters voted for Hillary thanks to Limbaugh.
16,000 in Ohio alone.
I also recall reading the exit polling in Texas. People who voted for Hillary (after signing a pledge and may in violation of the law) said she wasn’t trustworty.
Cee:
Try looking at people to lined up to participate in the Texas caucuses who were turned away or locked out by Obama supporters.
Let us also look at the map of Texas. Who won a massive amount of the state and who won small pockets!
As for this polling data you site to, until you provide me with who is reporting the “trust-worthy” factor; I will give it the same weight that I give all propaganda.
Euro,
I’ll locate it again. This a tactic.
BDP Becomes A Democrat (Yes, You Read That Right)
by Bull Dog Pundit
I’m not kidding. Yesterday I went to the election office at the courthouse and did something I never thought I would ever do - I officially switched my party registration from Republican to Democrat.
So I took the plunge, and have decided I will be voting for Hillary Clinton. Here’s why.
1. If Hillary Clinton wins the Pennsylvania primary then it is almost certain that she and Obama will continue their fight for the nomination until the August convention. That means four (4) extra months wherein she and Barack will be fighting each other instead of fighting John McCain.
2. The longer they beat up on each other, the less time they have to go on the attack against John McCain. Meanwhile McCain has the field to …
http://www.anklebitingpundits.com/content/index.php?p=3077
Cee, My mother is changing her registration from Republican to independent so that she can vote for Hillary, my independent brother and I don’t have to.
Where I am there are NO republicans that can or will vote for BO.
Barh,
A friend told me a funny story. She’s a long time Democratic party activist who lives in NJ. She held a fundraiser and got James Carvill to autograph a book for me when I couldn’t attend.
She went to her bookclub where politics usually comes up in conversation but everyone seemed on edge.
She said she was voting for Obama and everyone laughed nervously. This group of Republican and Democrats were doing the same thing.
I couldn’t find the article I read about Texas. This is from Wired Mag blog
Did Limbaugh’s Crossover Voters Break Ohio Law?
By Kim Zetter March 12, 2008 | 2:10:37
A reader tipped me off to an issue that’s come up with crossover voters in Ohio. It seems that some Republican voters have bragged online that they voted Democratic ballots in the Ohio March 4th primary in order to influence the outcome of the presidential election. Essentially, they wanted to help Hillary Clinton win the Democratic nomination over Barack Obama because they think she’s the weaker candidate and would lose against Republican John McCain in November.
The so-called Republican “plot” was instigated by conservative radio talker Rush Limbaugh (at right) who urged Republican voters in Ohio and Texas before the election to cross over for the primary to rig the nomination for the November election. Voters in those states could do this at the last minute because their local election laws allow voters to change party affiliation at the polls.
Here’s a post made by one voter who bragged about switching:
Lastly, they had me sign the affirmation about switching parties and supporting the principles of the Democrat party. I said that would be easy, because they don’t have any. Everybody got a good chuckle as there isn’t a Democrat within 5 miles any direction from where I vote. I then proceeded to cast my vote for Hillary Clinton. Dirty as it felt at the time, I have a feeling I’ll be rewarded in the long run.
It turns out that this voter, and others in Ohio, may have broken the law.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/
Yet McCain’s own people registered a 1% return in West Virginia, voting to back Huckabee and remove Romney’s influence.
Proof that he will run concerted efforts to cross the lines.
Now look at states where the GOP did not run same day, so crossover voting could occur in droves.
The numbers all spiked Obama’s way.
Utah being one such example. Now that the GOP ticket is more or less set you can see this occur even more on major days. Washington state was just an example, when the GOP blocked counting votes because McCain vote flippers were pushing the state from Clinton. Ron Paul would have registered a late comeback but the party’s own GOP put a stop to vote counting.
The math shows that Obama got more GOP support. Keep preaching that the votes for Hillary come from the GOP. The voting returns indicate Obama gets more of those votes.
Let’s not get in the way of your narrative.
For someone claiming to be a uniter, and running such a divisive campaign as Obama has done, one wonders how he could ever bring the country together in real terms.
Maybe a terror attack would bring people together again.
Don’t check the Vegas line….
Vegas would say this is more likely to happen with an Obama presidency.
I would venture.
Who would profit?
Mr. Murder,
That isn’t what others are saying.
So, let me get this straight: Republicans who vote for Clinton are doing so as a cynical ploy, but those who vote for Obama have seen the light and recognize him as the second coming of the messiah?
Apparently you missed those “Democrat for a day’ videos and fliers put out by the Obama camp. Here is just one example: http://youtube.com/watch?v=JUE4Kp0YERs
Obama and his followers are actively courting repubs to cross over and vote for him, then resume their repub affiliation and vote for McCain in the Fall. Can you come up with proof that the Clinton campaign is doing the same?
“So, let me get this straight: Republicans who vote for Clinton are doing so as a cynical ploy, but those who vote for Obama have seen the light and recognize him as the second coming of the messiah?”
Well, your characterization is a little overblown, but both behaviors, in their more mundane, real-world versions, have been observed. I don’t know how many people followed Limbaugh’s exhortation to his Dittoheads to vote for Hillary, but c’mon, if you proudly call yourself a “Dittohead,” abject obedience wouldn’t be particularly surprising.
As for Republicans crossing over to Obama, polling data clearly shows this. It’s not the hard-core Bush folks, it’s the ones who are more like your father’s Republicans.
I would argue what you are saying is a deliberate misrepresentation.
How long you gonna go, believing your sophistry works?
Now, imagine your thinking (”I don’t get it”) in a real policy maker, and we’re never leaving Iraq, until it financially breaks the country, which it will, left unattended.
Simple simple simple…
Hm.
If I had a medicore troll company, or a wannabe PR company, I’d call it “solipsim works.”
Maine- 19% Obama win, GOP voted on a different day(week before) and results were from caucus.
Idaho caucus- GOP yet to vote, Obama won with 80% of the vote.
Utah-17 point win.
Wyoming- different dates for each party, McCain barely registered the caucus, Dem primary had many crossovers and Obama won by 23%.
KS,CO,UT,NV McCain was well under his projected support, those votes went somewhere. Three of those on the date he flipped West Virginny votes Huckabee’s way. All but one were Obama wins, the other was a close loss in NV caucus.
Southern States Obama did well, only one state was staggered on party selection days, of the five he won four are red. Not to say he would do poorly in those or Democrats would not run good there, Hillary won three there also including three battleground ones. Two as swing states with pivotal Florida being another.
HI and AK were caucus results. HI has yet to hold GOP races and AK had McCain not even register above Paul’s 17% third place, on the same day as Democrats. those votes went somewhere.
Obama got both by 76%(HI, his other home state) and 74%(those McCain votes went somewhere….).
Nebraska has yet to host a GOP function for the process and Obama had another landslide.
You mean to say Hillary’s 32% support in Nebraska on caucus day was the result of GOP crossovers, not Obama’s 68%?
THE MATH isn’t showing that to be consistent. The states he’s getting his biggest wins in are red, and/or use caucus votes, and/or had staggered primaries or statistical anomalies showing McCain turnout to be low. This when he’s already established enough campaign discipline to flip at least 20% of his own votes to Huckabee in one race as a statistical fact.
He’s done well elsewhere though(Maryland, Virginia, DC were on the same day and he took those well).
Another anomaly, New Mexico where Clinton was using the political connections with Richardson and the GOP’s staggered later date saw the state’s own political star almost fail to deliver. Some would have you believe GOP voters delivered that win and denied a comfortable margin of victory to the Hillary crossover votes you imply existed.
I think you’re confusing 1. receiving the support of 90% of the African-American community with 2. getting 90% of your support from that community. You can establish a primary win record like Obama’s in case 1, but not in case 2.
Olberman coralled the limousine liberals with easy targets Bush and O’Reilly, and build an audience and acrue some credibility. He’s now exploiting these, to transform himself into an extreme Obama partisan, channeling the cold dead souls of Richard Mellon Scaife and Kenneth Starr on behalf of GE.
He’s not an idiot. He and his bosses know that Obama has no chance, none, zip, in the gereral vs McCain.
See this on the games inflicted on the Democratic Party by neocons in the media.
Hillary and the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy
The strange case of conservative pundits and their love for Barack Obama
by Wayne Barrett
http://tinyurl.com/2pnf8e
Thras,
Limousine liberals??? Are you fucking kidding me?
First I read that latte-drinkers are the enemy. Then Prius drivers!!
Yesterday Whole Food shoppers!!
What next? Organic cotton wearers?
Some of you folks have gone around the bend.
Thras,
I just read the article by the good journalist Barrett.
He makes mention of Kristol being critical of Hillary to support Obama.
It’s a head fake. Kristol has a clear choice.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/06/AR2007080601579_pf.html
Here’s my favorite thing about Obama supporters: They believe rightwingers like Bill Kristol and Drudge over the candidate from their own party.
When will you learn that the rightwingers are liars? They are interested in only one thing: Republic victory in 2008.
M,
I read what the GOP says and watch what they do.
You mean like Hillary thinking McCain is more qualified than Obama? Is she lying?
Yet you ignore Obama when he does the same?
My, my your decision making skills must be killer.
Make that gulit driven reverse racist limousine liberals.
How’s that knockout blow delivered by Olberman going for you this morning. Clinton out of the race yet?
New pattern, PR spin as the verbal smurf, for CEE, obfuscate, spin, introduce irrelevant fact, one, two, one, two…
And if they set up their corruption networks this simplistically, well, talk about a house of cards.
Living in a fool’s paradise…
Sean Wilentz, via Taylor Marsh
http://tinyurl.com/e8czm
.. .. I described this pattern on February 27, accounting for how the Obama campaign has cleverly played what I called the “race-baiter card”–and yet blamed Hillary Clinton. These efforts, undertaken both by Obama’s own campaign and its boosters in the press, escalated after Clinton’s surprising win in New Hampshire and in the build-up to the South Carolina primary. To recount the ugliness: Obama–through his national co-chair, Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr.–accused Clinton of studied callousness toward the victims of Hurricane Katrina; his press supporters falsely ascribed her victory to racism among New Hampshire’s Democratic voters; the Obama campaign then went on to seize upon non-controversial and historically accurate statements by Bill and Hillary Clinton (as in the notorious Martin Luther King-Lyndon Johnson episode, fully discredited by Bill Moyers and others) and called them inflammatory race-baiting.
This need to cause confusion, their whole campaign, WAR strategy, doughnuts to dollars, this is how they set up their money laundering, and illegal markets, too, even the neocons.
A smurf, right, to hide and confuse?
I love me a puzzle.
And you usually stay with what you know, it’s not like these guys have ideas, they need to xerox, plagiarize, right?
I think that BO campaign is using some sort of twisted, reverse psychology in a way, attempting to appeal to the white voters by portraying Bill and Hillary Clinton and their supporters as racist, therefore a vote for Hillary is a vote for racism, you are a racist if you vote for Hillary. And some people are simply stupid enough to buy it!!
I am so angry at the BO campaign at this point that I don’t think that I could ever vote for him!
I need to renew my membership to the Conspiracy Theorists of America because some comments here are RICH!
Again, shithead, Larry worked for the CIA.
That might fly with Koskrew, but if you aren’t open to, um, possibilities, well, the CIA would suck, wouldn’t it?
You’re retarded, arent you?
BTW, when Cheney and Anne Armstrong and all the rest (do you know who she is, remember when dick shot harry?) sit around, drinking, speaking of world domination, THEY AREN’T FOOLING.
Shithead.
Or arent you familiar with how the wealthy and powerful think?
Touche! Shithead!?! You tease…
Or arent you familiar with how the wealthy and powerful think?
You jest. I’m a self-made millionaire. I know darned well how the wealthy and powerful think. With our brains.
And I’m SO SO familiar with Larry Johnson. Been following the good man for awhile. Big fan. Always will. Just don’t like all the Senator Clinton love. But respect him nevertheless.
And this comment thread isn’t about Larry Johnson, it’s about Senator Obama.
What a damn shame. Someone wrote about the Clinton campaign appealing to Archie Bunker democrats.
I thought those folks were dinosaurs.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aKf6J9nuZt4Q&refer=home
God knows your trolls are.
Innovation should not be feared.
Hey…What about the FEAR MONGER REPUBLICANS..and All the Other Flesh eating Hating Mongers and Predators..
Talk about T-REXS..with Pea Sized brains..They don’t even talk about the Constitution..Democracy..or Equal Rights..
In other Nations..the Likes of them Put people in Concentration Camps..or are running around with Machetes cutting off peoples arms and legs,
or blow themself up in Crowds..
They are ALL Dangerous..
Its Not Inovation thats Bad..Inovation brought us the Light bulb..
Its Incantations that are Bad..
Look at the MSM..Look at Snake oil salesmen..
If It looks like a Fly doing backstrokes in the Soup..Thats what it Us..You can either Complain until you get New Soup..or you can eat the Flys..
Don’t Forget..YOU are Paying for the Soup..
I’d like to give you’all something to think about.
I have a friend who’s from Jo’burg, South Africa who is now an American citizen. The question is, “Is he classified as an African American, just as Obama is? The mere fact that his skin is whiter than mine should not be a factor in catagorizing him.
I guess the point I’m trying to get to is, there’s no such nationality(in America) as a South American-American, European-American, Baltic-American or any other type of Continent-American, only African-American. Why? Clearly the majority of AA’s were born here and as such are AMERICAN!!!
My friend took the oath of allegence and is proud to call himself an American. Maybe all citizens should do the same when they become of age, that way we can have one United States of America and we can get away from all this petty racism.
“there’s no such nationality(in America) as a South American-American, European-American, Baltic-American or any other type of Continent-American, only African-American. Why? Clearly the majority of AA’s were born here and as such are AMERICAN!!!”
First, there are immigrant groups, e.g., Italian-Americans, who wish to associate with their ancestral homelands. Second, Africans are not an immigrant group, nor were their ancestors. They are a group a large fraction of whose ancestors were kidnapped and enslaved. Quite a few Africans, I dare say, would have been happy to assimilate after emancipation, but this route was not open to them due to the easily-enforced color line.
As for an oath of allegiance, I find it strange that anyone could feel a sense of allegiance to a system based on the principle of “every man for himself,” and I’ve seen research indicating that a large fraction of the nation’s youth carry the belief that this isn’t really their country, that in terms of nationality, they’re basically orphans. But I suppose I’m drifting way off topic here…
Anglo youth, or african american youth?
Michael Ventura was my entry point into this meme. In a column for the Austin Chronicle, he talks about immigrants in high school in the San Fernando Valley, in 2004, and contrasts their perspective with his own experience as a child of immigrants back in the mid-20th. I did a little web surfing back when I read it and found some general support from sociological research, but I didn’t save the links and haven’t been able to find them just now. That’ll teach me, huh?
Anyway, his stuff is worth reading in general, and here’s the link to this one column:
http://snipurl.com/21qv6 [www_austinchronicle_com]
Sawebona, unjani deelee?
name’ nkona.
your friend may be “South African” by birth, but you claim that your friend’s “skin is whiter” than yours, which would indicate that their first nation, even after generations, is either Dutch or English. And in a country as specific as South Africa, even you must admit that the issue isn’t that he or she is “African”. In the most technical sense that is true. This is why I rarely identify myself, and do only to avoid confusion, as American. If I did not know my family’s background I might, but I’m perhaps in the minority view that my people received the land from Grover Cleveland’s land deed program at the time from people who were killed or lost the land at gunpoint.
Additionally you’ll find two of my family names on the Mayflower charter, and other migrations that were in the 1600s. Some were indentured servants others were not.
My point is, the native people in the United States, Canada, and from Mexico south, were decimated, almost utterly driven to extinction.
SO first, let’s not make apples oranges arguments about South Africa and the United States, because the demographics do not match. I would more properly say your friend is a European descendant from South Africa in America.
Titles can ignore the distinctions. And in truth your friend is just a person. But because these titles become grounds for political or social considerations, distinctions make the difference.
I will not take an oath to this country. I understand the oath that immigrants take when they arrive, and I find it unfortunate in some ways. I didn’t elect to be born in the middle of the US. To quote the Rev. Bill Hicks, “I didn’t have much say in it. I might have, but I was a spirit body without a mouth to protest”
My sense of national pride left me years ago. What replaced was a sense of unity to its idealistic principles with a realistic view of its genocidal past, chattel slavery, jim crow, the need for civil rights and suffrage and labor movements. I am still very proud of the many accomplishments of our finest and have a fairly optimistic view of our citizens as a whole.
I’m fine with my prevailing roots as being Scot and Bohemian. It is truly where I see my loyalty and roots. If I could uproot and choose either country to move to, I would. But 1.) they don’t need a bunch of returning immigrants 3 to 4 generations later, and 2.) the financial reality here for me prevents it from happening.
I’d love to give back all of North America and South America to the people who were here before the conquests.
Just because your friend, by your description, is a European South African expat, but lets at least acknowledge that Europeans make up less than 10% of the population and are not at all native to the country, but a result of colonialism and a violent repression against the 80% of truly Southern African descendants.
At this point, that friend can call themselves what they wish, as far as I’m concerned. I don’t wish to label anyone.
But the focus of the issue is about “african americans” and need I explain the difference between their welcome to the American shores and those of my family, perhaps your family, and your friend? I hope not. As someone just wrote, many do not feel this country has ever been their home.
A true hero of mine, Malcolm X said: “We were kidnapped and brought here against our will from Africa. We didn’t land on Plymouth Rock - that rock landed on us.”
Pretty much sums it up.
I would.
I would take on oath to defend the Constitution, and then do it.
It works, in terms of government, and freedom of man.
And IMO it is exclusively because of that document, the pursuit of equality, and the practice of such, that leads to the spectacular achievements Americans have, and will, make.
The Constitution is a living document, America continually progresses.
I would not take an oath to a man, I will take on oath to mu country, of which I am an equal member, under the law.
Bush instituted his own system of palsied Satanism, look what happened, real job creation, American progress dried up, this is not coincidental.
Stalinism, not Satanism, that’s cheney, right.
I don’t disagree here but thank god its a “living document”
“Is he classified as an African American, just as Obama is?
Deelee,
A sister-in-law is South African. She’s not classified that way. Maybe because she’s white.
I used to jerk people around when I reminded them that Teresa Heinz could be called an AA.
Yeah, we’re all Americans with no thought to our ancestry. Now let me grab myself a green beer to get ready for St. Patricks day! Cheers.
Give this one thought. Can you really picture KO getting laid?
phastphil is gay. He’s KO’s secret lover.
Dunno where this gay baiting is headed, don’t care to speculate why it’s being done, none of it is relevant to the topic at hand.
Bullshit Larry. KO is right on the mark, Im sure you all thought he was right on the mark when he blasted The Bush Mafia on outing Val! Now that hes blasting what most dems are thinking about Hillery at this time, NOW its “dont watch Keith!” bullshit.
After the latest whiff of Keith O it will be impossible to subject myself to this pompous,self righteous Ass. Taking sides is one thing, but hatchet job screeds are another,The pompousity was pitiful, but Keith has finally figured out how to be Edward Murrow.
He’s become the Woooooorst person in the world!!
And has now become the twin to Bill O”reilly.
I knew ye Keith when you weren’t a media whore and fool.
You are still a sports jock with a pathetic yearning to emulate what is a style of rhetoric and integrity no one could ever associate with you, Keith. Your prating became comic, your sexism obvious, and disregard for the facts rather stunning.
I suggest this Bama meassenger take a good look at Obam’s pastor’s Reverend Wright’s current hate filled messages.
If he can figure out how not to throw up, I suggest he look at The Chicago Sun Times stories by that great journalist, Tim Novak. Maybe by then Keith’s stomach may roil.
Who knows? He’s bought into what he thinks will “go”. He’s lost a lot of listeners, and all the respect he had formerly earned is gone, gone.
“blasting what most dems are thinking about Hillery”
You mean, Dems for a Day.
Come on folks, Olbermann makes a good point, and he makes it strongly and convincingly. Comments about his having jumped the shark, and Larry’s exhortation not to watch him are of course understandable, because the truth hurts.
Hillary Clinton does not have a chance to win the nomination, unless she manages to override the popular vote with some superdelegate chicanery. Other than that, all she can possibly be trying to do now is so damage Obama that he will lose to McCain, whom she would evidently prefer to see in the White House, possibly because she thinks she will be able to beat him in 2012 when he’ll be 76 years old.
Of course, if a black man wins the popular vote in the Democratic primary, fair and square, and by a substantial margin, then is stabbed in the back by the party leadership, that’s going to have serious consequences for the allegiance African Americans have so far shown to the Democratic party.
Hillary’s claim that Obama’s ethnicity gives him an unfair advantage ignores that she too has benefited from the media’s fondness for telling sophomorically profound stories: “First Black Man, or First Woman? Estrogen vs. Melanin, may the best hormone win.”
You know, when people don’t like you, sometimes it’s because you get unfair press coverage, as Hillary Clinton certainly has over the years. Some of the mud which still sticks to her was unfairly slung by the Scaife-funded Arkansas project, which the mainstream media unquestionably enabled.
On the other hand, sometimes it’s because you behave like an ass. As much as she whinges now about the supposed misogyny in the press, she is now acting so as to validate most of the non-lunatic claims about defects in the Clinton character.
Still, we’re supposed to notice Hillary’s gender so we can be outraged at the awful treatment she’s getting from all those nasty misogynists, while at the same time, the only thing we’re supposed to notice about Obama’s ethnicity is how African Americans get all the breaks. Which sounds like an “affirmative action” dog whistle to me, and a clear favor to the presumptive Republican nominee. Could Obama handle that in the general election? Hillary and her surrogates are not just asking that question, they’re putting a very heavy thumb on the scale. The Clintons appear happy to do the Republicans’ dirty work for them, as long as they personally aren’t its target.
To get psychoanalitical for a moment, if Hillary Clinton is acting as an adult here, she’s playing a cutthroat, Machiavellian game in which she’s willing to throw her party to the wolves for her own personal benefit. Perhaps she’s not that cold, but in that case, she’s just bawling her little head off about not getting the pony she was promised.
it’ not an unfair advantage, but it is a situational one. The “stars aligned” and such. His antiwar speech was probabaly more important in teh early stages.
Right, because of his connections with Auchi.
You get what you pay for, and Obama should know.
I am not watching TV. HRC is too ballsy to whinge about misogyny.
As for that psychoanalitical (sic) thing. Can you say projection, honeydear?
How in the world would the world of blogging survive w/o spelling pedants? Lordy me, did I finger the wrong key there? How ever will I live that down?
I can say projection, babycakes, and I know what it means; you on the other hand appear not to.
I never said you were watching TV, but I suppose your claim that Hillary and her folks aren’t whinging about misogyny shows that you aren’t taking in much at all about her campaign.
You are the very definition of absurdity, you know, writing about yourself, your own projections in an effort to gain control of the situation, using troll 101, and here you look the fool, because YOU DONT GET IT, and everybody else does.
This is it, btw, where you top out, why the trolls don’t work.
Look, do you even know what a troll is? Let me make this quite clear: if Larry wants me to stop posting, he can send me an email requesting that I stop, and I will, the only exception being if I am personally (even pseudonymically) attacked.
If the proprietor of this venue wants it to be completely a Hillary-whingers’ fart-rebreathing bell jar (apologies to Driftglass), fine.
If he doesn’t want posters to use the word, “fart,” that’s fine too. It’s your house, LJ, and I’ll leave if asked to.
Carlos Williams Carlos indeed.
“Of course, if a black man wins the popular vote in the Democratic primary, fair and square, and by a substantial margin, then is stabbed in the back by the party leadership…”
This is where your argument gets stupid. If Obama wins the popular vote in the Primary as well as the delegate vote where he is already ahead and Obama supporters have been quick to point out that, mathematically, it’s impossible for Hillary to win,
WHY WOULD THE PARTY STAB HIM IN THE BACK?
He would WIN!!!!
But, of course you know this. What you Obamabots are really afraid of is if Hillary WINS the popular vote. Couple that with her BIG STATE WINS against Obama’s red state caucus wins, along with the excruciatingly close vote in Missouri, then Hillary can make a legitimate claim to the nomination with the Super Delegates who will scrutinize this with more objectivity than the Obamabots who would have you believe that under these circumstances, Obama is being stabbed in the back.
If he doesn’t win the popluar vote, it won’t be stabbing him in the back. If he wins it, Hillary simply can’t make her case.
I get the difference and so do all of you Obamatons. By suggesting Obama would be cheated out of the nomination if he wins more delegates and the popular vote is just your way of inflaming the attitudes of his supporters who feel he has already won the nomination and no circumstance should permit otherwise.
This is why the Obama campaign keeps dealing from the race card deck and pretending that it’s Hillary. They want Democrats caught in the middle to think that it’s because she’s playing to people’s fears that he isn’t winning BIG STATES.
WRONG!
He’s not winning because a lot of people have scrutinized his credentials and don’t feel he is ready or prepared to be POTUS. His insipid rhetoric just ain’t getting over for a lot of folks. A whole lot of Dems just aren’t in to him the way you kool-aid drinkers are.
Perhaps if Obama would confront this and figure out a way to reach these voters he might be winning this thing. But he can’t because he’s an empty suit who wants Hillary to roll over and simply play dead.
And perhaps if you could come up with a credible scenario within which Hillary could overtake Obama’s delegate lead, I’d concede that she has a reason to stay in the race other than wanting to burn the party down unless she is its nominee.
Especially if you could do it w/o counting on the party deciding not to enforce its own rules about setting primary dates, which is what it would have to do in order to seat the MI and FL delegates. Rules that everybody knew and made no noise about beforehand, and which every candidate but Clinton and Kucinich actively accepted in having their names taken off the ballot (MI specifically, FL is slightly different).
Can you imagine what the NQ crowd would be saying if Obama had left his name on the MI ballot and HRC had taken hers off? Would you now be clamoring for those delegates to be seated? I don’t think so.
Sorry but Keith is a Two-faced Bastard. Go to HELL Keith.
I stopped watching KO and MSNBC a few weeks ago; couldn’t stand to watch any more!
Published earlier at Taylor Marsh
I watched KO for about 5 minutes (about all I can these days before his words and looking at his face make my anger rise to levels which are not healthy for ones longevity on this planet), always happening that some miracle might occur and he might go back to the old Keith I used to respect. He ended with the intro to the next segment on McCain again not pushing away support from Rev Hagee. Unable to watch any more or the beginning, could any one inform me if by chance Keith brought up the Rev. Wright Jr. topic. I do want to thank KO for helping me avoid buying a larger hard drive then my current 300 gig job. After cleaning out all the KO comments and clips I’ve recorded over the past 4 year I find myself with 125 gigs of new free space. Sorry Keith, a lot of them were “right on” but I could never watch them again.
Please replace happening with hoping above.
OK
I subscribe to Deutsche-Welle on the German channels on Dishnetwork and their broadcasts are great because they ignore all the utter trivial BS our corporate networks focus on. They tend to summarize both campaigns in less than two minutes every day. Yep, that’s about it.
YES..There IS a World Outside the Disney World of America..
Danke..
I don’t want anything a surrogate said.
[...] [...]