Showing posts with label Smear Campaign. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Smear Campaign. Show all posts

Sunday, May 20, 2012

Anti-Obama SuperPAC Ad is Obama's Fault

Yes, you read that right. Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus is blaming President Obama for the leaked Joe Ricketts race baiting Rev. Wright proposal.

...this president’s got a bigger problem and his problem is no matter what he puts out there, no matter what distractions he puts out there, he can’t change the truth and escape the reality of where we are in this American economy. And it’s no good.
Got that? In the twisted mind of what is probably one of the worst RNC Chairmen in recent memory, Priebus is trying to push the meme that it's the Obama administration that put the story out there. Kinda makes you long for the days of Michael Steele, doesn't it?

Saturday, May 5, 2012

More Like This, Please

I have a feeling this is only the first in what will be a long line of debunking Mitt Romney, Karl Rove, the Koch Brothers and the GOP in general over the next six months.


(Via Upworthy) 

 Here's the debunkification.

Saturday, September 10, 2011

Presidential Campaign Season...

...starts early in New York City.

This billboard is on display on the Manhattan bound side of the 59th Street Bridge.



The picture on the left side of the billboard is of President Obama shaking hands with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas showing proof positive that Obama is anti-Israel. You know... sort of like this:



(Billboard photo sent to me by avid reader, Nowhere Man)

Thursday, November 19, 2009

More Health Care Bogeymen

I have a question: if this health care reform bill is really so horrible that practically every GOP member is against it, then why not debate what you're against and make it better, instead of making shit up to freak out your lunatic base?

Why doesn't House Minority Leader John Boehner judge the bill on the merits of what's actually in the bill instead of using the old, reliable abortion wedge issue and feel the need to make shit up about a "monthly abortion premium" being charged of all enrollees in the government-run health plan?

Unless he's seriously that stupid and doesn't understand what he's reading, if he's actually reading anything in the bill other than page numbers so he can complain about how long it is, how is it that scumbags like Boehner and his ilk feel it is completely legitimate to mislead the people that voted them into office with lies and smears?

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Sound Familiar?



Right wing crazies have been with us long before President Obama or President Clinton. "Betraying the Constitution"? "Befriending our enemies"? "Caught in fantastic lies to the American people"? All accusations hurled at John F. Kennedy, who many now regard as an upper echelon President because of his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, his leadership for civil rights and his initiative to push the citizens of this country to be better and do better.

We have to be doubly vigilant and on our toes to stop this wingnut disease from spreading.

(H/T Stimulist)

Friday, May 29, 2009

Douche Quote of the Day

How can a president nominate such a candidate? And how can a party get behind such a candidate? That's what would be asked if somebody were foolish enough to nominate David Duke or pick somebody even less offensive.

- Rush Limbaugh on Judge Sonia Sotomayor

Less offensive than David Duke? Wouldn't that be practically anyone except...well, Rush Limbaugh?

Judge Sotomayor's "Racist" Comments

Does context mean anything? FUCK, YES! The GOP bandwagon to attack Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor has boiled down to one sentence made in a speech in her 2001 address at the 'Raising the Bar' symposium at the UC Berkeley School of Law.

The quote: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Not only have the right wing operatives taken that quote out of the context in which it was used, they've even parsed it further, usually omitting the ending, "who hasn't lived that life." Pat Buchanan even goes ahead and argues the plight of the white man.

Pat Buchanan: "...she thinks "Latina women," because of their life experience, make better judicial decisions than white men, that discrimination against white men to advance people of color is what America is all about..."

Oh, the white male has had it hard in these United States, haven't they? The affirmative action claim Buchanan makes is based on his interpretation (or lack of) of Sotomayor's ruling in the New Haven firefighter case which, I'm sure if you asked him, he would categorize as being an "activist" ruling not realizing that the basis for the three judge panel's decision was due to past precedent as well as upholding the District Court's decision.

But no matter. She said "white male" in a speech eight years ago and the white males are crying "RACISM!" while their scrotums shrivel up. After all, she's a "brown woman" according to Tom Tancredo. Lordy, we can't have that on the bench.

Keith Olbermann does a great job here in not only putting the quote into context, but debunking the "racist" poo flinging from the actual racist monkeys on the right, while at the same time employing a scorched earth policy taking on Karl Rove, Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, CNN and Tom Tancredo.


In that CNN segment, Tancredo also likened the National Council of La Raza to the "KKK without the hoods and the nooses." What the fuck?

From their website:

The National Council of La Raza (NCLR) – the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States – works to improve opportunities for Hispanic Americans. Through its network of nearly 300 affiliated community-based organizations (CBOs), NCLR reaches millions of Hispanics each year in 41 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. To achieve its mission, NCLR conducts applied research, policy analysis, and advocacy, providing a Latino perspective in five key areas – assets/investments, civil rights/immigration, education, employment and economic status, and health. In addition, it provides capacity-building assistance to its Affiliates who work at the state and local level to advance opportunities for individuals and families.

Founded in 1968, NCLR is a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan, tax-exempt organization headquartered in Washington, DC. NCLR serves all Hispanic subgroups in all regions of the country and has operations in
Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Phoenix, Sacramento, San Antonio, and San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Yeah... sure sounds like a lynch mob to me. Does the KKK have a lobbying firm in Washington, DC? Perhaps the National Rifle Association? I kid, but you get the point. What an insufferable, racist douche, that Tom Tancredo. And you can quote me.

Monday, October 6, 2008

Another Smear E-Mail in a Never-Ending Series: Iraq Safer Than Chicago

Another pathetic attempt to make is seem like all is going well in Iraq, children are singing, birds are chirping, dogs and cats are happily coexisting and that if Barack Obama wins the Presidency, the US will become one major "combat zone" just like Chicago and worse than Iraq - oh yeah, and Obama's from Chicago.

Here's the ridiculously inane e-mail (as received):

The US should immediately pull out of Chicago!

CHANGE CHICAGO NOW!!!

Body count. In the last six months 292 killed (murdered) in Chicago, 221 killed in Iraq .

Sens. Barack Obama & Dick Durbin, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., Gov. Rod Blogojevich, House leader Mike Madigan, Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan (daughter of Mike), Mayor Richard M. Daley (son of Mayor Richard J. Daley).....our leadership in Illinois.....all Democrats.

Thank you for the combat zone in Chicago . Of course they're all blaming each other. Can't blame Republicans, they're aren't any!

State pension fund $44 Billion in debt, worst in country. Cook County ( Chicago ) sales tax 10.25% highest in country. (Look'em up if you want). Chicago school system one of the worst in country.

This is the political culture that Obama comes from in Illinois, and He's gonna 'fix' Washington politics?

Well, well... where to begin?...

As usual, the originators of these types of e-mail don't link it to any pertinent information to verify these numbers. The author doesn't specify what "six months" he's talking about. The number of US military casualties from January through June is 2008. The number for the year to date is 270.

Since I don't want to spend too much time on this, I was not able to find a homicide rate for Chicago for the current year. The total homicide rate for Chicago in 2007 was 442, a 6.2% from from the 2006 total of 471.

So let's just assume that the year to date number of 292 for 2008 is an average and close to correct. Is the author then trying to equate military deaths in Iraq to civilian deaths in Chicago? If we are acting as a police force in Iraq, shouldn't the author equate the military deaths in Iraq to police officer casualties in Chicago? If that were the case, then year to date the number would be US casualties - 270, Chicago Police - 2.

And if you're going to use homicide numbers in Chicago, shouldn't you use the Iraqi civilian casualties? Or do those innocent civilians not count?

The death toll of Iraqi civilians has been very sketchy depending on who's counting. From the Congressional Research Service updated on August 27, 2008:

...For some time, the United Nations attempted to release comprehensive statistics on Iraqi civilian deaths. From August 2005 to March 2007, the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) published a series of quarterly reports on human rights in Iraq that included sections on Iraqi civilian casualties. On April 25, 2007, however, the Iraqi government announced its intention to cease providing civilian casualty figures to the United Nations. Ivana Vuco, a UN human rights officer, stated, “[Iraqi] government officials had made clear during discussions that they believed releasing high casualty numbers would make it more difficult to quell unrest.”

...In an interview with the Boston Globe, Rear Admiral Gregory Smith, the chief U.S. military spokesman, said Iraqi ministry civilian death tolls estimates have risen from a low of 568 in December 2007 and 541 in January 2008 to roughly 721 in February 2008 and 1,082 in March 2008. “There was somewhere on the order of a 25 or 30 percent increase in the number of civilian casualties when you consider March compared to February,” Smith said, although “the numbers are still nowhere near what they had been last summer.” The New York Times reports that the Iraqi Health Ministry lists a total of 865 civilian deaths for July 2008 and 975 deaths for June 2008.

So, 975 Iraqi deaths reported in June as opposed to a claim of 292 deaths in Chicago for an unknown six month span. Kinda blows that e-mail out out of the water, doesn't it? And you'll forgive me if I believe that these "official numbers" aren't exactly accurate. With the reluctance of the Iraqi government to release their casualty numbers, the zealousness of the Bush administration to tamp down the numbers and use the surge as an end-all-be-all for success in Iraq, who knows how many Iraqi civilians have been killed?

Here are some other estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths from the same congressional report:

Iraq Body Count - March 19, 2003 - August 22, 2008: 86,661 - 94,558
Iraq Coalition Casualty Count - April 28, 2005 - August 22, 2008: 43,099
Brookings Iraq Index - May 2003 - August 14, 2008: 113,616
The Associated Press - April 2005 - February 13, 2008: 34,832 dead - 40,174 wounded
The Iraq Family Health Study (the “WHO study”) - March 2003 - June 2006: 151,000
The Lancet, “Mortality after the 2003 Invasion of Iraq” -
March 19, 2003 - July 31, 2006: 426,369 -793,663

And finally, this number from Just Foreign Policy.Org:

The estimate that over a million Iraqis have died received independent confirmation from a prestigious British polling agency in September 2007. Opinion Research Business estimated that 1.2 million Iraqis have been killed violently since the US invasion.

As for the tax rate and the debt, the national debt $10 TRILLION and a yearly budget deficit of over $400 billion, but I'm not going to get into that portion of this stupid ass e-mail because for me, the main issue was the ludicrous idea that Iraq is safer than Chicago.

Maybe the originator of this e-mail should take a walk down a Baghdad street and compare it to a walk down a Chicago street. If given the opportunity, I'd bet my house they would pass on it.

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Obama Smear E-mail Update Part 2

The update at this point is that there is no update. The e-mails I've sent out in trying to reach Gary McDermott, the supposed originator of the "Obama dissed a wheelchair vet" story have garnered no response.

However, I did get this comment from Jim Davlin, a disabled Vietnam veteran who didn't take kindly to the receiving the same e-mail and apparently came across my blog trying to validate the story as well.

UNEDITED: I got the email today and like you I tried in Vain to valid it. And got no joy! Seems you can write anything you want and, people will believe it at least the right wing zealots.I find this truly disturbing because I am a disable Marine in a wheelchair, this makes us look like at best a bunch of winers at worst liars. Good luck on tracking this coward down, if he told half the truth he would stand up and be counted!Just so there is no questions my name is Jim Davlin, I was with Delta Company 1/5 , in 1966, My email is Jimdavlin@charter.net. I stand behind what I say, so if this coward has the stones email me!

Thanks, Jim. I hope you have better luck than I'm having. If you hear anything let me know.

Sunday, July 13, 2008

New Yorker Obama Cover: "The Politics of Fear"

I only came upon this about a minute ago, but I can't decide how I feel about it yet.


I know it's supposed to be satirical, but I think The New Yorker swung and missed.

Notice that the Obamas are in the Oval Office, Bin Laden's portrait hangs on the wall, the American flag is burning in the fireplace and the "terrorist fist jab" is thrown in for a nice touch. I wonder why he didn't include the Obama daughters in burkas?

Artist Barry Blitt has yet to decide if this was a mistake or not, though he defends the cover.


"I think the idea that the Obamas are branded as unpatriotic [let alone as terrorists] in certain sectors is preposterous. It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is."

And in retrospect, given the outcry, is he glad he made the art?

"Retrospect? Outcry?" he wrote. "The magazine just came out ten minutes ago, at least give me a few days to decide whether to regret it or not..."


Yeah, I've decided. It's tasteless. I'm not just saying that because I'm an Obama guy, it's just that it's over the top and since the right wing is trying to portray Obama in this light already, the irony and satire will be lost on those to whom it was meant for.

And as Reef at Kos put it so succinctly, "They got the new McCain Manchurian Candidate cover lined up for next week right?"

UPDATE (7/15/08, 10:20pm): From the Rude Pundit:

"...the Rude Pundit's problem with the whole Barack-as-Muslim and Michelle-as-Black-Panther plus burning flag and bin Laden's picture in the Oval Office isn't that it's particularly offensive. It's that it's just not very funny. It's not even enough to make you go, "Hmmm." You glance at it once and think, "Yeah, some people think that, don't they? That's a shame." And there the whole joke ends. There's no more levels to it. It's like an Upper East Side version of South Park, an elitist attempt at crude humor, like an ironic fart at a wine tasting.

...Here's the thing: anyone who doesn't see the cover art as satire already believed that Obama was a terr'ist out to secretly destroy American and get rid of apple pie and porn. No one's gonna look at the cover and say, "Well, right there, it proves Obama hates this country."


Unfortunately, right after I read that last line, I saw this.

Ex-convict G. Gordon Liddy, who masterminded Watergate break-in of the DNC headquarters in 1972, and who for some reason people take seriously and give him a radio show, said the following to a caller:


"Yeah, I don't suppose you've, by any chance, have seen the cover of the latest issue of The New Yorker magazine, which is, you know, a huge thing. It's got Obama in his Muslim dress with a turban, and he's there with his wife. His wife has a "mad at the world" afro, circa 1968, she -- she's got bandoliers and an assault weapon, and there in their fireplace is burning the American flag. The New Yorker finally got it right."

Go read the rest of the Media Matters article if you're the least bit interested in increasing your blood pressure by seeing what kind of shit comes out of this toady's mouth as well as the mouths of all Republican water carriers on the airwaves.

I've also heard differing opinions on the New Yorker cover from, "It's offensive" to "It's brilliant satire." But is it brilliant if it has to be explained?

Wednesday, July 9, 2008

A Korean Vet Visits My Blog

I received a comment today regarding last week's post, "The Obama Smear E-Mail Campaign Continues." Mr. Bert Kortegaard didn't seem to like the title of my post, found it offensive and biased. Unfortunately, his website (links included by Mr. Kortegaard) don't contain any contact information in order for me to respond.

Here's his comment and my response. I hope he decides to come back to read my response.



Bert said...

The title of this blog site is at least as offensive as any of its posts.Senator Obama doesn't need to be smeared,he's provided quite enough information to discredit him, himself. It's much like saying criticisms of Vietnam Protesters http://www.kmike.com/VietnamProtesters.htm
or Jane Fonda
http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/hanoijan.htm
are smears. The origin of this particular complaint need to be tracked down, but the blog title is too biased, imo.

BertKortegaard

http://www.kmike.com/b606.htm
http://www.kmike.com/wantuck1.htm
http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/
July 9, 2008 2:18:00 PM EDT


My response:



Broadway Carl said...

Mr. Kortegaard,

You say that my post title is offensive, but you don't explain why. You say that Senator Obama has discredited himself, but you don't explain how.

I don't know if you've bothered to look up my previous posts regarding the e-mailed Obama smears that have been circulating for quite some time now, such as "Obama is a Muslim", or "Obama won't say the Pledge of Allegiance" or "Obama swore on the Koran" or "Obama will stand with the Muslims", ad infinitum, but if you had, you'd see that all those previous e-mails smears have been debunked.

When I received the latest of e-mails regarding Obama's alleged "dismissal" of a handicapped Vietnam Veteran and didn't immediately find a reputable source to debunk the e-mail, I decided to try and find out for myself.

As of this writing (July 9th, 2008 8:54pm EST) I have yet to receive a response to the e-mails I've sent to the supposed writer of said accusation; whether he wrote it or not or if the writer's name was used deceptively, whether the incident actually happened, specifically where and when this incident allegedly took place, and other factors to either prove or disprove the validity of the e-mail. My post has stated nothing but the fact that I am searching for the truth - the facts - of this supposed interaction.

I have tried to go about this as objectively as possible, including the e-mails that I sent to those who might be able to help with more information, being polite and respectful in my correspondence. Yet, there are those who may not agree with my political affiliation or Senator Obama (I am assuming you are one of those people) who will take offense to what I consider a very objective post, no matter how I may phrase it.

I come to this conclusion based on your inclusion of web addresses citing Vietnam War protesters and Jane Fonda as part of the reason for America's loss in the war and using that opinion in an attempt to compare what you consider to be facts regarding Obama, his background and his record. One thing has nothing to do with the other. (And on a side note, do you really believe that if there were no Jane Fonda and no war protesters that the end result in Vietnam would have been any different?)

You may be of the opinion that the title of my post is somewhat biased, but I will assume that the e-mail I am researching is a smear based on the fact that there was neither any information nor any reference material attached to the e-mail for verification. My opinion will remain that way until I can find proof otherwise. In my world, frame of mind, thought process or whatever you want to call it, one bases their accusations on facts, and the e-mail I received contained none. It was just a story.

My question to you, if you would be so kind to answer is: On what basis do you make your decision or judgement on Senator Obama? Is it something that you know about him that I don't? Or is it based on something you may have heard or read?

Granted, I'm truly upset that he chose to vote in favor of today's FISA compromise bill, in contradiction to the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Is he therefore discredited, or is he being a politician trying to win an election? After all, Senator Obama did say that he would vote against telecom immunity, but if amendments in opposition to immunity failed, he would vote in favor of the FISA bill. He didn't break his word.

I thank you for visiting my blog and for leaving your comment. I hope to hear from you again.




UPDATE (7/10/08 1:25am): I just realized that Kortegaard is actually offended at the title of my "blog site"! "Broadway Carl's Blog-O-Mania" is offensive! Wow! I never knew. I just scanned his comment over again and assumed he was offended at the "biased" post title, but according to him, the blog site title is "at least as offensive as any of its posts." Well, if you can't get past the title...

Regarding the title, it was always a working title until I found something more catchy, but nothing ever popped up and now it's been more than a year and a half, and some 1,000-odd posts later, so I guess I'm keeping it. But offensive? Let's see, "Broadway Carl"... that's me. I chose the "Broadway" part because I work on Broadway and the "Carl" part because... it's part of my name. "Broadway Carl's Blog" just didn't seem to pop. "Blog-O-Mania" sounded more fun. Maybe it's the "Mania" part. Or the "O".

I suppose it's "at least as offensive" as a terrorist fist jab. I thought it was pretty tame, as opposed to... oh, I don't know... "Hanoi Jane & The Dirty Fuckin' Hippies' Psychedelic Blog-O-Roonee." But I guess I can't tell anymore - I'm too biased.

Brave New Films: Michelle Obama

Robert Greenwald calls out Fox yet again on their attacks and smears of Michelle Obama.



You can sign the petition here.

Monday, July 7, 2008

Obama Smear E-mail Update

I've been away for the holiday weekend and obviously haven't done much blogging, but so far I haven't received a return e-mail in response to the one I sent to Mr. Brown. I did receive an anonymous comment that I hope will develop into something.

"I personally know THIS Gary McDermott. He was stationed with the 146th at Vung Tau, RVN as a crew chief on CH-47 Chinook heavy lift helicopters based out of Vung Tau.

I'll be more than happy to forward your blog address to him and he can answer any questions you may have."
Stay tuned.

UPDATE (11:55pm): Another commenter

"#1CubsFanTX said...

Couldn't the Gary McDermott from this organization be one in the same?
http://www.vaughanpva.org/newsletters%202007/2006-2007%20Annual%20Report.pdf
I'm just tired people forwarding e-mails like this before they investigate if the are even true. Good Luck."

That led me to a site called Vaughan PVA (Paralyzed Veterans of America) listing a Gary McDermott as it Chapter President with an e-mail address "gmac" as the name? Same Gary McDermott? Let's find out. I sent him an e-mail as well requesting more information.

From: Broadway Carl
To: Gary McDermott, Vaughan PVA
Subject: Regarding an E-Mail Using Your Name
July 8th, 2008 12:08am


Dear Mr. McDermott,

I am writing to you in regards to an e-mail I received entitled, “A Disabled Vet Speaks about Obama.”

In it, the writer speaks of having attended a local college to listen to Senator Obama speak, and after having asked a question regarding what the Senator plans to do in regards to veterans care, the writer claims that he was dismissed, was told to give contact information to an aide, and that he never heard from them again.

Unfortunately, there wasn't much pertinent information to verify this story except for the writer's name and unit. It was signed, "Gary McDermott, 147th ASH Hillclimbers, Vung Tau, RVN 68-69."

In a Google search using that information, I came across a comment posted in TampaBay.com
(http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2008/06/sen-geller-supp.html#comment-118486902
) which is an exact copy as the e-mail I received.

A quick Google search of the name and unit above also brought me to the 147th Hillclimbers website and a Gary McDermott is in fact listed as a member. An e-mail I sent to that site has yet to be answered.

If you are the same Gary McDermott, in an effort to verify the validity of this story I was hoping you could help with more specific information as to where and when your interaction with Senator Obama took place. There is so much happening with both campaigns that it’s hard to keep any story straight and completely factual. Both sides will spin to their advantage and I’m just trying to get to the truth.

As a matter of complete disclosure, I am an Obama supporter but I am not affiliated with the Obama campaign or the campaign website in any way. I'm just a concerned citizen who is trying to keep informed and search for the truth. I am also chronicling this exchange on my own personal blog and wanted to let you know that your correspondence to me would be public.

Thank you in advance for any assistance you can offer.

I'm hoping for a response.

Saturday, June 21, 2008

Defending Obama On FISA

I woke up Friday morning to an e-mail in my box from the Obama campaign. It was a two and a half minute video of Barack Obama and his announcement that he was foregoing public funding for the campaign.

"Join me and declare your independence from this broken system, and let's build the first general election campaign that's truly funded by the American people."

So I gladly donated for a second time to Senator Obama's campaign. I spent the rest of the morning writing a rebuttal to an Obama smear e-mail and taking great joy in sending it to every schmoe that ever e-mailed me crap like that and giggled as I imagined their faces as they read. On my way to work, I felt good for the first time in a while, sending some cash to Obama and fighting the lies. I actually felt a spring in my step.

Then I got to work and read this: House Passes New Steny Hoyer/FISA Bill. KAPOW!

It took me a couple of minutes to regain my breath, and just as I was starting to feel better, I read this: Obama on FISA - "It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people."

KABOOOOOM!!!! Kicked in the balls!

Still seeing stars, I decided to take a deep breath, count to ten, and try to sort this all out. Steny Fuckin' Hoyer... that's where the anger needs to be directed. Hoyer and Nancy "impeachment is off the table" Pelosi.

Think about it. It's been barely two weeks since Hillary Clinton suspended her campaign and endorsed Barack Obama. The most recent polls show Obama leading McCain in swing states, rewriting the fucking electoral map by the minute. No scandal du jour to speak of - Rev. Wright is forgotten, and guest preacher Father Michael Pfleger's Hillary rant was the last straw that caused Obama to actually sever ties with Trinity United Church of Christ. Even Michelle Obama co-hosted The View to improve her image and show the world that she's always been proud of her country. A hard stance on the "compromised" FISA bill voted in the House would fan the flames of dying embers.

He's stuck between a rock and a hard place and it's the House Democrats who put him there. The worst part of the whole thing is that it always seems like the Democrats in Congress don't know what the fuck they are doing. Maybe because they really don't. They are so petrified of being perceived as soft on national security that they capitulate to the whims of a lame duck president who made us less safe in the first place; and they don't realize that the capitulation itself is what truly makes them look weak. It makes the Republicans look like they were right all along.

Let's take a step back and realize that through it all, Barack Obama is a politician. And at this point in time, it's not wise to come out in harsher tones than is necessary regarding a crap FISA bill that still has to pass through the Senate.

Unfortunately, before you can say "telecom immunity", the liberal blogosphere goes apeshit and acts as if Barack Obama just ran over their dog. Twice. Atrios calls Obama "Wanker of the Day." Digby is "tempted to say this is a Sistah Soljah moment." It's understandable to a point. But why trash our own Democratic nominee and likely next President of the United States before we've gotten him out of the wrapper?

Here's John Cole's reaction to the liberal freakout entitled "Things I Learned Today":

Obama can not snap his fingers and magically change the minds of hundreds of Democrats elected by people other than Barack Obama, and because of it, he does not deserve the votes of the netroots.

Also, compromise means getting everything you want, not just shifting the debate and working to remove portions of a bill that you find objectionable. Compromise to the netroots is much like George Bush’s definition of compromise. Who would have thunk it.

Additionally, Obama apparently hates the Constitution.

The last thing I learned today is that the ideal candidate goes down with the ship. It does not matter if that candidate was right on the issue all along, did everything he could to win the fight, but that he must go down with the ship. It does not matter if the fight is already over and the battle lost, real candidates try to maximize the loss by inflicting political pain on themselves.

You all make me cranky. Enjoy President McCain, whiners.

And he makes a good point. Is Senator Obama supposed to slit his own throat with a FISA tantrum to satisfy his loyal base, damn the consequences? Don't forget that he also said this in his statement: "It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses."

And is he the only Senator opposed to this bill? Did everyone forget the existence of Russ Feingold? Or Chris Dodd? Filibuster away. My hope is that Harry "Poopy Pants" Reid will get all flustered because nothing else is getting done in the meantime and table the bill. And if they are able to strip the retroactive immunity from the bill, then Mensa Man will veto it anyway and at least the Dems can say they tried, but Georgie doesn't care enough about national security and too much about the corporations that did his evil bidding in the first place.

So chill, people, or I will hide your Firebird keys. Direct your anger at the cowards who voted for the bill.

My other thought (initially, while I was still angry) was that both sides are knee deep in shit (would that be so surprising?) and this is a way for the whole thing to go away. Immunity equals the end of getting the bottom of things and finding out the truth. If there are Democratic hands that are as dirty as Republican ones, then the bill will pass. And that would make me very sad indeed.

And I started the day with a spring in my step.

Friday, June 13, 2008

Obama's Birth Certificate?

Really? Is this what they're grasping for now?

The wingnuts are trying to cast doubt about Barack Obama yet again by asking him to produce a copy his birth certificate? Or actually by claiming that he is refusing to do so. What the fuck is going on here? It's really a bit over the top, isn't it? Or is there no longer a "top"?

As Markos writes:


"...rumors include the claim that Obama was born in Kenya, that his middle name isn't "Hussein", but "Muhammad", and that his real name is "Barry" and not "Barack". The first and third are attempts to reinforce the claims that Obama isn't "American" enough -- the first because he wouldn't have been born in this country, and the third because he would've taken a perfectly good "American" name and rejected it in favor of a foreign one.

Rumor two, about the middle name, is just weird."

Weird indeed. But as long as w're going to go down this path, can we please request that John McCain release his birth certificate now to show that he was born in Panama? I know it was a military base, but why not rile up the wingnuts with a taste of their own medicine?

I'm guessing either A) McCain won't release it because they didn't issue birth certificates in those days or B) the parchment is too faded to read anyway.

By the way, Kos also includes a copy of the birth certificate, which you can also find posted on a new webpage on Obama's website called "Fight The Smears" which lists every smear e-mail, rumor and misquote and debunks all of them. You can also write in to inform them if you've found a new one.

(H/T Bob Cesca)

Monday, March 10, 2008

Quote of the Day

Former senator Bill Bradley, a leading supporter of Obama and who ran for president in 2000, accused the Clintons of "lying" in pursuit of victory.

"The bigger the lie, the better the chance they think they've got. That's been their whole approach," he said. "She's going to lose a whole generation of people who got involved in politics believing it could be something different."

Another Obama E-Mail Smear...

...landed in my mailbox today. It's the "Obama won't put his hand over his heart or recite the Pledge of Allegiance" smear, complete with picture.

Sigh. What a sad state of affairs when the patriotism of someone is questioned by whether or not they wear an American flag lapel pin or put their hand over their heart during the National Anthem.

Here is the quote from Snopes.com:


The text accompanying some versions of the e-mailed photo claimed that Sen. Obama "refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance." The activity taking place during the scene in the photograph involved the playing of the U.S. national anthem, not a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.


(Click on screen capture for further Flag Code from experts.)







And just for fun, here's Dan Abrams schooling Rep. Jack Kingston for the same ridiculous smear. When are these idiots going to realize that patiotism is judged by your actions, not what you wear on your lapel or what magnet you put on your car?

By the way, the title of the e-mail is "A picture is worth a thousand words." Well, a picture may be worth a thousand words, but the truth is priceless.

Saturday, March 8, 2008

Anatomy of A Kitchen Sink

I have lost faith.

For the longest time, as far as I can remember in my "political" life, I have defended the Clintons. When the vast right wing conspiracy went after Bill (and Hillary), using the repugnant Ken Starr, spending millions and millions of taxpayer dollars, looking for any kind of mud to stick, I supported my president to the end. Even when Bill had painted himself into a corner and lied under oath (and who wouldn't) about an affair - a stupid, cheap little affair - I stood by him because I could not believe or understand at the time, that although he violated the "rule of law", these repulsive troglodytes led by Newt Gingrich and the now deceased Henry Hyde would dare to impeach based on lying about something that insignificant. Finding out later that Gingrich himself was having an affair at the same time that he was crucifying the president for the same offense (or lying about it) only poured salt on the wounds, but it was a classic case of IOKIYAR.

I took solace in the fact that I was a Democrat, and we didn't stoop to such disgusting levels. That one day*, the pendulum would swingin the other direction, and that again we would find our way. And now the unthinkable has happened. In a desperate attempt for a long shot bid at the presidency, Hillary Clinton has used the same tactics that were used against her for all these years. Hillary broke out the Karl Rove playbook called "The Kitchen Sink."

We all knew it was coming. Hell, Hillary's campaign told us that was exactly what they were going to do in a last act of desperation. They even called it the "kitchen sink." So I thought I'd take a look to see what came out of the kitchen sink and list them in no particular order.


1 - Clinton compared Obama's foreign policy experience to George W. Bush: “We’ve seen the tragic result of having a president who had neither the experience nor the wisdom to manage our foreign policy and safeguard our national security. We can’t let that happen again.”
Considering that Bush never even visited another country before becoming president, I think that comparison is a little suspect.

2 - Clinton's "tested and ready" mantra was repeated over and over while portraying Obama as naive when it came to meeting foreign leaders if he believed “that mediation and meetings without preconditions will solve some of the world’s most intractable problems." Obama has never said that carefully preparing for meetings wasn't in his plans.

However, this is what he did say: "...I do think it is important precisely because the Bush administration has done so much damage to American foreign relations that the president take a more active role in diplomacy than might have been true 20 or 30 years ago.

Because the problem is, if we think that meeting with the president is a privilege that has to be earned, I think that reinforces the sense that we stand above the rest of the world at this point in time. And I think that it's important for us in undoing the damage that has been done over the last seven years, for the president to be willing to take that extra step."

Makes sense to me. Do we really think we're better than anyone else? If that's the case, then we're in more trouble than I thought.

Put on your hip waders, this is we're it turns ugly.

3 - Matt Drudge posts a photo of Obama in traditional Somali garb attributing it to the Clinton campaign. Whether or not Drudge is to be trusted as to the source, instead of denouncing it was a fear mongering tactic, the Clinton camp shrugs its shoulders.

4 - The Clinton camp accuses Barack Obama of plagiarism when using phrases borrowed from his own Committee chairman and Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, that Patrick told Obama to use. In an interesting twist, Hillary Clinton's now famous "whatever happens, we're going to be fine" quote can be attributed to John Edwards during the December 13th debate, and the "hits I've taken every day..." line can be found almost verbatim in a Bill Clinton speech during his run for the presidency.

5 - Continuing with their fear tactics, the Clinton campaign puts out their "3am" or red phone ad. Vote for Hillary and your children will sleep safe at night. Ironically, the stock footage of the sleeping child was taken 8 years ago and that actress is an Obama supporter.

6 - NAFTA-Gate: Clinton accuses Obama of calling the Canadian Embassy to reassure the ambassador that all the NAFTA talk in their recent debates is just rhetoric. In fact Obama senior economic adviser Austan Goolsbee had been invited by someone at the consulate to visit and discuss trade. "The Canadian Embassy confirmed that he said everything I said on the campaign trail," Obama asserted. Then the kicker: it turns out that it was actualy someone on the Clinton staff had put out feelers to the Canadians and asking them to take the rhetoric with "a grain of salt."

Ah, the ol' political projection and transference.

7 - Clinton's 60 Minutes interview and her non-denial that Obama is a Muslim. "As far as I know" doesn't cut it when you are denying something. At first I took it lightly, but reporters close to the Clinton campaign categorize it as "not an accident."

8 - Clinton national co-chairman Bill Shaheen suggests that Obama was a drug dealer in his youth. From the Telegraph UK:

Obama has been open about youthful drug use (big deal) but no one has suggested he was a dealer. A Hillary spokesperson immediately disowned Shaheen by saying that “these comments were not authorised or condoned by the campaign in any way”. Too late. It came after a second Clinton campaign volunteer was forced to resigned for forwarding an Obama Muslim smear email and means another day of negative press coverage for Hillary.

9 - The"Obama is a Muslim" smear e-mail that has been circulating for over a year has been at least partly attributed to Clinton's former Iowa chairman, Ryan Callanan. Even if it did not originate with him, one little click of the "delete" button instead of the "forward" button and campaign disclosure of the receipt of the e-mail was all it could have taken to distance the Clinton campaign from any doubt.

10 through 13 - Hillary Clinton has questioned and compared not once, not twice but at least four times as of this writing, Obama's experience to lead as commander in chief to her experience and ...John McCain's experience! Does she really want to do the bidding of the Republican smear machine?

Hillary Clinton has crossed into the delusional threshold if she thinks that her eight years as first lady equals experience to be commander in chief. Her constant propping up of McCain to advance her dying campaign undoubtedly proves that she will burn the village down in order to save it... or save herself. If she loses the campaign, she's given McCain ammo against Obama. If for some reason she wins, McCain can attack her with the same twisted logic. He has much more experience than she does.

14 - Howard Wolfson compared Obama to Ken Starr when Obama suggested that Clinton disclose her tax records as he has done. Ken Starr? Really, Hillary? Is that where you want to take this thing? Double-edged swords can be mighty tricky. Do we want to delve into the nastiness that was Ken Starr and all that idiocy? Just release the tax records. What are you hiding? The fact that Bill Clinton's library was partially funded by the Saudis to the tune of $10 million? The fact that money was donated from the United Arab Emirates as well?

All these points combined with the ongoing positioning on superdelegates, claiming victory in Florida and Michigan when there was no contest and constantly moving the goalposts when primary defeat seemd imminent has soured me on Hillary for good. She has shown herself to truly be the establishment candidate despite her claims to the contrary.

I'm sure there's much more to come in the remaining six long weeks until the Pennsylvania primary on Aprill 22nd. Ultimately, if all pans out and there are no shenanigans, my theory is that Obama will win the nomination (do the delegate math) and Hillary's Rovian tactics will have damaged her so much in the process, she will lose the trust of the American people, her base and come 2012, her Senate seat will be up from grabs, hopefully by a better Democrat.

So no more defense of the Clintons for me. As my friend Armadillo Joe said to me the other day, their mistake is thinking that they are the Democratic party instead of realizing that they are just a small part of it.

__________________________
*
I thought that day happened on November 7th, 2006. We'd had enough of W. and his administration's incompetence. Finally, they would get their comeupance. Alas it was not to be, as the Democrats that overtook the majority in Congress (a razor thin majority in the Senate) wound up being the wrong Democrats - they would capitulate and give the lame duck president everything he'd want and more for fear of being conceived as soft on defense, and in the process became soft, period.

Friday, March 7, 2008

Obama E-Mail Smear From Clinton Camp?!

Holy shit! If this is true, it's time for the gloves to come off.

Randi Rhodes today claimed that the Obama Muslim smear e-mail originated with Clinton's Iowa county chair volunteering for the campaign.

From TPM: Ben Smith notes that one of the people on the chain of this email is a Clinton staffer named Ryan Callanan, who received the email on November 21. It's unclear what level Callanan occupies or what exactly this means.

Thursday, March 6, 2008

The Obama E-Mail Smear Campaign

I received this e-mail from a friend who knew it to be false but thought I'd like to take a look at it. He asked the person who sent it to him not to send stuff like this again. Good for him.

This e-mail has been around for at least a year. I remember getting it long ago, maybe before I started this blog and never really wrote about it, until now.

Here is the unedited e-mail I received, misspellings, capitalizations and all.

THIS DEFINITELY WARRANTS LOOKING INTO. THIS COUNTRY WASFOUNDED 'ONE NATION UNDER GOD'. ALMIGHTY GOD, NOT THE GOD OF THE KORAN.

We checked this out on '
snopes.com'. It is factual. Check for yourself.
********************************************************************************
Who is Barack Obama?Probable U. S. presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black MUSLIM from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white ATHEIST from Wichita ,Kansas .

Obama's parents met at the University of Hawaii. When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. His father returned to Kenya. Hismother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia . When Obama was 6 years old, the family relocated to Indonesia. Obama attended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta. He also spent two years in a Catholic school.

Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim. He is quick to point out that, 'He was once a Muslim, but that he also attended Catholic school.'And that he now is a member of Trinity United Church of Christ, "a black is proud based church " that through it's minister is associated with Louis Farakam's Nation Of Islam.

Obama's political handlers are attempting to make it appear that Obama's introduction to Islam came via his father, and that this influence was temporary at best. In reality, the senior Obama returned to Kenya soon after the divorce, and never again had any direct influence over his son's education.

Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama's mother, Ann Dunham,introduced his stepson to Islam. Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta.

Wahabism is the RADICAL teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world. Since it is politically expedient to be a CHRISTIAN when seeking major public office in the United States, Barack Hussein Obama has joined the Trinity United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background. ALSO, keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he DID NOT use the Holy Bible, but instead the Koran (their equivalency to our Bible, but very different beliefs).

Let us all remain alert concerning Obama's expected presidential candidacy.The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the U.S. from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level - through the President of the United States, one of their own!!!!

Please forward to everyone you know. Would you want this man leading our country?...... NOT ME!!!

It's very interesting to me that whoever started this e-mail even linked Snopes.com at the top. So the first thing I did was click on the link and type "obama muslim" in the Snopes search window. Here's what I found: (click on the screen capture for full size)


















How very sad that the idiots trying to perpetuate these smears won't even take the time to click on a link provided to them to disprove the lies in the very e-mail that tries to maintain the smears. But that's what these evil bastards count on: ignorance, laziness, fearmongering, racism and stupidity.

From the Snopes article: (click on the screen capture for full size)





So please, forward THIS post to everyone you know who is too lazy to look it up for themselves the next time you get trash in your inbox.


 
ShareThis