The essay below was written by Mary Jo Kopechne, PhD, and Bud White.
Sen Obama should drop out of the race. Having just seen the new attack ad that the GOP is showing in NC — condemning the state’s Democratic leadership for backing Obama, replete with Rev Wright cursing America — it is clear that Senator Obama is detrimental to the Democratic brand nationwide. As Jerome Armstrong wrote nearly one month ago, “That’s fall-out from Wright, not against just Obama, but also Clinton, and most likely against the Democratic Party in general. It’s branding of Democrats Obama, and Clinton, as anti-American.”
Obama earned his lead early on, prior to being vetted. After he lost Texas and Ohio, the Wright videos appeared, shocking the nation. Slowly, information about his relationship to Rezko, and his affiliation with William Ayers have also entered the mainstream.
|Obama’s negatives have risen dramatically as Americans have gotten to know Obama, but not because of anything Hillary is alleged to have said about him, contrary to what the Times would have you believe.
As Rasmussen reports, “Obama’s favorable ratings have also fallen below the 50% mark since the world learned of his former Pastor.”
He should quit while he’s ahead, so to speak, and give the Party a chance to win the General Election.
After the New York Times endorsed Senator Clinton as the choice of their editorial board, they have consistently published specious and demeaning pieces about her. With friends like these, who needs enemies? It wasn’t any specific attack by Hillary which the Times or anyone else can point to; it’s the sudden unraveling of the fantasy named Obama.
The New Yorker was so upset at debate moderators George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson that they ran two articles this week denouncing the debate, going so far as to praise the Post’s Shales’ description of the debate as “despicable” without mentioning that it’s the same Washington Post that ran an article last year about Hillary’s cleavage.
We know who has truly been despicable: The pillars of the liberal establishment are lashing out at Hillary, at the debate moderators, and at the newest boogie man, poor white men, because Americans are finally learning the truth about their vacuous creation. It’s not the questions in the debate that are the problem; it’s the fact he cannot answer tough questions.
Barack Obama’s picture appeared on the front page of the Times the day Hillary Clinton won the Pennsylvania primary. That in itself goes a long way to explaining the lead editorial, “The Low Road to Victory.”
In fact, the Times is perpetuating the myth that Obama and the rest of the media are spinning: Clinton is negative, on the attack against Obama, and that she is more negative than Obama.
Obama demeans her character, lies about her policies, but the media says she is negative. There is not a negative trick in the book that Obama has failed to use. He unfairly attacked her health care plan. He has ridiculed her at a more personal level. He outspent her 4 to 1 or even 5 to 1 (and not 2 to 1). Still, he could not prevail. If Senator Clinton is focusing on the weaknesses of Obama’s candidacy, it’s because the media have failed to do their job. If you spend some time on the message boards of the New Progressive Sexists you’ll see where the negativity is coming from – the Obama campaign.
The Times piece was particularly bad because only days earlier they reported on Obama’s increasingly negative attacks against Hillary, “In Push Before Vote, Obama Sharpens Tone,” on April 21st. (Talk about selective memory.)
It is part of the ongoing sexism and misogyny in this primary that Hillary Clinton gets blamed for negativity. It’s the same old game: If a man makes a comment, then he’s being strong and powerful but, if a woman makes a similar statement, she’s being negative. (See Shakesville’s running list of sexist comments made about Hillary. She’s counted 75 so far).
In fact, in response to Obama’s Rovian tactics, the Clinton campaign sent around a quiz with negative statements about Hillary. All twelve came from the Obama campaign or Obama himself.
- Who said Hillary Clinton is “literally willing to do anything to win”
- Who said Hillary Clinton is attempting to “deceive the American people”
- Who claimed Hillary Clinton has a secret 20-year plan to become president
- Who called Hillary Clinton a calculating, poll-tested, divisive figure
- Who called Hillary Clinton “one of the most secretive politicians in America”
- Who said Hillary Clinton’s campaign is “playing politics with war”
- Who said John McCain is seen as more honest and trustworthy than Hillary Clinton
- Who called Hillary Clinton dishonest
- Who referred to Hillary Clinton as “a monster”
- Who said Hillary Clinton is “not being straight with the American people”
- Who said of Hillary, “The American people are not going to elect a president that they do not trust”
- Who claimed Hillary Clinton “consistently” and “deliberately” misleads the American people
Obama has been shielded by his benefactors for over a year. His campaign has gotten away with these relentless attacks against Hillary, yet she is being accused of taking the low road. Americans are finally having their questions answered about Obama’s questionable friends, and Americans are turning off to this media-hyped creation.
One hopes the superdelegates are paying attention to Obama’s certain unraveling.
Special thanks to Vet4Hill for providing the video of Terry McAuliffe discussing the out-of-bounds NYT editorial on April 23, 2008.