Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Obama and the Dirt
Well, it's all over for me - now that I've voted I can let the rest of the country decide where we're headed. So I have the luxury of looking ahead and wondering how things are going to turn out, asking questions like, if Obama wins, how will he handle the Republican attack machine?
The question has been posed on many blogs already, and Obama's supporters generally answer "brilliantly, expertly, harumph, harumph, harumph." It will be like Mozart writing a new symphony, or Gordon Ramsey devouring a recalcitrant sous chef in a third-rate Brighton eatery.
As with all things Obama-related, count me a bit skeptical of the assurances from the starry-eyed band. After all, many of them have made so much hay out of the Clintons' "hateful attacks" that I'm starting to wonder if any of these people have ever actually seen a negative ad. I realize Obama is running on a youth movement platform, so perhaps it might behoove his supporters to google "Lee Atwater" and find out a thing or two about Republican attack machines.
Obama supporters point out that simply the juxtaposition of Obama and McCain will work in the Dems favor - and it's hard to argue with that. Obama looks and acts like a rock star, and will make McCain look like Otto the unfrozen caveman. But on the other hand, the Republicans aren't stupid - evil, but not stupid - and they'll know this is true. Which means they're likely to work extra hard at smearing Obama, hoping that will more than make up for the disadvantages of running with a two hundred year old candidate.
Don't get me wrong - surely no politician from Chicago can be without some deft political moves of his own, and lord knows Obama's smart enought to know this is coming. But if you think anything the Clintons have thrown his way constitute some sort of preparation for the fall - baby, you ain't seen nothin' yet.
Comments (28)
Insightful. The problem is that no Democrat can, at this stage, talk about how vulnerable Obama is and why. He is, arguably, the most defeatable candidate we could have come up with. We're too polite and PC to say why, and Obama's supporters just don't think that way, so he is going to walk right into it. The attack machine will marginalize everything Obama has accomplished in his political career and life before he ever gets on that stage with McCain. The irony is, if he's authentically who he seems to be, he won't even hate them for it. I guess that will be up to me.
February 15, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't give a rat's ass about PC. Out with what you think the attack on Obama will be.
My guess is you just don't believe America will elect a black man, particularly one they will try to say is muslim or an associate of muslims. Most of us 40 and under think you're wrong. Things have changed.
But all these lines of attack are known already. Have you even considered the lines of attack on Hillary?
February 15, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read further down. Has nothing to do with Black man or Muslims or association with Muslims. Simple fact is the attack machine is smarter than you. Obama probably has is sussed. No purpose is served chewing it over here. Particularly with people who don't give a rat's ass about PC.
February 15, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are some assumptions built into your post that I don't believe are necessarily true.
For one, you believe that there will be a full fledged right wing attack machine implemented on Obama. How do you know? Some points here:
-Who would have a better attack machine than Clinton herself? Given her current position in the race, she's fully incented to pull out all the stops and attack him on all fronts. What she's found, however, is that the electorate is not standing for it. Her attacks have mostly hurt her. I think it's fairly naive to think that Clinton would hold things back out of a sense of decency, and that we should expect McCain to be far more ruthless. It's just not plausible to me.
-The Republicans are in full retreat mode. Judging from the numbers at the polls, the number of voters in the dem primaries absolutely dwarfs the numbers in the rep primaries. There is a huge credibility gap that McCain is going to have to overcome if he decides to go on attack mode against Obama. Plus, no matter what, McCain is not Bush. He's been reluctant to take that route to the promised land in the past.
-until someone shows me a list of skeletons/issues the "dreaded attack machine" will use against Obama, why should I base my vote on the assumption they might exist? We have an enormous list we know that Clinton has and we know the Republicans will use. This whole argument holds absolutely no water until I see Obama's list. If the list is:
-he admitted to using cocaine
-he's black
-he's pro-choice
-he doesn't like the Iraq War
-he's inexperienced
-he hates torture
-he doesn't eat fried squirrel
-he's a muslim
I think I'd take that list over the sheer manuscript that Clinton's going to have to battle.
-No one mentions how Obama has not attacked Clinton AT ALL on her skeletons. She's never battled the "dreaded machine". Her husband did. Her two senate campaigns were a walk in the park. When people bring this up, how can they assume that Clinton would be more successful than Obama at battling this perceived threat? Any honest look would say she is clearly more vulnerable. Republicans will be far more hesitant to attack Obama because they've seen the blowback that results. Not so for Clinton. Republican voters will relish the attacks on Clinton, as they always have. Dem voters are used to it for the Clintons. They may complain, but in the back of their minds, many dem voters know the Clintons have had their hands in a number of exotic cookie jars over the years. From my standpoint, the attack will be stronger and the democratic blowback will be weaker for Clinton than it would be for Obama.
February 15, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's never battled the "dreaded machine".
Sorry but where exaclty where you in the 90's. This is the reason most of us are worried about OBama. This is not only niave but ignorant as well. The Harry and Louis ads, the religious right question her because whe was not "traditional" first lady. Sorry but I lived through it and I remember just how they attacked both of them and as a woman I especially remember the ones directed at her. As a teenager I made a statement to a newspaper that the feminst movement was making an issue out stuff that was over in the past. It was the attacks on Hillary for not conforming to the idea role that made me realize differntly. I seen her as a modern day Rosevelt and they labled her as a "b****" I seen an attack the copied those on Friedman, and Lucy Stone. I watched a debate that made me realize that yes woman before had opened doors for me but there were people willing to slam the door in the face of my daughters. Pat Robertson and James Dobson lead the attacks. I remember them well and to this day I support the Woman's movement because of attacks that you say never happened- Ironic
February 15, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd rather put my eggs in the Obama basket, than the one full of scandalous bricks the Clintons offer. Nothing they dig up on the guy could come close to the 3 decades of crap the Clintons have. Do we really need to waste any more time or tax dollars on the Clintons? Let's get something done for once.
February 15, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
They won't go after Obama with scandal or dirt. They know that crap only sticks in weak minds. They'll go after him with faint praise.
February 15, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me be clear about my post - it's not intended to say that Obama shouldn't be the Dem nominee or is unfit to respond to Republican attacks. My point is, forwarned is forearmed, and he needs to be ready for it.
"How do I know" there will be Republican attacks? The same way I know that a duck quacks, or a baby poops, or Britney Spears is nuts. It's what Republicans do.
As for what it the attacks will be - don't waste your time trying to think of how someone might twist something true about Obama, whatever that might be. If they need to, the Republicans and their allies will just make some shit up - they will throw everything they can just to see if something will stick. And my point is, for Obama's current supporters who seem to think the primary has served as preparation, that it will make anything either Clinton has said or done in this campaign look like a valentine.
February 15, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
thomaspaine, I didn't say Hillary wasn't attacked. I said she didn't battle those attacks. She was not up for election in the 90s, which is what I meant by "battle".
Hillary has never had to face a concerted attack from Republicans in an election. That's a fact. There's a big difference between being attacked as first lady and being attacked as presidential candidate.
I'm not saying she can't handle it. All I'm saying is the Clinton meme that she's "been vetted and we all know she can handle it, but can Barack?" just does not hold up to scrutiny:
-Neither of them have gone through the ringer in an election.
-Hillary seems to have a much larger treasure trove at this point in her closet from which attacks can be generated. Again, I state that if Obama had some major controversial skeletons that could be brought to the table, they would have been brought by the Clintons.
-Obama doesn't inspire the sort of impassioned hatred from hardcore republicans that the Clintons do
-So far, any negative attacks on Obama have resulted in blowback.
At a minimum, they are on equal footing on this point. Her claim that she's at an advantage against the "Republican attack machine" just doesn't hold water.
February 15, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I beg to differ. You try being the politically minded spouse of the president. Do you really think those attacks on Bill were not attacks on Hill? Dream on. She had to fight those attacks for at least 8 years under the guise of 1st lady. Like I said, you try being the spouse of the attacked and tell me you don't feel attacked or work to fight off the attack in some way.
February 16, 2008 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
i think we have some very profound, and largely mythical, beliefs
myth #1: Hilary is battle-scarred.
- the truth is quite the opposite. As noseeum posted, she was not running for office in the 90's when the attack machine was at it's most vitriolic. In fact, she did little to dispel the attacks on either herself or her husband. Instead she went about the work of a very high quality first lady, work that has gone ignored for most of her career. and I am not talking just about health care in this context. (though her losing effort was necessary, as the second effort will likely end successfully)
the clintons are lauded as brilliant strategists but the last time this worked was when carville and stephanopolous were running the show in '92. Since then? downhill, fodder for the right wing to chomp to bits. where were they when our party was derided as ethically bankrupt? where were they when the election was stolen in 2000?
- elections: I am a new yorker, and i don't think you could find a new yorker living who actually thought Hil would lose to Rick Lazio. that election was a joke. her re-election campaign was laughable, with a republican stooge who's name i have forgotten taking one for the team. Nonetheless, though she spent far more then schumer on her re-election campaign (36 million in 2006 to his 22 million in 2004) she won by 7% less then did schumer. strange.
Myth #2 - Obama is vulnerable. The deft responses of the obama camp to the subtle attacks of the clinton team (very much the "faint praise" billy glad referred to) have impressed many, including the folks at the La TImes apparently - http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-axelrod15feb15,0,610634.story
The best part about obama in terms of vulnerability is his transparency. He has already admitted his gravest sin in the eyes of many anachronistic americans - that he is half black!
on a more serious note: he has admitted that he did cocaine (unlike willy's "i didn't inhale" bullshit) He embraces his lack of experience under the euphemistic auspices of Hope and Change. It is an engaging message that is difficult to attack without a unified base that is locked into a negative campaign - something the american people have been reluctant to undergo this campaign.
blah. tired of typing. but there is so much more!
They don't hate him! let me say it again, THEY DON'T HATE HIM!
They hate her and bill, almost as much as we hate the boy-bush.
i would say they hate the couple because of whitewater, but that is silly, americans never paid enough attention to that situation to know any more then the word "whitewater" itself. No they hate the couple because of what bill did with that young lady. it is a terrible hatred, rooted in the oldest of sexual political axioms - that the woman who stands by the cheating man is a weak woman, and the woman who leaves him is a jezebel, bent only on her selfish aims.
this saddens me, as do many of the other hypocrisies that live in the american mind. but there it is.
the thing that frightens me is not hilary as president, that would (to be honest) be fine with me in the long view. no, the thing that frightens me is to have Not-hilary as president, because, unlike Obama, she will lose in november. far more tragically then her losing to Obama in march will be. because it will mean 4/8 more years of foolish republican leadership in this country. and a further degeneration of the democratic party.
Hell, maybe that's the best thing that could happen, maybe that's the only way a third party could emerge in this nation!
February 15, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a tough call for me. I think they do hate her, but I think they have so much to lose in this election that they won't need hate to motivate them. I doubt they hated Kerry at the beginning of the campaign. They have a way of rising to the occasion. If they can win this election, they can put the Supreme Court away for 40 or 50 years. Stay in Iraq. Hang in against their supposed Global Islamic Jihad. Protect their tax cuts and the capital gains tax. Avoid Universal Health Insurance. Keep Israel off of Iran and avoid a disaster in the ME. etc etc and so forth. They are going to have plenty to pull them together, particularly since McCain looks like a one-term President. So what do we do. We give them a fresh face. I don't think it has really sunk in yet that Obama was practically unknown outside Chicago 8 years ago. As I said before, they are going to marginalize everything he has ever done. They aren't going to go after something as simple as a Silver Star and a flip-flop on one vote. They are going to go after his entire life. They don't care if he did drugs. They don't care if he is now or ever has been a Muslim or knows a Muslim. They don't care if he buddied up with a crook. They don't care about the Reverend Wright's ties to the Nation of Islam. The Republicans are going to make him justify his entire existence. Why? Because they can and they want to win. Their goal is going to be to beat him up so bad he can barely climb on to the stage with McCain. Are they good at what they do? Oh, no. Of course not. That's why they were not able to impeach WJC and get most of the people on this blog to believe he deserved it and to hate his wife to boot. That's why they couldn't beat Gore or Kerry, and that's why our Democratically controlled Congress has been able to end the occupation of Iraq and bring our troops home.
February 15, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
So far the closest thing to a scandal anyone's been able to dig up is the Rezko non-scandal...but the constant repetition is how these things work...Look at Whitewater. I pay more attention than most but I could never figure out what it was about--but the taint stuck...
I'm LESS worried about how Obama will handle anything that the right throws at him than I am of the gutlessness and nastiness of the Dems themselves. Republicans always rally around their (flawed) man with a united front, no matter what--out and out lies, cronyism, Alzheimer's, etc...
Dems NEVER do that. They can't WAIT to eat their own.
As far as dirt goes: Obama went up against some pretty nasty players in his Senate race here in IL. The first guy spent tons of his personal fortune trying to dig stuff up and failed. Then we had Alan Keyes who was not much of an opponent but who made up for his lack of appeal with his sheer nastiness--and lots of Republican "movement" money. He's managed to do politics in Illinois without becoming part of the Democratic Machine, with all of its attendant corruption baggage.
I thought the biggest drag on Obama here was the Dems own belief that he was "unelectable" downstate--Code for: HE'S BLACK!--which was the same argument his primary opponents used without QUITE saying it.
Bill Clinton wasn't afraid of race baiting. McCain's chief strategist has said he will step down rather than do that dirty work. But, I can't believe Rove's minions won't start whispering campaigns--not on McCain's behalf, but "for the Party."
And, I'm hearing White suspiciousness at work. Comments like "I;m afraid he'll take care of his own...and not treat everyone fairly" --yes, I've heard variations on this nonsense in radio pieces during the primary.
But, of course there is this kind of suspiciousness--the Republicans AND the Democratic Leadership Council Dems have run every election since 1984 using coded racial references. It was their "strategy" to get back the "Reagan democrats"--a phenomenon rooted almost exclusively in racism. I know...I grew up with the Ethnic White working-class males the DLC focus-grouped in 1985 and has been trying to woo back ever since.
Yes, we're ALL middle class now...
February 15, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is every Obama supporter dismissed as "starry-eyed"? Attacking the speaker is a classic rhetorical fallacy. Focus on what I write rather than on your preconceived notions about what kind of person I am.
Of course we don't know for sure how Obama will stand up against the Republicans. But that's normal in almost all elections. Hillary Clinton is unusual in that she's been on the national stage and a Republican punching bag for a long time.
Clinton has not been as hard on Obama as Republicans will be, but her attacks do provide some evidence. What has impressed me about Obama is that at least so far, nothing has stuck. Some people are like that. They're charming enough or suave enough that scandals which might take down other people slide right off them. Nothing new here, it's the "teflon" effect. Reagan had it. Hillary Clinton does not have it. Republicans go after her because to a large extent, their attacks stick. People believe that she killed Vince Foster, for cryin out loud.
Nothing too heavy has been thrown at Obama yet, so he hasn't truly been tested, but Hillary has tried to attack him, and so far nothing. He continues to surge. Bill Clinton, arguably one the best Dem campaigners in history, went after him and was effectively told to shut up and sit down.
So I have more confidence in someone who has demonstrated some resistance to character attacks than to someone who, though she has survived them so far, draws attacks like raw meat in a shark frenzy.
February 15, 2008 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think you're starry-eyed, and I actually don't recall any character attacks on Obama. The Rezko thing? That was a glass houses comeback. Bill Clinton shut up because he had said what he wanted to say, just as Obama shut up after he said what he wanted to say. Both Clinton and Obama were speaking to their respective bases. They weren't trying to persuade anyone, and neither attacked the other's character. If you're a "Latte Liberal" like I am, Clinton wasn't talking to us. Because I'm over 60 and married to a professional woman, I can hear a little of his message. The demographics are locked in for the Dem primary. The only movement we are going to see is a little screwing around by the crossovers in open primaries. Except for that, it's going to come down to GOV. McCain v. Obama has the potential to be one of the most civil campaigns between candidates in our lifetimes, and very clear cut on issues, personalities, age and experience. The only match-up the Republicans can hope to win is experience. That's where the attacks are going to come. The Republican attack machine is going to make it a lot harder for Obama to win the experience argument than the Clintons have. Think being v. becoming and other antinomies. All of the above tentative and IMHO.
February 15, 2008 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your assumption is that the "experience argument" must be won for Obama to win. That is an assumption only. Not a given.
It may be that "experience" is not what the voters are seeking this time around.
Based on your assumptions, you've ruled out Obama. Based on mine, I've ruled him in.
♪♪♪
February 16, 2008 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi. I really don't know who will win the experience v. judgement or change debate. Only that the Republicans will hammer Obama on whether he can be trusted in a different way than Clinton has. She's much more restrained by what you and I think than the Republicans will be. As others have noticed on this thread, the attack machine will be able to start with a certain amount of baggage that either candidate will bring to the campaign. What they can invent on top of that is the issue. My premise is that a relative unknown gives them a lot more territory to cover. As he has shown, it's not necessarily fatal, but he will once again be going into the campaign, not on an equal footing but needing to prove himself. I'm afraid the Republicans are going to raise the bar of proof much higher than we have.
February 16, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy, many people expect all sorts of lowball attacks from 527s and many others expect the worst from McCain. But I'm with you. A McCain-Obama match-up promises to be one of the of the most civil and issue-oriented elections in recent memory, and of all the candidates, Obama and McCain will do the most to rein in 527s. These guys are among the top election reform proponents in both parties.
It's interesting that you mention the experience issue because I think that's one of the attacks that Clinton has pushed very hard, and it's difficult for me to imagine how much more McCain can say about it than Clinton has. It's a strong attack against Obama, but it runs up against the popular demand for change. If you have a lot of experience in the federal government, it means that you've been in Washington a long time, which makes it hard to argue that you're going to try to create any change that you haven't tried to create already. Also, fairly or not, people equate age and experience with conservatism and youth with change. Clinton tried to have it both ways, but it didn't fly. Finally, Obama's judgment vs. experience argument worked reasonably well, although I think McCain can make a decent case for judgment also.
I'm surprised that you would suggest that Bill shut up because he had said what he wanted to say. First of all, when have you ever known Bill Clinton to have finished saying everything that he wanted to say? Second, he issued an unprecedented apology for having said too much. Third, though he seems to be back now, the Clinton campaign essentially disappeared him for a while. He wasn't even present at the LA debate (or at least he was out of site). By almost all accounts, Bill's attacks on Obama hurt rather than helped Hillary.
PS You've never called us Obama supporters starry-eyed, and I appreciate it. I was responding to the original post.
February 15, 2008 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
noseeum listed these things as possible hit points on Obama that he needs to prepare for (most of them he already has):
-he admitted to using cocaine
-he's black
-he's pro-choice
-he doesn't like the Iraq War
-he's inexperienced
-he hates torture
-he doesn't eat fried squirrel
-he's a muslim
I'd add three things to that list:
-the preacher in his church isn't what most progressives would call progressive
-I've been told there's a part in one of his books where Obama discusses growing up in Hawaii and learning to hate white people (obviously I'm sure he's grown out of that, but we're talking about the Republicans here--same thing with the "Muslim" bullshit)
-There's a rumor on the internets that the Clinton campaign knows something big about Obama's past that they don't feel comfortable using against him, but who knows, it may have already come out? No idea what that could be.
I'd say that the nastiest attack ads will focus on cocaine, hint at the fact that he's black (which will be easy with drugs in the right parts of town), his preacher, and bring up the fact that his father was raised a Muslim.
Those things will passed around on whisper campaigns (already happening, and I'd bet they originate from the far right and not Clinton or other Dems) and maybe even finely crafted attack ads or push polls.
I think he'll have a rough ride but most of those kinds of things will stick most with people who wouldn't vote for him anyway, i.e. Southern whites (I'm from Alabama...there's a lot of resistance to him in certain circles and it's primarily based on this crap). The key is fighting that kind of misinformation with class and tact and truth and hope, all of which Obama has shown he can do.
February 15, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Genghis said:
"A McCain-Obama match-up promises to be one of the of the most civil and issue-oriented elections in recent memory"
I disagree. It's not a hit on the McCain campaign, just the Republican attack machine that won't necessarily be associated with his campaign--i.e. the people push-polling for Huckabee and that guy that push-polled against Hillary. I expect that kind of crap in high volume.
February 15, 2008 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually think the cocaine thing is going to be a non-starter. I think it's generational and, as an issue, teenage substance abuse is about to become the same kind of non-issue as pre-marital sex between consenting, heterosexual adults has become in the past two generations. There will be some whackos who will make it an issue but not many. Who doesn't have at least one family member who has used illicit drugs as a teenager and lived to tell the tale. Now, if it were specifically "crack" cocaine, all those racial buttons would be getting pushed. But "crack" wasn't around when Obama was a teen.
I mean, I'm nearly 49, for God's sake, and ANYONE of my generation who had anything resembling a social life in the 1970s and 1980s was exposed on a regular basis to illicit drugs--even in small, rural towns and upscale suburbs. I know very few people under 60 who can honestly say they didn't get high at least once or(ahem) didn't inhale.....Anyone of my mother's generation had to contend with kmowing their kids were being exposed to drugs--even in upscale, White suburbs.
I just don't see it getting traction.
Obama LIVED with his WHITE grandparents in Hawaii. His book describes some identity confusion and teenage limit testing--not hatred. One or two instances of getting profanely angry at stupid, racist remarks by White teachers...no biggie.
His minister MIGHT be an issue--but mainly because White liberals don't get Black churches at all beyond really, really liking gospel choirs. Sunday morning is the most segregated few hours of the week... Obama's minister and church are actually pretty progressive--very much involved in self-help, community building, social justice,etc--works rather than words. They've done a lot to encourage Black Middle class congregants to stay involved with the poorer neighborhoods they might be tempted to flee... The big brouhaha is that Minister Wright spoke at an award ceremony for Louis Farakhan---- Farakhan spouted anti-semitism and "white devil" messages among Nation of Islam folks for decades, but he had a "revelation" several years ago after a bout of cancer and has changed his tune and apologized for past hatefulness.
NOI strikes fear into the hearts of White people --its a "twofer"--Fear of inner-city Blacks and Fear of Muslims. There is a total lack of knowledge that there are neighborhoods all over Chicago, New York, Detroit, L.A. where the discipline and self-help doctrine of NOI members has been the ONLY hedge against utter chaos for decades. Like it or not, in neighborhoods the rest of the nation has left to rot, NOI members are the school teachers, nurses, youth-group leaders, community organizers, prisoner re-entry support programmers and substance abuse counselors. Lots of conversion goes on in prison--just like Chuck Colson's prison ministry!
But, along with having "Hussein" as a middle name, a father, stepfather and siblings who are Muslim, having a minister who publicly embraced Minister Farakhan will definitely be used against him in whisper campaigns.
The other main issue for progressives --like every Black church--(and a lot of White Churches) I've ever heard of--Gay Marriage is off the table at Trinity United CoC.
February 16, 2008 1:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post, and I agree that the dem primary has been pretty tame. I would like to relate a couple of thoughts that I had when reading your post, the sometimes hyperbolic comments, and trying to decide who to support.
How can Clinton be both a vicious attack machine in one moment and a stumbling group of fools the next? Can you be both or is it just the same old frame the republicans made at the 92 convention that they continue to polish and hone, as well as rent out to democrats?
Reagan won over Carter largely due to the age difference even though it was less than Obama/McCain it was large. The "I won´t hold your experience against you" line was very powerfully delivered by Reagen, and not too successfully answered by the articulate Carter.
The narrative being floated that Obama has not gone negative is just not credible (and not really important - this is politics). He has continually attacked her character (dishonest calculating, no real experience, etc.) and has used his supporters to continue the attacks. She has done the same (inexperienced, naive, dreamer) but her supporters are not saying otherwise.
The idea that McCain will not get dirty does not seem logical when you look at all his other campaigns. Look at the current contest - each of the GOP contenders have been on the receiving end of some pretty twisted quotes and personal attacks from McCain. And if Huckabee continues to irritate McCain I think we all know that he will get the treatment.
Lastly, I really think that a good deal of the attacks on Clinton are hysterical and in many was misogynistic. Why is that ok for anyone in the democratic party?
February 16, 2008 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Terry in Chicago posted:
"Farakhan spouted anti-semitism and "white devil" messages among Nation of Islam folks for decades, but he had a "revelation" several years ago after a bout of cancer and has changed his tune and apologized for past hatefulness."
This is a naive and blind statement. Do you really think Farrakhan has changed his tune because he is sick? I suggest you and every one else go back to the Nation of Islam web site (www.noi.org)and read their statements of belief. While you're at the site, please take time to read the "The Final Call" and Farrakhan speeches. Men, like Farrakhan, who hate entire races of people, do not change their heart. They may change their appearance to appeal more to the mainstream. He's just like the KKK. They don't have to wear hoods any more. Klan members are encouraged to blend in with society more.
Terry also posted:
"NOI strikes fear into the hearts of White people --its a "twofer"--Fear of inner-city Blacks and Fear of Muslims."
I have never known a White person that feared the Nation of Islam. Just like I've never met a Black person who feared the KKK. Now I've known members of both races who were not comfortable going into certain inner-city areas. This was not decision based on fear, but one based on intelligence. Why would any one want to go into some high crime or gang infested area if they do not have to.
Please stop calling the members of the Nation of Islam Muslims. Their beliefs do not entirely match the beliefs of the real Muslim world. If you go their site and read the background of their religious beliefs, it would be obvious that they are Black separatist group.
I'm glad I'm an independent voter because I'm not beholden to any party. However, I will say that in all my years, I have never seen such blindness about a candidate like Obama.
Obama and his staff have run a great campaign with a lot of energy. They have injected themes of race and class warfare in the appropriate places. Combine their effort with Clinton running one of the worst campaigns in recent history and he deserves to be in the position he is in.
I do not think that the Republicans are be on the passive side if Obama is the Democratic nominee. Obama will be forced to address issues from his Chicago days that have nipped at him in this campaign thus far. He has been allowed by Clinton and the national media to handle these neatly with a press release. It should be obvious to every one that many people, in particular, the mainstream media are afraid to question Obama on any thing out of fear of being labled a racist.
As a Black man, I will tell you this - it is not racist to question some one about an issue. He's running for President of the U.S., not the local PTA. I would like to consider voting for Obama, but he has to address my concerns:
1) Please explain your relationship with your spiritual advisor, Mr. Wright? I don't have a problem with you being a member of Trinity United Church of Christ (www.tucc.org). That is your right to be a member of that church.
My problem is that you should be held to the same standard as every other candidate in presidential elections. What does that mean? That means, if you were a White candidate, you would have had to disassociate yourself with that church.
There is no way in hell and it cannot be argued otherwise, that a White candidate who attended a church that was "unashamedly White" with a non-negotiable commitment to Europe" would be allowed to remain in the race for the nomination. The media woud have been on this story all day, every week.
2) I understand that your church's magazine issued a Lifetime Achievement Award to Louis Farrakhan. It is your church's right to give that award to any body they want to. I find it disgusting to award a man for his hate mongering just because he rehabbed some people in jails and organized a big march.
My problem is this - there is no way that Obama did not know Farrakhan was getting that award. There is no way his minister was going to hurt his campaign. Don't be naive and think Obama didn't tell the minister he could handle the heat if the issuance of the award made its way to the public air waves.
I don't want to hear about degrees of seperation and all that nonsense. The bottom line is this - there is a double standard being played out in this campaign thus far. One for the White candidates and one set for the minority candidate. These are the new "Obama Rules".
By staying a member of Trinity, Obama has basically approved of the award going to Farrakhan. I don't care what his press release said regarding his disdain for Farrakhan's anti-semitic rants. I will not believe Obama until he gets on national TV and denounces Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam for their beliefs. We would expect a White candidate to denounce the KKK, Obama should be held to the same standard.
This will never happen because Obama knows that there are a lot of Blacks who "buy the B.S." that Farrakhan sells and he does not want to upset his largest voting bloc and be called a "sell out" or "Uncle Tom". That's reserved for us Blacks that don't believe what ever the Jacksons, Sharptons, etc. tell us to think.
3) I would like Obama to explain how he got elected as a State Senator in Illinois, representing the Hyde Park neighborhood without the endorsement of Farrakhan. That is Nation of Islam territory and every one knows that you don't get that seat without being in bed with the Nation of Islam.
4) I also want him to address the fact that he has Nation of Islam members on his Senate and campaign staff. Once again, this is Obama's right, but it is not worthy of a Presidential candidate who wants to represent all races. Don't forget - David Duke said the same thing when he ran for office.
Lastly, Obama supporters, I appreciate and respect your energy and enthusiasm for your candidate. I only urge you to read every thing you can about Obama and all of the candidates. Then make your decision. Don't just look at their web site and listen to their speech. Read the information from the media (left, right, moderate, etc.). The truth is always in the middle some where.
For example, stop saying Obama is about change. I know you realize every candidate says they are about change. If Obama is so much about change, his campaign and Senate staff and advisors would be fresh faces, instead of the same old Washington insiders from the anti-Clinton wing of the Democratic Party.
Sorry for the long post, but I hate to see misleading information about the Nation of Islam posted. They do some good things in some tough neighborhoods, but they are still a hate group.
As I said before, if Obama would address my aforementioned concerns, than I would consider voting for him. However, I do not think that's going to happen.
It takes real courage to start a revolution and enact real change. - unfilteredopinion.com
February 16, 2008 3:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
His supposed "awakening" aside, Farrakahn IS offensive. He'll never recompense the 40 years of poison he spread. I've heard his people spout all manner of hatefulness--including Amiri Baraka's disgusting poem after 9/11 that made the claim about Jews being behind the attacks, citing the "proof" that Jews who worked at the WTC stayed home that day.
OTOH, I worked in Detroit during the height of the Crack epidemic and I came to appreciate some of what NOI people did. I worked in hospitals with a few NOI women in the 1980s. I had good experiences despite my being White. I admit, the guys selling the Final Call out in front of the building where I worked used to shield the cover from me as I drove by...but I felt safer with them out there than I did when they were NOT out there...I knew the NOI guys were not going to mug me or shoot me or beat me to a pulp in the very sad and scary neighborhood where I worked. This was a city where the trauma unit had enough practice stitching up teenage boys that they showed the US Military how to successfully treat gunshot wounds to the chest and head. I worked with nice church ladies whose kids got shot and killed just for being in the wrong car...NOI people did not seem so bad.
Hyde Park is NOT NOI territory--it's University of Chicago--40% African American--43% White, 11% Asian. That little patch of land has produced more Nobel Laureates than any other spot on earth.
Yes, Mosque Maryam is in Obama's old senate district and Farrakhan lives in Kenwood--where the Obamas recently moved along with an increasing stream of well-heeled White and Black professionals looking to live near the University and its Hospital. I doubt there are many rank and file NOI members in Kenwood's more gentrified corners. Jerry "Iceman" Butler -former member of the Impressions and current Cook County Commissioner lives in Obama's old district. So do Jesse Jackson and US Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr.
Rainbow Push in Obama's old district...and the University of Chicago...and the South Shore Country Club and Cultural Center and the Bronzeville Historic District and the Illinois Institute of Technology...and Pilgrim Baptist Church, where Gospel music was born and Mahalia Jackson and Sam Cooke sang...(the sanctuary burned a couple of years ago) and lots of very poor people...Robert Taylor Homes used to stand in that district...and Stateway Gardens--some of the scariest, most hopeless places in Chicago...(which have now been razed and God knows where those people ended up.)
It's a CITY for heaven's sake. ALL kinds of people are crammed into a senate district.
And, if you have NOI constituents in your district you kind of need to treat them AS constituents...As long as they keep their hateful thoughts to themselves, it's hard to make the argument that you shouldn't treat them as constituents.... Hateful thoughts are not illegal.
Do NOI people even VOTE? They're so convinced the Government is the work of Satan, I'm not sure Electoral politics are part of the NOI program.
I'm also not at all convinced that NOI hatefulness is any more hateful than what we've heard spouting from people like Pat Buchanan, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, et. al for the past 30 years--and THOSE haters were given prominent seats at the Republican table from which to spew their venom--not just behind the scenes campaign grunt work.
February 16, 2008 5:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCain has a long political record. Experience versus judgement will be the issue. I'm will to bet that Obama wins.
February 16, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfiltered Opinion,
We Irish are the most revolting people on earth.
If you refuse to vote for the Obamas because they are revolting like all us Irish, that is your privilege.
But to say there will be no hope of change is ludicrous.
Consider for a moment your claim to be black. What is a black supposed to be?
"I can see you are a racist," the man in Chicago told my son, "because I see the color of your skin."
"Is my Nigerian wife then a racist too?" asked my son.
"The worst kind," said the man in Chicago. "She is an African and not like us."
Would it not be best to judge people by their words and deeds rather than the color of their skin?
That was the dream of one great man and the hope of another.
It is mine as well.
What about you, friend?
Best, Terry
February 16, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
My hope is some day we'll all be tea-colored.
February 16, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
My prediction is that some desperate GOP operatives will try their best and fail miserably. The nominee will be Obama, and he will win in a landslide against Grandpa McCain, who is way more vulnerable.
McCain has his supposed sterling character, which he tossed out whole, discarding opposition to badly run wars and torture, idiotic financing, and shamelessly inadequate veteran's care. He has already lost.
February 16, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment