Obama supporters! - A positive place to talk about his campaign

Status
Not open for further replies.
First I'm still sick all (I know you miss me), I'm wiped out :sick:

Chobie, glad to see you back!

But, this just came across and wanted to post it.... some explanation as to where some information has come from this election season.....


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/sidney-blumenthal-uses-fo_b_99695.html

Don't forget to Digg it & we're up 5 Super's today...

Former journalist Sidney Blumenthal has been widely credited with coining the term "vast right-wing conspiracy" used by Hillary Clinton in 1998 to describe the alliance of conservative media, think tanks, and political operatives that sought to destroy the Clinton White House where he worked as a high-level aide. A decade later, and now acting as a senior campaign advisor to Senator Clinton, Blumenthal is exploiting that same right-wing network to attack and discredit Barack Obama. And he's not hesitating to use the same sort of guilt-by-association tactics that have been the hallmark of the political right dating back to the McCarthy era.

Almost every day over the past six months, I have been the recipient of an email that attacks Obama's character, political views, electability, and real or manufactured associations. The original source of many of these hit pieces are virulent and sometimes extreme right-wing websites, bloggers, and publications. But they aren't being emailed out from some fringe right-wing group that somehow managed to get my email address. Instead, it is Sidney Blumenthal who, on a regular basis, methodically dispatches these email mudballs to an influential list of opinion shapers -- including journalists, former Clinton administration officials, academics, policy entrepreneurs, and think tankers -- in what is an obvious attempt to create an echo chamber that reverberates among talk shows, columnists, and Democratic Party funders and activists. One of the recipients of the Blumenthal email blast, himself a Clinton supporter, forwards the material to me and perhaps to others.

These attacks sent out by Blumenthal, long known for his fierce and combative loyalty to the Clintons, draw on a wide variety of sources to spread his Obama-bashing. Some of the pieces are culled from the mainstream media and include some reasoned swipes at Obama's policy and political positions.

But, rather remarkably for such a self-professed liberal operative like Blumenthal, a staggering number of the anti-Obama attacks he circulates derive from highly-ideological and militant right-wing sources such as the misnamed Accuracy in Media (AIM), The Weekly Standard, City Journal, The American Conservative, and The National Review.

To cite just one recent example, Blumenthal circulated an article taken from the fervently hard-right AIM website on February 18 entitled, "Obama's Communist Mentor" by Cliff Kincaid. Kincaid is a right-wing writer and activist, a longtime critic of the United Nations, whose group, America's Survival, has been funded by foundations controlled by conservative financier Richard Mellon Scaife, the same millionaire who helped fund attacks on the Clintons during their White House years. Scaife also funds AIM, the right-wing media "watchdog" group.

The Kincaid article that Blumenthal circulated sought to discredit Obama by linking him to an African-American poet and writer whom Obama knew while he was in high school in Hawaii. That writer, Frank Marshall Davis, was, Kincaid wrote, a member of the Communist Party. Supported by no tangible evidence, Kincaid claimed that Obama considered his relationship to Davis to be "almost like a son." In his memoir, Dreams from My Father, Obama wrote about meeting, during his teenage years, a writer named "Frank" who "had some modest notoriety once" and with whom he occasionally discussed poetry and politics. From this snippet, Kincaid weaves an incredulous tale that turns Davis into Obama's "mentor."

Kincaid's piece had been previously circulating within the right-wing blogosphere, but Blumenthal sought to inject the story into more respectable opinion circles by amplifying it in his email blast.

In the same piece, Kincaid, expanding his guilt-by-association tactics, also wrote that Obama "came into contact with more far-left political forces," including former Weather Underground member William Ayers. Until a few weeks ago, Obama's tangential connection with Ayers -- whose 1960s anti-war terrorism occurred when Obama was in grade school -- was echoing among right-wing bloggers.

Some Clinton supporters who also knew about Ayers have been discreetly trying to catapult the story out of the right-wing sandbox into the wider mainstream media. On April 9, Fox News' Sean Hannity interviewed fellow right-winger Karl Rove, who raised the Ayers-Obama connection. The next day, ABC News reporter Jake Tapper wrote about Ayers in his Political Punch blog. The following week, on his radio show, Hannity suggested to his guest, George Stephanopoulos, that he ask Obama about his relationship with Ayers at the upcoming Philadelphia presidential debate. Stephanopoulos, who was Bill Clinton's press secretary, replied, "Well, I'm taking notes." The following night during the April 16 nationally televised Presidential debate, Stephanopoulos dutifully asked Obama about Ayers, who is now a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

One can only speculate how much influence Blumenthal did or did not have in elevating the Ayers story into the mainstream media and into the national political debate. What is certain is that Blumenthal sought to keep this classic red-baiting controversy alive.

Blumenthal's April 24 email dispatch featured a two-year old article by Sol Stern, published in City Journal, sponsored by the right-wing Manhattan Institute. The article, from the journal's Summer 2006 issue, doesn't mention Obama. Why would Blumenthal resurrect it now? The article, entitled "The Ed Schools' Latest--and Worst--Humbug," was, instead, a frontal attack on Ayers' views on educational theory and policy. Blumenthal obviously wasn't trying to offer enlightenment on educational policy or Obama's positions on school reform as much as he was presumably trying to keep Ayers' name, and his controversial past, in the public eye.

As a follow-up punch, Blumenthal again dipped directly into the "vast right wing conspiracy" by retrieving and circulating an article from the current issue of National Review -- the staunchly conservative opinion journal founded by William F. Buckley. The piece, titled "The Obama Way," was penned by Fred Siegel who, like Sol Stern, is a former 60s leftist who has moved to the opposite end of the political spectrum, serving at one point as a political advisor to Rudy Giuliani. Siegel's piece links Obama to corrupt Chicago machine politics, observing that "Blacks adapted to both the tribalism and the corrupt patronage politics" of Chicago's Democratic Party. In the process, he manages to throw in as many spurious ad hominem attacks on Obama as he can, calling him a "friend of race-baiters" and a "man who would lead our efforts against terrorism yet was friendly with Bill Ayers, the unrepentant 1960s terrorist."

When Blumenthal worked in the White House, a big thorn in Bill Clinton's side was the Weekly Standard, the right-wing magazine edited by William Kristol and owned by Rupert Murdoch. But in mid-February, Blumenthal's email attack featured an article, "Republicans Root for Obama," written by Weekly Standard executive editor and Fox News talking head Fred Barnes. That same month, Blumenthal also offered up a piece by Scott McConnell, titled "Untested Savior," that appeared in The American Conservative (a magazine founded by Pat Buchanan) claiming that Obama "would probably lead them [Democrats] to disaster in November."

When Blumenthal isn't relying directly on anti-Obama smears from the extreme right, he's pumping up more traditionally sourced material, from the Washington Post, New Republic, and other publications, to question and damage Obama's character and electability. On several occasions, Blumenthal has circulated articles from the Chicago Sun Times and the Chicago Tribune about Obama's ties to developer Tony Rezko, a relationship Obama has said he regrets. In one email, Blumenthal wrote: "The record on Obama's fabled 'judgement'? So how would he conduct himself in those promised summits without preconditions with Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il, Chavez, Castro, and Assad? Let's look at how he did with Tony Rezko."

Disney Dadd, I stay on this thread so I don't put down any HRC, but since you mentioned why some of us just don't like her? The above is just one more reason some of us not to like Senator Clinton. When she stands in front of a plant her husband allowed to be shuttered yesterday and fakely pours on the pity, or, when her campaign manager Maggie Williams is on the board of the company found robo-calling primarily African American homes in NC (and other states, but it's NC that has a case now open since they have just found who did it) Or just maybe we think she took her coronation for granted from the day she started, or perhaps it's her big state strategy and the rest of us that don't count, or maybe it's acknowledging a state won't count until you find out you desperately need it to bolster your popular vote... and these are just the most recent reason to truly like Mrs. Clinton, then I could ask why she stayed with a philandering husband for 20 years. This is really just the start of the list. Oh, lest we not forget saying we would "obliterate" with nuclear weapons another country of 70 million people should they actually develop nuclear weapons, and actually use them... yeh, great way to re-introduce yourself to the World... Just spit it right out there.

However, at the start of this, I would have cast a vote for her were she the nominee, now, with her tactics? Sorry won't happen.

And, unlike many, I won't put any particular poster down with insults, I don't go to your house, I think some of these things should be handled OFF the board.
 
Umm it's your thread and HS in general who say we are drinking koolaid, not in reality etc. Any implication that one side thinks the other side does not have brains is coming from the Hillary side toward the Obama side. I realize that the cons have joined in with the Obama bashing and are trying to fuel the fight between the democrats by saying that the Obama supporters think Hillary supporters are stupid, but that's a lie and we all know it. You would gain more credibility if you stopped trying to perpetuate that lie.
Hmmm ... I don't think that's a lie. I think that both sides have made it personal and have called the other side "stupid" (and worse). I personally don't think that anyone is stupid to support their candidate. I remain convinced that either one would make a fine president and I would never tell someone that they were stupid. Now ... I did use the "koolaid" analogy once or twice a few months ago, but I stopped. I meant it in a humorous way, but noticed that it hurt people's feelings. I do not want to disrespect fellow democrats that way.
 
Hmmm ... I don't think that's a lie. I think that both sides have made it personal and have called the other side "stupid" (and worse). I personally don't think that anyone is stupid to support their candidate. I remain convinced that either one would make a fine president and I would never tell someone that they were stupid. Now ... I did use the "koolaid" analogy once or twice a few months ago, but I stopped. I meant it in a humorous way, but noticed that it hurt people's feelings. I do not want to disrespect fellow democrats that way.
You know that you're going to be asked for links right?

I'm starting to finally believe that this is hopeless and that we in a way do have three parties now. I hope that everyone will pull together once the smoke clears but I really wonder.
 
DisneyDad1960

This reply originally posted by wvrevy perfectly summarizes my dislike of Senator Clinton


Here's the problem: I don't trust Hillary to be what she now claims to be. She was for NAFTA long before she was against it, and every public remark she made back then was very enthusiastic in her support. That weighs a lot more with me than some back room meetings that only her supporters seem to be able to remember. She was, again, an enthusiastic supporter of the Iraq mistake. When casting her vote, she made a dramatic and heart-felt speech in favor of invasion - not of giving Bush the power of diplomacy, which is what she now claims. She claims to want change...but has done nothing to put her power to use while in the senate. Where have all these wonderful ideas she's spouting off during all those years when - junior senator or not - she could have been putting that name of hers to good use in trying to get progressive legislation passed?

So no, I don't trust her, I don't like her very apparent sense of entitlement to the nomination, and I greatly dislike what she has become during this campaign, and what she is doing to the party.

Additionally, I have looked at not only the voting records of Clinton and Obama but the legislation (major and minor) both have proposed. One of strongest arguments I see posited for Clinton's candidacy is her experience (35 years to be exact) and said experience will be intrsumetnal in her ability to get things done done in Washington. However, I found that for many of Clinton's legislative proposals she could not find co-sponsors, and she certainly has not authored any landmark legislation. This does appear to be the sign of someone who effectively works across the aisle.

As for there not being enough catsup in the world, it does not matter, if it comes to that. I don't like catsup, but a little hollandaise will be just fine.;)
 

Hmmm ... I don't think that's a lie. I think that both sides have made it personal and have called the other side "stupid" (and worse). I personally don't think that anyone is stupid to support their candidate. I remain convinced that either one would make a fine president and I would never tell someone that they were stupid. Now ... I did use the "koolaid" analogy once or twice a few months ago, but I stopped. I meant it in a humorous way, but noticed that it hurt people's feelings. I do not want to disrespect fellow democrats that way.

You know well that though it may be going on on both sides, the Hillary thread and along with the con thread keep making it seem like it is only coming from this side. I didn't see you or any other Hillary supporter ever correct the con thread when they made it seem like the personal remarks were only coming from the OS.
 
You know that you're going to be asked for links right?

I'm starting to finally believe that this is hopeless and that we in a way do have three parties now. I hope that everyone will pull together once the smoke clears but I really wonder.


I purposely have stayed off the Hillary thread lately in order to show my respect for both sides and merely pointed out perhaps some hypocrisy coming from a Hillary supporter who came over here to imply that we were the bad guys.

You said you will not police your own thread, nor will you correct the con thread when they make it seem one-sided from the OS, but you have no problem coming on this thread to chide us for doing what you know your thread is doing too.

Clean up your own house first. When I crossed the line on the Hillary thread, I apologized, haven't seen that on this thread from any HS yet.
 
To our con thread readers:

When you skip gleefully back to your thread to have laugh about this, or go running over to the Hillary thread to console them and tell them they are right and we are wrong, you have my permission to use my name or import my direct quotes. No need to be passive-aggressive about it. I will own what I say, unlike many others.

Have a nice day.
 
It's that pesky word "some" again! I've been careful to use it now but I suppose that others may not be as cautious.

That said, assuming I'm still one of the reasonable Hillary supporters, what exactly would you like me to do? I don't police people and I never will. I've been recommending the ignore feature - trust me it's quite wonderful. :thumbsup2

I've already got roughly half that thread on ignore...and I'm one that absolutely hates using that feature. But on the posts I can see, I don't see a lot of use of the word "some"...just a lot of people blathering on about how the "OS" act like cult members and can't possibly see any flaw to Obama...despite just about every person on this thread posting about one flaw or another at some time. So as long as reasonable posters refuse to call out the three or four that continue to attack us rather than the candidate - which is fair game - we'll continue to have problems between the two sides.

If you don't think it causes resentment on our part when otherwise friendly people refuse to have your back somewhere you've been asked not to go - and I have tried to respect that - then I'd suggest you think again.

As a Clinton supporter I'm probably on ignore but here goes.

Why all the animosity towards the Hillary supporters?
Senator Obama will have the nomination and then the real fight begins.

I can't believe the sheer hatred SOME of you show towards Mrs. Clinton.
If Senator Obama had not run probably the greatest campaign in American history, she would be our candidate. Would the hate still be there?

If you were expecting an early coronation - that doesn't come until January 20, 2009.

I lurk here, because I truly have learned a lot about Senator Obama from you,
but to use a line that I read here - Suck it up! You are better off stapling your eyelids closed than trying to post anything on the Hillary thread.

One more thing - for SOME of you, Senator Obama better win the General election because there is not enough ketchup in the world to cover the amount of crow you're gonna have to eat on these boards.

The dislike of Hillary didn't start until she started putting herself before the party...at least for me. When she starts tearing Obama down when, as you correctly pointed out, he is overwhelmingly likely to be the candidate at this point...it just reeks of the exact kind of thing people have always accused her of and from which I and many others on this thread have always defended her. She's showing herself to be just the manipulative, self-serving ***** that the cons have always claimed she was.

As for our animosity towards Hillary supporters...see my response above to Planogirl.

You know that you're going to be asked for links right?

I'm starting to finally believe that this is hopeless and that we in a way do have three parties now. I hope that everyone will pull together once the smoke clears but I really wonder.

What's wrong with asking for links when you are accusing us of something I know darn well we haven't done? :confused3

As for everyone pulling together after the nomination is final...you currently have two very prominent posters on the Hillary thread claiming they will either vote for McCain or not vote if Obama wins the nomination, so I would suggest once again that you not preach to us what you apparently aren't willing to preach to your own.

To our con thread readers:

When you skip gleefully back to your thread to have laugh about this, or go running over to the Hillary thread to console them and tell them they are right and we are wrong, you have my permission to use my name or import my direct quotes. No need to be passive-aggressive about it. I will own what I say, unlike many others.

Have a nice day.

:rotfl: :thumbsup2

You have to wonder why more of Hillary's supporters aren't made uncomfortable by the support of the far right, ya' know? I mean...if Rush Limbaugh, Bill-O, and Sean Freaking Hannity are for it, how can anyone claiming to be a liberal not automatically have to take a step back to re-examine the situation?
 
Hmmm ... I don't think that's a lie. I think that both sides have made it personal and have called the other side "stupid" (and worse). I personally don't think that anyone is stupid to support their candidate. I remain convinced that either one would make a fine president and I would never tell someone that they were stupid. Now ... I did use the "koolaid" analogy once or twice a few months ago, but I stopped. I meant it in a humorous way, but noticed that it hurt people's feelings. I do not want to disrespect fellow democrats that way.

It's a lie?

So put your money where your mouth is and provide a link.

Whoa, whatta concept ............ offering proof of your claims.

Geez, who woulda thunk it! :lmao:
 
DisneyDad1960

This reply originally posted by wvrevy perfectly summarizes my dislike of Senator Clinton




Additionally, I have looked at not only the voting records of Clinton and Obama but the legislation (major and minor) both have proposed. One of strongest arguments I see posited for Clinton's candidacy is her experience (35 years to be exact) and said experience will be intrsumetnal in her ability to get things done done in Washington. However, I found that for many of Clinton's legislative proposals she could not find co-sponsors, and she certainly has not authored any landmark legislation. This does appear to be the sign of someone who effectively works across the aisle.

As for there not being enough catsup in the world, it does not matter, if it comes to that. I don't like catsup, but a little hollandaise will be just fine.;)

Other than the fact that she's a lying two-faced ***** who'll do anything to be president, my biggest beef with Hillary is her vote for the Kyle-Liebermann bill.

For those not familiar with the amendment, it designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization. What it did was give Bush cover to start the process to invade Iran. Hillary voted YES. Her YES vote in 2003 was no fluke because she did it again.

Why? Who knows. Maybe she thought it would raise her CIC threshold she claims she has along with her "35 years of experience" and "3AM phonecalls". :lmao:
 
Other than the fact that she's a lying two-faced ***** who'll do anything to be president, my biggest beef with Hillary is her vote for the Kyle-Liebermann bill.

For those not familiar with the amendment, it designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization. What it did was give Bush cover to start the process to invade Iran. Hillary voted YES. Her YES vote in 2003 was no fluke because she did it again.

Why? Who knows. Maybe she thought it would raise her CIC threshold she claims she has along with her "35 years of experience" and "3AM phonecalls". :lmao:

I'd nearly forgotten about that signing, IMHO she's going to have plenty of 3AM phone calls.... in fact she has one right now from the Iranian government to the United Nations....
 
I'd nearly forgotten about that signing, IMHO she's going to have plenty of 3AM phone calls.... in fact she has one right now from the Iranian government to the United Nations....

Hillary had to raise her "cajone" threshold with her threat to nuke Iran if Iran attacked Israel.

As far as her SD's claim she has "testicular fortitude", I'm sure Bill can help on that score. He's got the brass set to end all brass sets. :lmao:
 
Hillary had to raise her "cajone" threshold with her threat to nuke Iran if Iran attacked Israel.

As far as her SD's claim she has "testicular fortitude", I'm sure Bill can help on that score. He's got the brass set to end all brass sets. :lmao:

:lmao: :rotfl2:

Here's some good news from Zogby today :)


Zogby Poll: Obama Holds Big Lead Over Clinton in NC; Pair tied in Indiana

UTICA, New York—Five days before the important Democratic presidential primaries in North Carolina and Indiana, Barack Obama of Illinois enjoys a substantial lead in one state and remains tied with Hillary Clinton of New York in the other, a new Zogby daily tracking poll shows.

Obama leads by a 50% to 34% margin over Clinton in North Carolina, while the two are tied at 42% support each in Indiana.

The telephone surveys, conducted over two days, began on April 30 and were completed May 1. They comprise the first of Zogby's daily tracking surveys that will continue until Tuesday. In North Carolina, 668 likely Democratic primary election voters were polled. The survey carries a margin of error of +/- 3.9 percentage points. In Indiana, 680 likely voting Democratic primary voters were surveyed. That poll carries a margin of error of +/- 3.8 percentage points.

The telephone surveys were conducted using live operators working out of Zogby's call center in Upstate New York.

In North Carolina, Obama dominates all age groups with one exception—those age 70 and older, where the two are essentially tied.

Democrats—North Carolina


4-30/5-1

Clinton


34%

Obama


50%

Someone else


8%

Not sure


8%

Clinton leads by 10 points among white voters in North Carolina—47% to 37% - but Obama dominates among African American voters, 73% to 10% for Clinton. Among men, Obama leads, 57% to 30%, and he leads among women voters as well—winning 44% support to Clinton's 37% backing.

Asked if the statements of controversial Obama pastor Jeremiah Wright made voters more or less likely to support Obama, 15% of North Carolina voters said they were less likely to support him, while 4% said the comments made them more likely to support Obama.

In Indiana, the two Democrats were deadlocked at 42% each, with 16% either favoring someone else or yet undecided.

Democrats—Indiana


4-30/5-1

Clinton


42%

Obama


42%

Someone else


7%

Not sure


9%

The demographic breakdowns in Indiana mirror what we have seen in earlier voting states, with Obama leading among younger voters and Clinton leading among older voters. A key middle-age demographic—those age 35 to 54—now favors Obama by a 48% to 41% margin in Indiana, but this demo turned out to be a key battleground in Pennsylvania, which has a somewhat similar population make-up.

Obama leads in northern Indiana, a large section of which is influenced by Obama's hometown Chicago media market. In the southern half of the state, which features a population much like that of Ohio next door, Clinton enjoys a double-digit lead. Obama enjoys an 11-point lead among Indiana men, while Clinton leads by seven points among women.

After getting clobbered among Catholics in Pennsylvania nearly two weeks ago, Obama wins 41% support from Indiana Catholics, compared to 40% who support Clinton. Conversely, Clinton leads among Protestants by six points after having lost among them in Pennsylvania.

Nearly three in four in Indiana—72%—said they held a positive overall view of Obama, compared to 68% who held a positive opinion of Clinton.

The statements of Rev. Wright have had more of an impact in Indiana than in North Carolina. In the Hoosier state, 21% of likely Democratic primary voters said they were less likely to vote for Obama as a result of his former pastor's statements.

There is clearly some disaffection within the Democratic electorate. Asked who they would support in a general election match-up between Clinton and McCain, 20% of Indiana Democratic voters said they would support McCain, while 21% said they would vote for McCain if he were running against Obama in the general election this fall. Asked about the same head-to-head general election match-ups, North Carolina voters were slightly less willing to cross party lines to support the Republican nominee—16% said they would vote for McCain in both the McCain-Clinton match-up and the McCain-Obama match-up.

For a detailed methodology statement on this survey, please visit:
http://www.zogby.com/methodology/readmeth.dbm?ID=1301

(5/2/2008)
 
I always have The Today Show on and I have not heard one mention of Rev Wright today. They did show the ads from both Hillary and Obama on the gas tax holiday. If people vote for Hillary because she wants to save them $28 they'll get what they deserve, the same old pandering and nothing actually changing. We hear people saying they want change but they keep voting for the same politicians, my state is a prime example.

Maybe that is what all these people who say Obama scares them are scared about, change. Maybe they would rather sit in their recliners drinking beer and complaining how tough they have it, then to actually get off their butts and try to make a difference. There was a poster on the gas tax holiday thread who said that $5 would buy a gallon of milk, how shortsighted can you get. Her extra gallon of milk will cost someone a job and contribute to maybe another bridge falling in the river. It's no wonder they like Hillary, they are both all about me, me, me. Which reallys just brings us right back to Bush who started a war and never asked for any sacrifice from the public to help pay for it.
 
First I'm still sick all (I know you miss me), I'm wiped out :sick:

Chobie, glad to see you back!

But, this just came across and wanted to post it.... some explanation as to where some information has come from this election season.....


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/sidney-blumenthal-uses-fo_b_99695.html

Don't forget to Digg it & we're up 5 Super's today...

Former journalist Sidney Blumenthal has been widely credited with coining the term "vast right-wing conspiracy" used by Hillary Clinton in 1998 to describe the alliance of conservative media, think tanks, and political operatives that sought to destroy the Clinton White House where he worked as a high-level aide. A decade later, and now acting as a senior campaign advisor to Senator Clinton, Blumenthal is exploiting that same right-wing network to attack and discredit Barack Obama. And he's not hesitating to use the same sort of guilt-by-association tactics that have been the hallmark of the political right dating back to the McCarthy era.

Almost every day over the past six months, I have been the recipient of an email that attacks Obama's character, political views, electability, and real or manufactured associations. The original source of many of these hit pieces are virulent and sometimes extreme right-wing websites, bloggers, and publications. But they aren't being emailed out from some fringe right-wing group that somehow managed to get my email address. Instead, it is Sidney Blumenthal who, on a regular basis, methodically dispatches these email mudballs to an influential list of opinion shapers -- including journalists, former Clinton administration officials, academics, policy entrepreneurs, and think tankers -- in what is an obvious attempt to create an echo chamber that reverberates among talk shows, columnists, and Democratic Party funders and activists. One of the recipients of the Blumenthal email blast, himself a Clinton supporter, forwards the material to me and perhaps to others.

These attacks sent out by Blumenthal, long known for his fierce and combative loyalty to the Clintons, draw on a wide variety of sources to spread his Obama-bashing. Some of the pieces are culled from the mainstream media and include some reasoned swipes at Obama's policy and political positions.

But, rather remarkably for such a self-professed liberal operative like Blumenthal, a staggering number of the anti-Obama attacks he circulates derive from highly-ideological and militant right-wing sources such as the misnamed Accuracy in Media (AIM), The Weekly Standard, City Journal, The American Conservative, and The National Review.

To cite just one recent example, Blumenthal circulated an article taken from the fervently hard-right AIM website on February 18 entitled, "Obama's Communist Mentor" by Cliff Kincaid. Kincaid is a right-wing writer and activist, a longtime critic of the United Nations, whose group, America's Survival, has been funded by foundations controlled by conservative financier Richard Mellon Scaife, the same millionaire who helped fund attacks on the Clintons during their White House years. Scaife also funds AIM, the right-wing media "watchdog" group.

The Kincaid article that Blumenthal circulated sought to discredit Obama by linking him to an African-American poet and writer whom Obama knew while he was in high school in Hawaii. That writer, Frank Marshall Davis, was, Kincaid wrote, a member of the Communist Party. Supported by no tangible evidence, Kincaid claimed that Obama considered his relationship to Davis to be "almost like a son." In his memoir, Dreams from My Father, Obama wrote about meeting, during his teenage years, a writer named "Frank" who "had some modest notoriety once" and with whom he occasionally discussed poetry and politics. From this snippet, Kincaid weaves an incredulous tale that turns Davis into Obama's "mentor."

Kincaid's piece had been previously circulating within the right-wing blogosphere, but Blumenthal sought to inject the story into more respectable opinion circles by amplifying it in his email blast.

In the same piece, Kincaid, expanding his guilt-by-association tactics, also wrote that Obama "came into contact with more far-left political forces," including former Weather Underground member William Ayers. Until a few weeks ago, Obama's tangential connection with Ayers -- whose 1960s anti-war terrorism occurred when Obama was in grade school -- was echoing among right-wing bloggers.

Some Clinton supporters who also knew about Ayers have been discreetly trying to catapult the story out of the right-wing sandbox into the wider mainstream media. On April 9, Fox News' Sean Hannity interviewed fellow right-winger Karl Rove, who raised the Ayers-Obama connection. The next day, ABC News reporter Jake Tapper wrote about Ayers in his Political Punch blog. The following week, on his radio show, Hannity suggested to his guest, George Stephanopoulos, that he ask Obama about his relationship with Ayers at the upcoming Philadelphia presidential debate. Stephanopoulos, who was Bill Clinton's press secretary, replied, "Well, I'm taking notes." The following night during the April 16 nationally televised Presidential debate, Stephanopoulos dutifully asked Obama about Ayers, who is now a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

One can only speculate how much influence Blumenthal did or did not have in elevating the Ayers story into the mainstream media and into the national political debate. What is certain is that Blumenthal sought to keep this classic red-baiting controversy alive.

Blumenthal's April 24 email dispatch featured a two-year old article by Sol Stern, published in City Journal, sponsored by the right-wing Manhattan Institute. The article, from the journal's Summer 2006 issue, doesn't mention Obama. Why would Blumenthal resurrect it now? The article, entitled "The Ed Schools' Latest--and Worst--Humbug," was, instead, a frontal attack on Ayers' views on educational theory and policy. Blumenthal obviously wasn't trying to offer enlightenment on educational policy or Obama's positions on school reform as much as he was presumably trying to keep Ayers' name, and his controversial past, in the public eye.

As a follow-up punch, Blumenthal again dipped directly into the "vast right wing conspiracy" by retrieving and circulating an article from the current issue of National Review -- the staunchly conservative opinion journal founded by William F. Buckley. The piece, titled "The Obama Way," was penned by Fred Siegel who, like Sol Stern, is a former 60s leftist who has moved to the opposite end of the political spectrum, serving at one point as a political advisor to Rudy Giuliani. Siegel's piece links Obama to corrupt Chicago machine politics, observing that "Blacks adapted to both the tribalism and the corrupt patronage politics" of Chicago's Democratic Party. In the process, he manages to throw in as many spurious ad hominem attacks on Obama as he can, calling him a "friend of race-baiters" and a "man who would lead our efforts against terrorism yet was friendly with Bill Ayers, the unrepentant 1960s terrorist."

When Blumenthal worked in the White House, a big thorn in Bill Clinton's side was the Weekly Standard, the right-wing magazine edited by William Kristol and owned by Rupert Murdoch. But in mid-February, Blumenthal's email attack featured an article, "Republicans Root for Obama," written by Weekly Standard executive editor and Fox News talking head Fred Barnes. That same month, Blumenthal also offered up a piece by Scott McConnell, titled "Untested Savior," that appeared in The American Conservative (a magazine founded by Pat Buchanan) claiming that Obama "would probably lead them [Democrats] to disaster in November."

When Blumenthal isn't relying directly on anti-Obama smears from the extreme right, he's pumping up more traditionally sourced material, from the Washington Post, New Republic, and other publications, to question and damage Obama's character and electability. On several occasions, Blumenthal has circulated articles from the Chicago Sun Times and the Chicago Tribune about Obama's ties to developer Tony Rezko, a relationship Obama has said he regrets. In one email, Blumenthal wrote: "The record on Obama's fabled 'judgement'? So how would he conduct himself in those promised summits without preconditions with Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il, Chavez, Castro, and Assad? Let's look at how he did with Tony Rezko."

Disney Dadd, I stay on this thread so I don't put down any HRC, but since you mentioned why some of us just don't like her? The above is just one more reason some of us not to like Senator Clinton. When she stands in front of a plant her husband allowed to be shuttered yesterday and fakely pours on the pity, or, when her campaign manager Maggie Williams is on the board of the company found robo-calling primarily African American homes in NC (and other states, but it's NC that has a case now open since they have just found who did it) Or just maybe we think she took her coronation for granted from the day she started, or perhaps it's her big state strategy and the rest of us that don't count, or maybe it's acknowledging a state won't count until you find out you desperately need it to bolster your popular vote... and these are just the most recent reason to truly like Mrs. Clinton, then I could ask why she stayed with a philandering husband for 20 years. This is really just the start of the list. Oh, lest we not forget saying we would "obliterate" with nuclear weapons another country of 70 million people should they actually develop nuclear weapons, and actually use them... yeh, great way to re-introduce yourself to the World... Just spit it right out there.

However, at the start of this, I would have cast a vote for her were she the nominee, now, with her tactics? Sorry won't happen.

And, unlike many, I won't put any particular poster down with insults, I don't go to your house, I think some of these things should be handled OFF the board.

And if Hillary gets in the WH, she'll bring that same scum like Blumenthall and McAuliffe with her. It'll be the Bill Clinton years without the prosperity.
 
Look another important Super, what's going on here?


from ABC's The Note:

"....the Obama campaign rolls out another former DNC chairman's endorsement on Friday: Paul Kirk, a superdelegate who led the party from 1985-1989, is coming out for Obama -- a day after Andrew's switch, an Obama campaign official tells The Note. (And don't count on that being it for the day, as the dribble continues.)"
 
:lmao: :rotfl2:

Here's some good news from Zogby today :)


Zogby Poll: Obama Holds Big Lead Over Clinton in NC; Pair tied in Indiana

UTICA, New York—Five days before the important Democratic presidential primaries in North Carolina and Indiana, Barack Obama of Illinois enjoys a substantial lead in one state and remains tied with Hillary Clinton of New York in the other, a new Zogby daily tracking poll shows.



(5/2/2008)

That is good news. Question is, will two loses next Tuesday be enough to convince her, for the good of the party, to get the hell out of the race? I don't know. However, I would hope that if she doesn't, that the undecided Supers will butch up, do what's best for our chances come November and lower the boom on her presidential run.
 
Look another important Super, what's going on here?


from ABC's The Note:

"....the Obama campaign rolls out another former DNC chairman's endorsement on Friday: Paul Kirk, a superdelegate who led the party from 1985-1989, is coming out for Obama -- a day after Andrew's switch, an Obama campaign official tells The Note. (And don't count on that being it for the day, as the dribble continues.)"

What's happened is they've had it up to here with Hillary and her campaign. The people who know her best are deserting her.

But she is picking up some very interesting support from men who like "powerful women" and women who have "testicular fortitude". Hope the next one doesn't slip and call her "Mistress Hillary". ;)
 
That is good news. Question is, will two loses next Tuesday be enough to convince her, for the good of the party, to get the hell out of the race? I don't know. However, I would hope that if she doesn't, that the undecided Supers will butch up, do what's best for our chances come November and lower the boom on her presidential run.

Nope, she could lose both, I don't expect her to quit... no way....

LuvDuke, we're only 284 delegates shy of the magic number, so lets hope we see a quicker shift of Supers from here on out, combined with the delegates from both Ind. & NC even without a win, we'll be this !! close

This thread is about to be shut by the way (250 pages)
 
That is good news. Question is, will two loses next Tuesday be enough to convince her, for the good of the party, to get the hell out of the race? I don't know. However, I would hope that if she doesn't, that the undecided Supers will butch up, do what's best for our chances come November and lower the boom on her presidential run.


I hope you are right. I would llike to see the Supers come out in a group and back Obama and get this over with.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.










Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE














DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Back
Top