« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Busting Popular Obama Myths
In an attempt to set the record straight as we tip-toe into the general election and the primary season winds to a close, I want to begin a series of blog posts related to the general election match-up between Barack Obama and John McCain. I hope to bust myths about each candidate's record and positions as well as discuss the presidency as an institution.
This first post is compilation of the most outrageous Obama myths at the various blogging sites I frequent. Most are laughable. Some are sincere. All are easily rebutted with a couple links and an application of common sense.
I also hope to open up a running dialogue with Hillary supporters and undecided voters who are taking another look at Barack and have legitimate questions or concerns. I had many myself, but through exhaustive research, those questions have been answered, my enthusiasm turned into dedication.
The former gets my vote, the latter my money and time.
Barack Obama is BY FAR the best choice to be our president at this particular moment in history based on our enormous challenges and societal trends. We have one shot at turning this ship of state around, one chance to avoid the sholas of empire. The situation is indeed that desperate. Barack Obama would be our first necessary step, as a nation, to walking the Red Road. Even then, it will be a toss-up as to whether or not he can get enough of us involved to create a Tipping Point for change and pull ourselves out of this tailspin.
Anyway, on to the Obama MythBusting, in no certain order. (Thanks MythBusters!)
Barack hates Gays!
How does Donnie McClurkin have anything to do with Barack? Guilt by association is a stupid way to pick a president, but perhaps we can start by trying to understand the man behind the offensive comments. Perhaps McClurkin feels being gay for him was a "curse" and a choice that God helped him work through. Maybe he is full of shit, still sleeps with men and is a huge fraud. Who cares? It has nothing to do with Barack, who clearly doesn't agree with any of McClurkin's more outrageous comments and has a strong record of speaking up for and protecting gay rights. This guilt by association shit isn't working this year. The Obama faith event had all kinds of people, including a gay reverend who opened the it.
Barack called Hillary a racist for what she said about MLK!
Barack never asserted that Hillary was a racist for her MLK comments. In fact, he went out of his way to say she wasn't a racist. He said her comments showed a difference in leadership styles. He places greater value on the bottom-up revolution led my MLK that forced LBJ to champion civil rights. Hillary believes that the most transformational aspect of the civil rights fight was LBJ getting behind the effort and championing the legislation. She says words don't get things done. She is entitled to that opinion, though it is hubris of the highest order and clearly dismissive of the historical realities of how change happens in this country - without the civil right movement, LBJ never passes civil rights legislation and this country remains divided along racial lines.
Barack is in thrall to Reverend Wright - an evil, America-hating black separatist!
More guilt by association that is free from context or common sense. Anyone with half a brain should be able to take a man's entire 30-year career and dismiss any crazy shit they may say during that time. If the bulk of a man's life is dedicated to good works, can't we dismiss with throwing stones. I bet none of us is completely without sin. Personally, I think a lot of crazy stuff about the American government and the largely immoral men and women we have allowed to run it at all levels. That's not to say we haven't done good as well, but much of the history of our nation is a tale of blood and domination by small groups of men in power. It's only been recently that the ladies have gotten in on it.
Barack isn't experienced enough to be Commander in Chief!
The whole Commander in Chief meme is a load of crap. There is not a single person in the history of the presidency who was less prepared for the position (based on his resume) than Abraham Lincoln. He did OK. None of Barack's many supporters think for a second that he isn't more than qualified based on temperament, experience, intelligence and educational background. There is a reason why the qualifications for president are: Natural-Born Citizen and 35-years-old. That's it. Period. There are no other qualifications because the Founders never anticipated career politicians at the federal level. They assumed that legislators would come to Congress and then return to other jobs once the session was over. They also anticipated that, like themselves, the background of future presidents may include a lawyer or a teacher, a doctor or a businessman. They didn't assume that every president would be a lawyer or a former politician of some stripe. A great number of Americans think Barack's combination of on-the-ground community organizing combined with a career in civil rights law matched with deep intellect and experience crafting bi-partisan legislation makes for a great presidential resume. We just suffered through the most "experienced" presidency in a generation and look where it got us. I'll take local experience, judgement, intelligence and candor over Washington-insider experience any day of the week.
Barack is really a Muslim!
Really? I am going out on a limb and guess that no thinking American actually believes this. I also stipulate that someone who does believe it is beyond reach. Moving on.
Barack was in bed with a Chicago mobster!
Again, guilt by association, but a story that has been more than debunked. First, Rezko is, as worst, a shady businessman. I will stipulate that there appears to be evidence that he was less than honest in his business dealings. First, this has nothing to do with Barack. He knows the man as a political acquaintance who supported his candidacy and once worked as a junior associate on a an account that involved a church's non-profit association that the man had invested in. The courts and the press have both investigated any connection to Barack or hints of favoritism based on that passing relationship, both as a young attorney and later as a candidate. Here is a great interview with the Chicago Tribune that should clear up any lingering doubts for any but the most cynical and partisan. (PS: Anyone who still believes he got some sweet deal on his house should read this, from the more conservative Chicago paper.)
I am sure there are a million more, but you get the idea. If anyone has any specific questions, please feel free to ask. Any that seem sincere and open-minded will get an honest and respectful response.
---
Cross-posted at My Red Road.
Comments (99)
More popular Obama myths busted:
Barack Obama wears boxers.
False. He's a total briefs man.
Barack Obama was passed over for the role of Rog on What's Happening?
False. Obama never even tried out for the role, but he would have made an awesome Rog if he had.
Barack Obama used to be a professional wrestler.
False. I'm not sure where this came from, but I think people are confusing Obama with an amalgamation of Jesse Ventura and Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson. Obama has never been a professional wrestler, though he did dabble with amateur wrestling in early high school.
Barack Obama suffered, died and was buried; on the third day, he rose again.
False--from sunset on Friday until Sunday morning is more like 36 hours.
May 16, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some have him arising on the Monday I believe.
May 16, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The white gay reverend was added to calm complaints about Donnie McClurkin, and mostly he just stood around without speaking.
Hillary didn't say LBJ was "the most transformational"- she just said it needed a President to sign it into law.
Obama has told false stories about how he knows Ayers, how he knows Rezko, and when he heard statements from Wright. Three documented cases of Obama lying. Why? Skip the other details - why did Obama feel compelled to lie 3 times?
May 16, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You didn't really comment to the links, but rather tried to continue myths. The Ayers reference only supports my thesis. Thanks for playing.
May 16, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not a myth that Obama knew Ayers better than he admitted to at first. Why so coy?
May 16, 2008 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Santa Clause hangs out with elves...
WHO CARES!
The Ayers story is just more crap from the contrarians and trolls, it lost any traction long ago.
You're beating a dead horse here, Dessie
But I guess once your horse is dead, it's all you have to beat on.
May 17, 2008 1:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, and the "Obama is a Muslim" was dealt with a year ago, right? So how come it won't die?
If your candidate would respond more straight forward, perhaps it would be better damage control.
May 17, 2008 2:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
C'mon, how should he further respond to it? The only ones still circulating the "crypto-Muslim" line are willfully ignorant. It won't die because Rush-brand Republicans refuse to listen to anything outside of their standard sources, and those filling their sources with content don't give a damn if they lie to smear someone.
Democrats who believe it really have no excuse and beyond that, might do well to seek out another party if they'd take being Muslim as a bad thing (if in fact he were).
There are much better issues to try and make your point with here, Desidero.
May 17, 2008 4:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
"My father left me at 1 year old, and I was raised by my mother who was more of a world religion adherent and then by my grandmother, who was a very traditional Christian. While people talk about my Moslem stepfather, he was more interested in golf and becoming more American than he was in religion. If he were a strict Moslem, how would my sister have become a Buddhist? My own journey parallels many others in being born again in Christ - in this case my Christianity helped me find what I had lost with a fractured family life and the confusions I felt growing up black in a largely white culture and how I fit into America."
The problem is that when Obama tells his story, he wants it to be exotic. His story is quite mundane and boring, which would stifle many of the rumors but lose the epic tale he keeps trying to spin. My guess is he didn't care that much about Rev. Wright's speeches to begin with, but he'd built this community up to be his transformational experience. A whole lot of people simply go to church to meet people of a certain moral threshold, a certain pre-vetted social and business community, and while there are sermons they're not that completely important even if they can be thought provoking. I'd guess Hillary is much more of a traditional Christian in the kinda boring, goody two shoes sense.
May 17, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's Christian background boring? Well, hardly! Check out this little article about her 20-some year involvement with The Fellowship/The Family (goes by both names).
Thumbnail sketch for those disinclined to click: Super-secret. Neocon. Transform government to conform to neocon Christian doctrine. Sex-segregated gatherings. Meet in (their term) "cells." Others who belong: Rick Santorum, Sam Brownback, John Ashcroft, George "Macacca" Allen, et al. Guilt by association can be a very sharp two-edged sword.
May 17, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is a member of the Senate, where most of these people work, as does Obama. Her job is to make the best of a difficult situation there, as is Obama's. Even the prayer groups are a replacement for cocktail hour that used to keep the Senate working together. It's Obama's inability to explain his associations in a natural uncomplicated uncontradicted way that damages him.
May 17, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is quite telling that you use the white supremacist spelling of Muslim.
It is also telling that you would excuse Clinton's membership in an organization that calls itself "the Family" (always a tell-tale sign of crazy) but not Obama knowing somebody from work and the charity version of a PTO.
May 17, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're such a genius, you saw through me, and now I can reveal that I'm joined by fellow White Supremacists as Jimmy Carter, the New York Times, The Times of London, and other covert organizations.
You can educate yourself better on the matter here and note that even in this thread I use the spellings interchangeably, if you don't want to be a greater git, but I imagine that's one of the few joys you derive from life.
Regarding Hillary and The Family, if she denied knowing them, I'd be questioning her as well. How come Obama keeps shifting his explanations? It's not a good strategy. Someone was telling me about his brother who was a new driver and went down street the wrong way, saw a cop, and so turned off his lights. Of course the cop went through his stuff and gave him a breathalyzer. When asked why he turned of the lights, the kid answered, "I didn't think you'd notice me".
May 17, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
For what it's worth, I agree with you there (although I wouldn't call a portion of childhood spent in Indonesia mundane). It just simply has no bearing on whether or not he's a muslim or should be perceived as one.
May 17, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
What Jep said. Again, it doesn't matter who he is friends with. It doesn't matter how personal or casual that relationship is. This things only care to people who would NEVER vote for Barack anyway. Why do you waste your breath on threads like this?
May 17, 2008 7:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know this is a waste of effort, but...
Er, what is more direct than "I am not a Muslim"? Is there some form of blood test? Is there a genetic screening that can be done? The size of the cranium?
And that Christian pastor—Wright—that all of you attempt to suggest mind-controls Obama? Is that where Obama learned his deep background Islamist traditions? Or the other 8,000 who attend that church? The church with the sizable number of whites in attendance? The Christian pastor to whom the Clintons turned during the impeachment, that they invited into the White House?
My late father was a neocon Republican. My mother is, my brother is, and both my sisters are.
Am I, therefore, a Republican?
Thomas Jefferson was a misogynist slaveholder. Did he not write the words upon which our declaration of free principles arise from?
Just exactly how hard does that piece of illogic need to be pounded before it begins to sink in?
So, as a favor, I'll leave a from-the-dictionary (American Heritage, ironically enough) for you.
Bigotry: Stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
May 17, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's father is Moslem, and comes from a Moslem lineage in Kenya. Whether specifically of Arab blood, I dont know, but Obama has tried to gloss things over as if his Kenyan roots are Christian, that the names are Swahili and sof forth. You can go through the different names from his African family members, especially at his grandfather's level, and they're almost all from the Koran.
The main proof is that Obama's father left when he was 1 and his mother had a world hippie religion, being an anthropologist and a 3rd world aid worker, while grannie was a Kansas Christian. But Obama marginalizes them in a number of ways, so it's hard for him to draw on this as his proof.
May 17, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you prove a negative in what way, exactly?
I'll just stick with a repeat from American Heritage again, then say buh-bye, since the citation obviously applies here:
Bigotry -noun-: Stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own—especially since it is your opinion (as there is no real factual basis on which to claim it is so) that he is a Muslim and, further, that this is somehow bad even if true. Evidently those "hippies" in Minnesota didn't feel it was such a big deal when electing Democrat Keith Ellison (that hippie idea that this is a land of religious tolerance and all that fundamental stuff you obviously feel is appropriate to do away with...).
May 17, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you're saying he is a Muslim and proud of it? Then he should come out and say so.
But I'd hazard that a Muslim will not be President in my lifetime, and I'd say the woman or black threshold is quite enough for one election - I'd rather the Democrats pushed for a winnable equation, including Obama explaining himself better so we don't go into the generals crippled.
May 17, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought there was no religious test for president? Would it matter if he was a Buddhist? B'hai? Shinto? Personally, I'd prefer that religion have no discussion in all of this.
May 17, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero, Jews who are the children of Jews are considered to be permanently Jewish, both by the Jewish movements (except Orthodox, which believes that if you had a non-Jewish mother but a Jewish father you're not actually Jewish..but I digress.
I know of no other religion that is viewed as conveying a permanent status based on birth. Yes, someone who converts from Islam to another religion is considered according to their orthodoxy to be an apostate, and there's been some discussion about how Obama would be seen by Muslims.
But if he were born to Catholics and became an Episcopalian (a sect I don't understand but I like the word) or a Methodist, it wouldn't be an issue. So the issue for white America is based on American racial and religious bigotry against Muslims of all stripes.
You're right, for a small segment of the voting public, the stigma of Islam is permanently branded on Obama's forehead. But I think it's fair to lump these folks in with the rednecks who are so afraid of black men that they'd rather vote for a woman, the single-issue abortion voters, etc.
May 17, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you brought up a good point.
The Obama is a closet-Muslim myth is perpetuated by those who have despicable reasons for voting for against a n African-American man.
It's merely (in their minds) a less offensive reason to refuse to consider him. Less potential for well earned criticism by greater society.
A form of rationalization.
May 17, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Americans have good reasons to be concerned about Muslim extremists combined with some horrible ones. Dismissing legitimate concerns just because they don't line up with your PC universe is one good step on the way to defeat in November.
May 17, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Point taken.
I was just thinking it's also a handy excuse.
May 17, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
After reviewing the extensive list of myths in this thread, I'd say we're more than one step off the ledge, baby.
May 17, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kiswahili vocabulary is drawn, in large part, from Arabic. The Swahili are a coastal people whose language and culture reflects the fact that they were traders who interacted a lot with Arabic traders working all along the east and north coasts of Africa. So, many Swahili names have Arabic origins, and can indeed be found in the Koran. This is evidence for absolutely no association with Islam. I'm not saying that it would be a problem if Obama's father whom he never knew had been an imam, because it wouldn't. I'm just saying that it would be awfully hard for anyone to tell the kind of straight story you keep asking for if the listener's ignorance of the facts makes them interpret the truth as lies or evasions.
I suppose Obama could have gotten into a detailed history of Eastern Africa and its cultural heritage to explain his family's suspicious names. Because it's so important in this election.
May 18, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ayers is a Professor at the University of Illinois, not some marginal character making bombs in his basement. When he was a practicing radical Obama was in elementary school. Nothin there.
May 17, 2008 4:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero,
You are sneaking among the reeds when you allow the hoi poloi
to confuse mythos with mere "lie." I forgive you though. Even a saint must eat.
levi
May 17, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
May 17, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
What really matters now is how superdelegates break once the primaries are over.
Here's a great site for everyone to go to that facilitates an easy way to contact these SD's.
http://www.lobbydelegates.com
May 16, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm, setting fire to a bunch of straw men is one fun way to spend a Friday afternoon, esp when it's raining.
How about a few other "myths":
* Barack Obama wants to change American foreign policy toward Cuba. False, Obama supports current Bush policy. (Obama will only talk to Cuba after "free and fair elections have restored democracy.")
* Barack Obama wants to change American foreign policy toward Palestine. False, Obama backs Israel against the Palestinians.
* Barack Obama wants to change American foreign policy toward Iran. False, Obama supports current Bush policy toward Iran. (Obama will only talk to Iran after the country meets all the requirements laid out by Bush.)
* Barack Obama supports universal healthcare. False, Obama has offered a plan that will leave 20 million Americans uninsured.
* Barack Obama wants to return military operations to the military command. False, Obama supports the use of private military contractors like Blackwater.
Hey, this is fun, we should do it more often.
Thanks.
mp
May 16, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
you have any citations for those? I've seen the 20M one before, what about the others?
May 16, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
And even the person who cam up with the figure calls it a worst case scenario.
May 16, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, thank you.
May 17, 2008 5:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
(Note: I would put citations in here to refute each of thee fact-less claims, but the system won't allow that many hyperlinks. Every claim below is easily refuted with a ten second Google search.)
* Barack will change the foreign policy of the US toward Cuba, including normalized relations.
* Barack supports a two state solution.
* Barack will speak directly to Iran and will not base any of his presidential decision on anything Bush laid out. This is just a stupid comment. Sorry.
* Barack has a health care plan that can actually get passed in Congress and puts us on the road to single payer. Anything else, such as mandates, is a non-starter with moderate republicans and independents.
* Barack will return military operations to the military command, like it was in 1990s. He knows that it will require contractors in the interim, but has laid out plans to hold them more accountable.
Did you just pull each of these out of your anus or do actually believe these myths with no proof? I wonder who you are trying to convince with these obvious lies and fabrications?
May 17, 2008 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
He most definitely wants to change Cuba policy. He wants to allow travel for families from the US, and to let them send money to relatives on the island. Current policy allows neither.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1655373,00.html
Here in South Florida, the older Cubans have backed the current administration policy, and such policy is what has kept certain South Florida Congressmen in office (most notably the Diaz-Balart brothers and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen). However, younger Cubans don't feel the way their grandparents and parents do. They support a more open policy, and it's for this reason that Lincoln Diaz-Balart's and Ros-Lehtinen's Congressional seats are "up for grabs" this year. (That's cautiously "up for grabs," it's always been very red in those districts.) But it appears that strong Dem contenders could actually turn those seats, thanks in no small part to the changing attitudes of the younger Cuban-Americans and to Obama's stance.
May 17, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction to the above: current Cuba policy allows very limited visits to the island for families. Obama's policy would allow unrestricted visits.
May 17, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great job, Jason! I posted this on my Facebook page. We need all the myth-busting we can get.
May 16, 2008 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Becky. I will do my best!
May 17, 2008 7:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well this is nothing. Check out what's happening now on Johnson's Hillary site. Sickening.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05/16/will-barack-throw-mama-from-the-train/
This is so clever. They don't have to prove that such a video exists: just cite it.
Hell, I hope it doesn't exist. The Obama camp needs to know about it and, if they know she never said it, come out and publicise the attack and say it doesn't.
May 16, 2008 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whew! Good thing Michele isn't running for president then!!
May 17, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey man...he's a race pimp. I understand why you don't want to accept that about a guy you worship. Sorry.
May 17, 2008 2:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
You cite an obviously biased piece of The New Republic as somehow backing up your claims. I would suggest a little more research and more than one citation if you want to get this rumor started. As it is, nothing you guys are doing sticks and your girl is losing and will continue to lose because Barack is the better candidate and is running a better campaign. Sorry.
May 17, 2008 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice link to TNR, you republican shill. How about digging up some Faux news, Limpbaugh or Insannity crap to throw out here too? Why don't you go back to your claim that Obama is a bisexual, Indiex? Weren't you getting any traction here with that right-wing meme? Once you went off the deep end with that spiel I knew you were no Hillary supporter. You are a rat.
Every time I see you post here Indiex, I am going to point you out to everyone here. Enjoy it.
May 17, 2008 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously? We're stooping to referencing right wing crap machine? Now I understand why Democrats lose all the time. It's not the candidates it's the supporters.
Seriously.. I have always considered my self an independent and now I really know why.
Indiex, get over it. I am sure I will get all kinds of "Stop talking mean or I'll vote for Mcain!" but I honestly don't give a crap. She lost, she did her best and lost. Shit happens.
To be honest, anyone who votes for Mcain because they are all butt hurt deserves exactly what they get in the next four years. I hope at some point, after we go to war with Iran, that they have the courage to go to someone who's child had there legs blown the hell off there body and apologize.
Even Clinton has said that her supporters should not vote Mcain over Obama.
Anyone done the math on what this country will be like if we spend the next four years in Iraq spending what we are now? The terrorists will win, because we will become a paper tiger with no money to back up our growl. Then we die.
So go ahead,
Mcain/Butt Hurt 08! The change you deserve.
May 17, 2008 3:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are so-o-o correct that the only thing that could halt this Blue Wave is if Blues keep chopping at each other to blunt the momentum. Like a wave hitting buried rocks before reaching the shore.
That is one reason I must remind myself that many of these posts are, like-as-not, being posted by Repubs (okay—any type of neocon under any label) attempting to make it appear all Hillary supporters are not involved in a reality-based campaign, and how crazy it makes Obama supporters. Obama supporters respond with "what? are you all crazy?" comments, and that drags in the not-crazy Hill supporters into the shouting match, and the game is afoot.
It is the same kind of terrorist tactic as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, with the sole intent of watching otherwise rational people crawl all over each other on the way to the exit.
Oh, and these same types also do cross-over mischief voting and talk to exit pollsters, which tend to pump up the "I'd vote for McCain if Obama is elected" talk—because they were going to vote for McCain all along anyway.
Just a thought.
It may take exactly folks such as you—and myself—who are actual independents and the truly disaffected Republicans to keep on keeping on and rescue Dems from chewing off their foot to get out of this close-race trap.
McCain in 08 is worse than just butt-hurt; it is a deal-sealer, since he probably gets to replace at least two more Supreme Court justices i the next four years, leaving the SC looking like a Klan gathering or meeting of the John Birch Society rather than arbiter of our nation's laws.
May 17, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's also mainly the same people posting the same nonsense over and over as if we are all Alzheimer's patients and can't keep multiple names straight.
May 17, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I confess I haven't read your whole post. The Donny McClurkin part caught my eye. The reason McClurkin is associated with Obama is because Obama chose to associate with him. He invited McClurkin to MC his southern gospel tour event because McClurkin is popular with black Baptists in the south. He is an "ex-gay" who believes homosexuality is a curse - a lifestyle choice which can be prayed away. He has made many outrageous comments, including that gays are out to murder America's children. Not only was McClurkin's extreme homophobia very well known, McClurkin used the Obama campaign event to preach against gays. It may be no big deal to you that Obama sought this guy out to participate in his campaign, but for gay people it was the equivalent of John Edwards inviting a member of the KKK to MC a campaign event at which event the racist bigot condemned black. It just so happened that Obama needed to shore up support among black Baptists who just so happen to have a reputation for hating gays (in the Christian sense, of course, because as we know Christians never ever hate.) When it became known in the gay community that Obama was going to include McClurkin there was an uproar. That's when the gay preacher was included. That's also when Obama made his conciliatory comments toward gays, and maintained that he was only trying to bring all sides together. (Imagine an event that tries to bring blacks and the KKK together.) The best you can say for Obama was that it was a huge blunder that forced him to do damage control. Or you could say that he was pandering to religious bigots because he needed their votes, and thus he acted like a typical politician.
I didn't bother to read the rest of your post because I assumed it would be equally preposterous.
May 17, 2008 3:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
When you start off a critique by stating that you didn't bother to read the entire piece, you immediately lose all credibility.
You are proving yourself to be a neocon stooge more and more each day because that is how neocons operate - half truths and incomplete understanding of fairly simple ideas. Why? Because they "don't bother reading the whole thing" or looking up what their masters tell them to prove the veracity of the statement.
You didn't bother to read the article on the Obama faith event either. You also didn't bother to understand that the faith tour was a huge success and most people understand that bringing divisive groups to the table leads to long-term understanding and solutions.
You, and people like you, would rather bite off your nose to spite your face.
May 17, 2008 7:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just because he regards much of what you write as blather not worth finishing doesn't make him a neocon stooge. I've seen a lot of definitions of "neocon", and your name as a qualifier didn't come up once.
May 17, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
When he uses neocon tactics and talking points that makes him a neocon. Not that he disagrees with me. Plenty of people disagree with me, but they use facts based on what I actually wrote. Neocons don't let any pesky facts get in the way of their illusions.
May 17, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS: Most gay people have no problem with Barack Obama or the fact that McClurkin was at that event. You are believing the spin rather than the truth. Sad. You can thank us later for not being as myopic as you are when it comes to politics and truth.
May 17, 2008 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I read gay blogs as well - there are quite a number of people who didn't like Obama's treatment of them with McClurkin and other fair-weather friend behavior. But I don't expect you to acknowledge this.
May 17, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is that why he also had a gay pastor with him at the event?
May 17, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you remember, the white gay pastor was brought on as a token gay person to help calm the rage, not as an original part of the show, and he had a little token prayer and that was it. A pretty pathetic sop to the LGBT community.
May 18, 2008 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am quite aware that what Barack did (which I will admit should have been handled differently or explained differently) offended some members of the gay community. I didn't say anything about that one way or the other. What I did say is that any "guilt" attached to Barack by way of McClurkin or a campaign event is a childish way to pick a president.
May 17, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
This made me laugh, Desidero. TPM being a straight blog, of course. ;-)
May 17, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
With certain bi- tendencies....
May 18, 2008 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
ha!
May 18, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jason said:
How does Hagee have anything to do with McCain? Some people have a problem with that association too.
I'm inclined to go with Otto's version of the McClurkin association:
And then Obama pandered to gays by saying he doesn't agree with McClurkin's views!
And what does this remind us of? (Answer: Rev. Wright, of course!)
Does Obama hate gays? I have no idea.
But I side with those (gay and straight) who find the McClurkin association disrespectful, dishonest, and disturbing. I personally can't reconcile it with Obama's lip service to gay rights.
May 17, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rec'd! Great post, but ...
as we tip-toe into the general election ...
You're a myth-buster. You don't "tip-toe" into the general election, you kick ass and take names.
Or attract a bunch of dead-enders who resent your debunking of their favorite myths.
May 17, 2008 5:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I am not tip-toeing into anything, it was more the Universal We. I try to kick ass, at least use a velvet hammer, but most names are pseudonyms so not worth taking.
May 17, 2008 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice job. You set up some straw men and quite effectively knocked them down.
"Barack hates Gays!"
I've seen no one say that Obama hates gays. What people were saying is that Obama went out of his way to pander to homophobia in black churches and the black community to move the black vote to him in SC. When the protests got too loud he hired a gay minister who opened the event. But this minister didn't speak of tolerance or mention gays at all. He simply made a generic prayer and pretty much shut up the rest of the time. After his success in SC Obama did speak of tolerance. So he pandered, tossed the gays overboard, it worked and because he doesn't hate gays he was able to make some small words of tolerance in later states. That doesn't make his initial pandering acceptable.
http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2007/10/barack-obama-ca.html
"Barack called Hillary a racist for what she said about MLK!"
No, I don't think he ever did call Hillary a racist. But major spokespersons for the campaign, like Jesse Jackson jr did spin it that way. Obama always tries to stay above it all while having his surrogates be the attack dog. Jackson was his attack dog to the black community who often spun Hillary's comments and actions in a way to imply she was racist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNrlSn7ndAA
"Barack is in thrall to Reverend Wright"
Of course he's not in thrall to Wright. But it does raise questions of judgment. Obama is not just an ordinary church goer. He's seeking to become the president of the United States. i don't think its unreasonable to expect higher standards of behavior from a possible president than an ordinary joe. Many people have confronted racism, sexism, and homophobia among their colleages at work. Many have taken a stand against it and risked congenial relations with acquaintances and friends. Yet Obama did nothing for 20 years and called this man his spiritual mentor who he consults with often. He in effect offered him as a "character reference" on his resume for president. Oprah left the church reportedly because the incendiary sermons of Wright made her uncomfortable. Obama clearly knew his sermons were rough since he initially planned to have him open his presidential bid and at the last minute changed his mind because he knew Wright could get abrasive. Why did he not once take some sort of stand against this in 20 years.
"Barack was in bed with a Chicago mobster!"
Of course he's not in bed with Rezko. But again it does raise questions about his judgment. There is the way his story shifted over time. The relationship was quite extensive and long term and he attempted to hide to hide the realities of the relationship. Even in the end when he knew Rezko was being investigated he still brought him to look at the house he wanted to buy and got involved in a somewhat shady looking but probably not illegal house deal. When asked about it when he finally agreed to answer questions Obama said he knew of the investigation, Rezko told him it was nothing and his inclination was to believe him. How is this any different than Bush talking about looking into Putin's soul? One would think at that point he would have looked a little more deeply and not just taken his word. Calling his behavior "boneheaded" does not remove it as and issue. It does leave me questioning his judgment especially considering that he is running on his judgment in lieu of experience on the world stage and as head of government, even as head of a small government like a state governor.
I'm not saying these issues disqualify him from being president nor are they strikingly greater than any other politician's problems but they are real and meaningful issues that are relevant to consider.
May 17, 2008 7:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't really expect any of the trolls to get anything out of this blog. I assumed you all would come in here with your well-worn talking points and rhetorical chimeras.
I am not going to go through your whole post and take it apart piece by piece. You clearly will never change your mind about anything, so I won't bother wasting my time.
May 17, 2008 7:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jason. I'm not sure of the exact definition of "troll" but there doesn't appear to be anything trollish about oceankat's comment. What oceankat is saying is that these questions raise concerns in the eyes of some voters (I personally don't find any of them significant enough to affect my vote), and moreover, these will be raised in some way in the general election. The way you have framed the issues in your post however does not take the issues seriously, instead framing them in such an outlandish way that they must immediately be dismissed out of hand. That's called cheerleading. It may play to the faithful, but it's not likely to bring others to your side. If you want to persuade people, you need to address their concerns, not dismiss them as hokum.
May 17, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
These particular myths are ridiculous, so why should they be given credence of any sort? These are not rational issues for any thinking voter (as you admitted) so why should we treat them that way? I think it is incumbent upon all of us this year to throw the bullshit flag when we see it.
May 17, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jason, oceankat is not a troll! lol!
May 17, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Troll? I think not. Oceankat is actually talking about issues for a change. Sure, it's old stuff, but the list in fact does reflect the standard anti-Obama rhetoric as well as the sentiments of a whole bunch of Americans, both Democratic and Republican. So you disagree with her. That doesn't make her a troll.
I happen to think these aren't damaging issues. Wright blew over in the talk circuit and the polls, including national polls. Ayers is a great Limbaugh talking point but also hasn't gained traction. Rezko is a shallow well, especially compared with either Clinton or McCain's past dealings. Yes, Obama has minimized some of these things in trying to deflect them to get back on message. Most of us are saying "so what?"
Obama's no saint. He's a politician. And he's the most honest one I've seen. If Clinton didn't manage to dig up more dirt on him, the Republicans sure aren't going to find much.
May 17, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
When a person trots out the same talking points and guilt-by-association crap that makes them a troll. I have seen oceankat use this same tired argument over and veer, never providing anything other than opinion as it were fact.
The whole "some voters" nonsense as a way to offer commentary that is free from context and free from the facts as seen over the course of the race. They use smear and slander and innuendo as a way to raise "doubts" that most thinking voters don't have, hence the whole point of this blog.
If they can accuse me of being a troll, I can certainly return the favor.
May 17, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
eliyah said:
Then you're in for a big surprise.
Rev. Wright's comments have not blown over. Republicans like Sean Hannity (and others) talk about Wright every single day. He never misses an opportunity to bring up Wright.
I don't know what polls you are referring to. All the polls show that the general public does not view Wright favorably. Wright's favorability rating competes with Congress's for rock bottom, and I am not kidding. Whenever Wright resurfaces in the media, Obama's numbers plummet. Rev. Wright has a measurable influence on voters. Expect the Republicans to exploit this.
This should worry you because it means the story hasn't peaked yet. Ayers, Wright, and Frank Marshall Davis fit perfectly into the biggest Republican talking point against Obama: that he associates with "radical fringe." George Bush and John McCain introduced the "radicals" talking point already, and they have connected "radicals" and "terrorists" in the same breath. This segues naturally to "homegrown" and global terrorism.
Don't count on Rezko being a shallow well. For starters, he's Syrian, and Syria is on the new axis of evil, didn't you hear? If you missed it the first time, you'll no doubt hear it soon!
It doesn't matter what "most of us" on "progressive" blogs are saying. It matters that Republicans will use Obama's own words against him.
May 17, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
So much for that.
Having been called a troll by you myself, I can't help but notice that you tend to aggressively use that term against anyone that brings up the holes in some of your more obvious spin.
The troll here is much more likely the one that uses that tactic.
Oceankat is a poster who has taken some pains to describe their position, and they are the type of left-leaning but concerned voter Obama is reaching out to.
Why aren't you?
That makes me wonder if you are indeed a sincere Obama supporter, or just a GOP paid twit here to stir up shit.
May 17, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have never called you a troll unless you comment under a different name.
Using the same old talking points to refute a post is not trying to start a dialog. Being arrogant and dismissive and combative is not a way to start a dialog. I have sparred with oceankat before. If you think what was wrote constitutes sincere questions or concerns by "some left-leaning voters" then I say we'll have to agree to disagree because I do not see it that way.
I use the term troll when someone is obviously cutting and pasting replies to blogs or being intentionally dismissive or combative to rile things up. That is what oceankat does when someone posts something he/she doesn't like. If he/she doesn't want to be dismissed as a troll then perhaps quite acting like one.
That you would even think I was a "a GOP paid twit here to stir up shit" is a little strange. The only comment I could make to that would not be nice, so I'll say nothing.
May 17, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Argh, that's the last straw, I've got to comment. I don't think you are GOP troll but I do think you are quite trollish. I don't think I've seen you act on this site in any manner that would help Obama, you have a strong tendency to only want to preach, and preaching it is, to an already converted choir and to get high fives from your bros. I've seen you react quite obnoxiously to many people who disagree. You are often dismissive, not at all willing to engage like you claim in your post.
That oceankat's nuanced comment went so over your head just makes it all clearer to me. She was very accurate about you setting up straw men and then knocking them down. You set up straw men and knock them down, calling it grandiose myth busting; whoop tee doo. That is not convincing anyone of anything.
Thanks for the warning that a series is forthcoming, next post I see by you that claims you're going to be busting myths, I'll know that actually what you'll be doing is using then to spin black and white narratives when gray is what is called for, and I'll know to ignore it.
Armchair Guerilla in a comment above tried to say it more kindly, but it just went over your head apparently.
You also have a terrible tendency to hyperbole that nost well-read people would find extremely juvenile, and insulting to the intelligence, like this:
If the Obama team made a commercial with a narration like that, I would get real worried about Dem chances in November. It reminds me of the Christian Scientist spiel that I endured at my front door yesterday before replying good day and shutting it. It has a bit of the 8th grade essay to it, too.
This is all fine for fun posting on blogs, but if you are really trying to help Obama, I must say it: I think it's types like you that are turning people off. Same as the Deaniacs did, the superior attitude to all that have gone before and anyone that that disagrees. And the one thing that's a killer: the superior attitude towards others who clearly have a smarter, more nuanced argument than yours, with you trying to turn the grey back into black and white. You don't win votes by lecturing people and telling them that they are only worthy of dismissal, especially those interested in nuance. It's fine if that's what you want to do for entertainment, but don't get the idea that you're helping the candidate by doing it.
Do you even understand the concept of politics, that the idea is to try to understand the concerns of the voter? Have you ever sold anything in your life? You don't do it by saying "this product is the best, ignore any complaints you hear, and if you don't buy it you're stupid!"
May 18, 2008 6:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can't you see your arrogance and conceit from the very first line? You guys have a Troll Mutual Adoration Society going. There is a handful a posters comments are that way - accuse everyone else of the very crimes they commit. None of you post under your own name and have greatest admiration for your own misinformed drivel and "world weary" poses. Bring me new complaints when back when you are honest enough to post under your own name.
I am preachy? Really? You are the first to say so, and I comment a lot. Perhaps you might remove the branch from your own eye first before commenting on the dust in mine.
Oceankat's response was nuanced? Hardly.
Your "nuance" comment s