Remember When the Right Wing "Couldn't" Attack Obama?
Politics and Media News Headlines
Remember when Democrats had to nominate Obama because the right wing "couldn't" attack him?
Fox & Friends asks if Obama will "continue 'apology-looza'" in Saudi Arabia (County Fair, Media Matters for America)
Miller says there's "going to be a lot of butt kissing" during "Obama's mea culpa with the Arab world" (County Fair, Media Matters for America)
Jake Tapper Baits Wingnuts With Obama/Muslim Story, Wingnuts Bite Hard (by The Cajun Boy at Gawker)
ABC News Senior White House Tool Jake Tapper, seemingly bored silly on a flight to Riyadh or maybe just experimenting to see how many links he could get from wingnut websites, published perhaps the most imbecilic article in the history of journalism today on ABC.com. He should be flogged mercilessly. With a title, "The Emergence of President Obama's Muslim Roots," that just pathetically screams "please link to me Matt Drudge," Tapper regurgitates a slew of widely-known facts about Obama's family's Muslim faith, slaps a provocative title on the piece, and repackages the whole thing as some sort of breaking news story in conjunction with Obama's trip to the Middle East...
Predictably, the right-wingers are hysterical over this. In addition to the feature link on Drudge, there are at least four Free Republic posts on it that we saw, not to mention postings in just about every other conservative gathering place online.
Maybe Jake was trying to capitalize on this misquote:
Yikes! Did Obama Really Call America A Muslim Country? Nope. (by Greg Sargent at The Plum Line)
With President Obama set to depart for the Mideast, many will likely jump on him today for allegedly calling America a Muslim country on French television late yesterday. Indeed, critics are already grabbing on to the comment as it was reported in the New York Times write-up: "...Mr. Obama noted that the United States also could be considered as 'one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.'"... The Times piece is already spreading rapidly on the right... But here's what Obama actually said: "...[O]ne of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslims Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world."
What? "Would be" doesn't equal "is"?
Limbaugh: If media are correct, "the Muslim world has a new leader, Bin Laden a myth, Obama to power" (County Fair, Media Matters for America)
Looks like bin Laden doesn't like to be upstaged:
New Bin Laden Tape Blasts Obama (CBS/AP)
A new audio tape from Osama bin Laden criticizes President Barack Obama for planting seeds of "hatred and vengeance toward Americans" and warns of "new long wars."... U.S. intelligence officials confirmed the authenticity of tape but said "there's no reason at this point to believe that any specific or credible threat is contained" in the message, reports CBS News.
Why Israelis are nervous about Obama (Jewish Telegraphic Agency)
There is great concern in Israel about Obama's trip, and an atmosphere of general nervousness about the new American president. Hardly three months into his presidency, Obama already has criticized Israel -- its settlement policy, to be precise -- with a public candor and directness unseen during the Bush era... Israelis have a few things making them nervous:...
• Israel's new prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, does not see eye to eye with the new American president...
• Israelis have not failed to notice that Obama's first trip to the region as president does not include a stop in their country. Many are asking why, and see in it an omen of bad things to come.
• Finally, Israelis are nervous generally about their future and their security...
And wait until they see this:
Obama says Iran's energy concerns legitimate (AP)
President Barack Obama suggested that Iran may have some right to nuclear energy -- provided it proves by the end of the year that its aspirations are peaceful. In a BBC interview broadcast Tuesday, he also restated plans to pursue direct diplomacy with Tehran to encourage it set aside any ambitions for nuclear weapons it might harbor. Iran has insisted its nuclear program is aimed at generating electricity. But the U.S. and other Western governments accuse Tehran of seeking atomic weapons.
And this:
U.S. Invites Iran for Hot Dogs and Fireworks (McClatchy)
After a three-decade ban, U.S. embassies will be allowed to invite Iranian officials to come celebrate America's declaration of independence from Britain and its overpriced tea. Substantive conversations still aren't allowed, but the BBC reports that "small talk" is a go.
Click here for more politics and media news headlines.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
Nice news summary. Thanks!
June 4, 2009 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you suggesting that the Democratic party should have nominated Clinton, so that right-wingers couldn't make Muslim insinuations?
June 4, 2009 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
See? Clinton's a secret Muslim, too!
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/obama-clinton-egypt-blog.jpg
;^)
June 4, 2009 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I liked the speech. And I find your relating the reactions of others extremely important.
Thank you.
June 4, 2009 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bin Laden said, Obama was planting seeds of "hatred and vengeance toward Americans"
It makes one wonder whether the Republicans were part of 9/11. Afterall, there is nothing to suggest from his speeches or anything else that inciting "hatred and vengeance" are Obama's intention. But bin Laden says it anyway, just like Republicans are saying the things they are when everything you hear or read suggests otherwise. They, Republicans and bin Laden continue to say it's not like that.
June 4, 2009 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
>>Are you suggesting that the Democratic party should have nominated Clinton, so that right-wingers couldn't make Muslim insinuations?
No, I'm suggesting that it was a stupid argument, and a stupid way to trash Hillary. But it seems to have worked with some people.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
June 4, 2009 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's not what I remember. I recall many saying that Clinton should be the nominee because her dirty laundry had already been made public, so the opposition wouldn't have much to smear her with.
I also remember that "Obambi", once he entered the general, was supposed to be eaten alive by the GOP and swift boated back to Chicago.
June 4, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, those swiftboaters. They were a one-hit wonder. The MSM played gave them more air time then they ever bought. But once the people dismantled their entire construct, the MSM has treated them as persona non grata, which is how they should have been treated when they began their character asassinations.
June 4, 2009 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's not what I remember. I recall many saying that Clinton should be the nominee because her dirty laundry had already been made public, so the opposition wouldn't have much to smear her with.
I also remember that "Obambi", once he entered the general, was supposed to be eaten alive by the GOP and swift boated back to Chicago.
June 4, 2009 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
>> "Obambi", once he entered the general, was supposed to be eaten alive by the GOP and swift boated back to Chicago.
Yes, turns out the Republicans were playing 11 dimensional chess. They even had Bush create a financial crisis so that Obama would win. As I said, I think the purpose was to blame all of Bush's failures on him.
I don't know if they'll succeed, but they certainly are trying.
June 4, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's possible. But I'm more easily convinced that the Republicans simply have been struggling to make the best plays with the cards they've been dealt. They were pretty much screwed when McCain became the Republican frontrunner during the primaries. I'll never forget how upset everyone was on the A.M. dial when Romney dropped out.
I don't mean to suggest we should be complacent, though. We'll be better off, I imagine, if we always assume that the Republicans can look twenty moves ahead into the game.
June 4, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
"What? "Would be" doesn't equal "is"?"
Actually, letting Obama off the hook for that difference ignores that Obama phrased the point terribly. What is true is not that the USA WOULD BE a Muslim country, large or small, but that the USA has a large Muslim population -- and that large population is among the largest of any country (if you stretch things a bit as to "one of the largest" in relative terms).
It is correct to challenge Obama on this point. He spoke terribly if he didn't intend to speak crudely.
June 4, 2009 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
>>Obama phrased the point terribly
Agreed, but I believe other presidents have made similar statements about the number of other ethnic and religious groups here. I believe the U.S. "might be" the largest Jewish country in the world, too.
June 4, 2009 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Same error, in my view. They rate criticism for pandering, too.
But your list was otherwise fine with me!
"• Israelis have not failed to notice that Obama's first trip to the region as president does not include a stop in their country. Many are asking why, and see in it an omen of bad things to come."
That one jumped out at me. Obama is an omen of bad things to come for some vermin, radical Islamist or radical Zionist etc. It might also be bad news for some less extreme folks who are deeply committed to their own hypocrisies in lesser ways.
June 4, 2009 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has ties to Palestinian groups from his early days in Chicago. He has never disavowed any of that. Last year, he told AIPAC what its members wanted to hear, but he seems to think he can wave a magic wand and make implacable hatreds go away.
June 4, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is possible that Obama could get Hamas to change its rhetoric. That would remove one reactionary talking point.
I don't get the magical thinking reference, Obama is clearly pragmatically inclined. Are you hinting that he's all talk and not action at this point?
June 4, 2009 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't call it pragmatic, I call it lily livered. He doesn't fight for anything. Didn't when he was my senator, and as far as I know never has. I've never seen any evidence of any core convictions that would be a reason to fight.
But the one thing Obama seems convinced of is an unproven ability to get people who hate each other to suddenly want to get along, just because he tells them to.
June 4, 2009 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Obama did appoint your lord and master, Hillary to a very big job, and she is doing just fine. In fact, she is great at this job. She would have failed as President, and Obama is doing so well that it is eating people alive who wanted to see him fail.
Having lunch with Rush any time soon? Ann Coulter? Maybe brunch! Try not to choke on your bitterness.
June 4, 2009 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, it was an absurd line at the time, that Obama would make the hateful Republicans stop acting hateful. Just because Caro is still pissed about this absurdity doesn't make her Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter, and it's really fucking insulting for you to toss that out. Actually, the people who pushed the line a year ago should apologize or at least acknowledge their foolishness - they were absolutely, moronically wrong, and it was obvious then - but I ain't holding my breath.
June 5, 2009 6:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Go back and read her blogs. They all say the same thing; they are insulting to Obama in the most spiteful ways. I am annoyed at these cloying blogs, and that is why I said what I said. She uses the same tactics of those that I thought she might be lunching with. Her bitter tirades should not go unanswered in my opinion.
June 5, 2009 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
He doesn't fight for anything? You mean he doesn't spar with rhetorical excesses, he tries to keep the discussion in the pragmatic zone? Maybe he was cautious as a new Senator in DC who had aspirations to higher office and knew that a Senate paper trail would be used against him. In his position now, the proper role of the public fight is the use of the bully pulpit. He's only the Executive. Congress is where the fight belongs, imo.
"But the one thing Obama seems convinced of is an unproven ability to get people who hate each other to suddenly want to get along, just because he tells them to."
Why do you need to use such cheap attacks? Is what CVD suggests, that you hate him because Hillary didn't win? And are you unaware of his early successes in community organizing, in the Senate, and as President despite strong attempts at polarization from various camps?
June 5, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the US isn't one of the largest Muslim countries by any means. Russia even has 15 million, China 20 million. Indonesia has 200 million. India has 160 million. Pakistan 150 million. Bangladesh 135 million. Egypt 75 million. Turkey 71 million. Nigeria 65 million. Iran 64 million.
We have only 2.4 million. Burkhina Faso has 3 times as many. We rank about 53rd. Thailand, Burma, Germany and France have more Muslims than we do. Ivory Coast and Camaroon and Benin. And that doesn't include some of the smaller countries like Lebanon and Azerbaijan who have fewer than us. Even tiny Kosovo, smaller than Connecticut, has almost as many Muslims as we do.
June 5, 2009 6:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps there is a misunderstanding of the term "can't attack" here (and we may further assume this is not intentional)?
Normally, one would read it to mean "can't effectively attack", that is, any attacks are easily blunted. That statement, oddly enough, seems to be correct.
I know particularly nuclear-boy there likes to present the rare (and in some cases nonexistent) extreme views as the pervasive model of thought that he valiantly martyrs himself fighting against, but in reality people are just not buying into the crap the right wing is tossing at them.
June 5, 2009 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ha, haven't effectively attacked? Lessee, look at all those tax cuts in the stimulus bill. What happened to closing Gitmo? Gonna release those Abu Ghraib photos? Did we stop worrying about 60 votes and go back to the 50 vote norm? Are Obama's nominations whizzing through the confirmation process? Was there a big (deserved) kerfluffle over AIG bonuses? How many weeks has right-wing media spent on "socialist Obama" and tea-bagging? What was the good news and sympathy for auto workers that came out of the bankruptcies? Card check anyone? Lessee, the White House sent out Michelle and others this week to combat that "Sotomayor is a racist" attack - not effective?
And no, you're making up the item "effectively". The charge against Hillary was just that she was too divisive to govern. But the reality, that she knew and I knew and much of the planet knows, is that the Republicans enjoy being permanently outraged, and pushing that screaming, nonsensical outrage as a way of getting what they want.
Perhaps you could stop letting your distaste for me getting in the way of your thinking.
June 5, 2009 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps, while you are figuring out the difference between media attacks, policy complications and how much of either affects and/or is affected by regular people, and for that matter the difference between those who have voted Republican, the Republican party apparatchiks, elected Republicans and the right-wing crazies, you could dig up some of the quotes you are referring to -- enough, please, to establish some pattern rather than point out an individual's delusions.
See, I do not dislike you, just your tendency to essentially always argue against strawmen.
I simply have not seen any of the "attacks" really take hold except in the media that has still not quite figured out that their former 50-50 split is now closer to 75-25, and from your examples in cases like AIG and torture photos where they have actually fucked up and been criticised mostly from the left to begin with. That is not to say that, for example, there is not a lot of work to be done to get the media environment to align better with reality, but it is just not biting as hard as it maybe used to.
I mean, the tea-bagging spectacle in particular was hilarious in its ineffectiveness and, well, just a pathetic showing.
June 5, 2009 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Hillary's too divisive". Okay, that wasn't terribly well defined, just expressed ominous horror if she should be elected. Come on, man, it was a "boogieman will get you" argument, and you want to fine-tune it to mean something in particular?
June 5, 2009 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink