Obama’s Defense Against the Noise Machine and Other Things That Don’t Add Up

In May 2005, Vanity Fair published a brilliant article about the ’04 election and the Republican Noise Machine, by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. — The Disinformation Society.

I was thinking about what Obama said on Face The Nation today that “he didn’t expect immunity from Republican attacks, but could diffuse them with his message of unity and capacity to surmount party divides,” and wondering if he is really that clueless about how the Republican Noise Machine really works?

“I think that creates a different climate,” Obama said, like warm and sunny optimism will diffuse the onslaught.  I just got to say though, does he actually think that they will care about his “message of unity”? Good gracious. Someone needs to throw this man a lifeline before he sinks us all.

Obama’s bright and woefully misplaced optimism came coupled with his usual doublespeak about how “Republicans consider her [Clinton] a polarizing figure.” And I am just curious why no one ever says: you know Mr. Obama, when you say that you are creating polar-ism within your own party.

Obama’s statements on Face The Nation were in response to comments Hillary Clinton made on This Week, where she “questioned Obama’s capacity to weather Republican attacks in November’s general election.”

Frankly, you know, in his prior election in Illinois, Senator Obama didn’t face anyone who ran attack ads against him. He ran against a very weak opponent, without resources or credibility,” she told ABC’s “This Week” show.

“I’ve been taking the incoming fire from Republicans for about 16 years now, and I’m still here, because I have been vetted, I have been tested,” she said.

Maybe I am just too cynical to “join” the happy “hope” and “unity” club that is the Obama movement and I feel more comfortable grounded in the reality that Hillary Clinton has been tested, she has been vetted and she has stood her ground with the Noise Machine for 16 years. “Join” they say — but some of us want a leader, not a club.

John Kerry didn’t see the Swift Boaters coming. He thought, like Obama does now that positive message about hope would get us through the ’04 election. It didn’t quite work that way. They will come for Barack Obama if he is the nominee with both barrels of the Noise Machine blaring.

And the truth is even if Republican’s do find Obama appealing now, they are in fact harboring the hope that “he can reach beyond his ideology,” and “demonstrate his independence from liberal orthodoxy.” In other words, the pressure will be on Obama, if he manages to become our next president, to give up his progressive, liberal ways (which already aren’t all that progressive anyway). As it is, Obama has already set himself up for a war the Republicans on health care because of his stubborn thinking on mandates:

If Mr. Obama gets to the White House and tries to achieve universal coverage, he’ll find that it can’t be done without mandates — but if he tries to institute mandates, the enemies of reform will use his own words against him.

And that’s just one issue that Obama’s stance doesn’t quite add up, but it’s one we’ve been fighting for, for far too long. So, if you want universal health-care to become a reality, think about this from Paul Krugman:

If you combine the economic analysis with these political realities, here’s what I think it says: If Mrs. Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, there is some chance — nobody knows how big — that we’ll get universal health care in the next administration. If Mr. Obama gets the nomination, it just won’t happen.

The bottom line… the kumbaya’s and “yes we can‘s” won’t keep the Noise Machine at bay and neither will they ensure that we’ll have a happy bi-partisan Congress making all our dreams come true. It just won’t happen. 

There will be no “Getting Past the ’60s” regardless of what Obama says now to the throngs that turn out to be part of the movement. The divisions will remain and in reality we will find that, “a President Obama could no more magically transcend America’s ’60s-born divisions than McCarthy, Kennedy, Nixon or McGovern could, for the simple reason that our society is defined as much by its arguments as by its agreements.”

There is no escaping the ’60’s it appears, even for Barack Obama.

And going full circle back to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., one simply needs to read his article linked above to understand why he chose to follow a different path from the one other Kennedy’s have followed in supporting Barack Obama (now including Maria Shriver). Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., understands full well the power of the Republican Noise Machine and he clearly gets that Hillary Clinton is the one to beat them at their own game.

Obama’s defense against the Noise Machine doesn’t wash and there’s too damn much that doesn’t add up.


* Cross posted at The Huffington Post.

Bookmark and Share

About Pamela Leavey

Pamela Leavey is the Editor in Chief, Owner/Publisher of The Democratic Daily as well as a freelance writer and photographer. Pamela holds a certificate in Contemporary Communications from UMass Lowell, a Journalism Certificate from UMass Amherst and a B.A. in Creative Writing and Digital Age Communications from UMass Amherst UWW.
Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to Obama’s Defense Against the Noise Machine and Other Things That Don’t Add Up

  1. JCitizen says:

    It is not that you are too cynical, it is just that you are not thinking this through very well.

    The issue is not so much what the Noise Machine will do – obviously they are going to do what they do. Obama is under no illusions on that score.

    The issue is what kind of traction will their messages get. Will they scare off voters as they have done so often in the past, or will they be seen as nutty ranters who are irrelevant to people’s concerns?

    The answer to that is a function of the attitude of the audience. It is amazing the extent to which people will believe bad things about a politician, once they have decided they dont like them, or even if they are uncomfortable with them. And it is amazing the extent to which people dismiss negative things if they actually like someone.

    We can see this working in our party today. Look at you for instance. Obama is, or should be, a liberal/progressive hero. His voting record is as good, if not better than Hillary’s, and he has a sterling character and is a brillaint messenger for our ideas. But you dont like him. And I have argued with lots of Clinton supporters who dont like him, for some strange reason. Or maybe they just like Hillary and therefore see him as the enemy. And sure enough, amongst these people, anything bad that anyone says about Obama, they believe – without much thought or analysis. Because they want to believe.

    Take a counter example. Reagan amongst the conservatives. I wracked my brains for 8 years trying to get through to lots of people about what a terrible politician he was. I through everything I could, and so did many others Hell, he was even caught red handed selling weapons to our enemies in direct violation of the law. And yet his supporters, including (uggh) Reagan Democrats, didnt care. They liked the guy.

    I sense that with Obama. I read and contribute comments to several right wing blogs (I like doing oppo research) – these are hardline GOP organizing sites, or unambiguous conservative policy sites. And I am losing count of the number of people who just plain like Obama. They cant stand any of his policies, and I doubt any would consider voting for him, for even a second, but they respect him and are kinda thrilled to see a figure like him emerge. Hell, National Review, the absolute heart of darkness, has writers who have stated that, though he would be a disastrous head of government by their standards, they think he would be a great head of state.

    If these are the opinions of activist Republicans, then I am not surprised to see, and I do see, average people who lean to the right, going further – a fair number of them will actually vote for him. These are average people, not ideologues. They admit up front that they dont really know what a good economic policy is – they just vote for someone they respect and trust, and hope tht it turns out well.

    Obama engenders those types of feelings amongst voters – I dont think there is any question about it. And hillary certainly doesnt, rather the contrary. He will be enormously more immune to the inevitable garbage thrown at him.

    No one imagines that there will be less garbage – the question is whether the average voters are primed to believe it, or are inclined to reject it, because they actually dont wish it to be true.

  2. Chris Huston says:

    I do think you have to look a little bit past his statements and look at Obama’s actions. He’s already proved himself capable of fighting off attacks.

    When Fox ran the Madrasa smear, Obama cut them off. He was not the least bit afraid of simply ignoring Fox. They would call too weak to face Fox News, but he didn’t care, and just kept them out of the circle, to the point where OReilly was shoving his way through aides to get a word in with Obama.

  3. Brian Luce says:

    The last part of your article makes a good case for Obama.

    This idea of who can best stand to republicans is loser thinking. The Democratic party needs, once and for all, to stop running scared and sack up.

  4. serena1313 says:

    Hillary has a lot going for her and no doubt she is intelligent. However there are a few things to take into consideration that people ought to know before they vote that she hasn’t been vetted on .

    While I believe “experience” is necessary it is only relevant if one grows and learns from his or her experiences. Actually judgment is more important than just “experience”. One can have the “experience”, but still lack judgment.

    For instance Hillary’s decisions are more political than anything such as her vote for attacking Iraq. She is afraid to take political risks. More importantly what defines Hillary for example are her votes against 3 amendments that would have curbed Bush’s rush to war. One of which was submitted by Dick Durbin (D-Il) that would have compelled Bush to demonstrate “imminent threat” prior to invading Iraq.

    The second was Levin’s amendment. Granted Levin’s bill called for the UN’s approval before force could be used, but it also reinforced America’s right to defend itself even if the UN voted against it. Therein nothing in that bill was an impediment to the US in any way. Yet Hillary claimed it would have made the president “subordinate” to the UN.

    So basically her vote against Levin’s bill meant she was against international support and the UN’s consensus. Moreover that vote would be relevant only if she believed that Bush 41 was wrong to go to the UN for international support and approval before he attacked Iraq.

    Although the amendments were defeated Hillary had 3 chances to slow down Bush’s rush to war, but chose not to! Now what kind of judgment is that! Furthermore she will not say whether the US will maintain permanent bases in Iraq. For someone entrenched in the Washington politics translates into more of the same.

    Hillary also shifted her policy on torture. At first she said she would seek “legal” exemption to saying her current position, “torture cannot be American policy.”

    All of which leads me to believe Hillary will be more of the same, but as a “Bush-lite.” And the republican contenders will be like Bush, only on steroids!

    Additionally Clinton never talks about her tenure as a corporate lawyer at the Rose Law Firm, an Arkansas corporate powerhouse.

    In the mid-1980s, as a member on the board of Wal-Mart while the company mounted a campaign against unions Hillary was silent. She claims she fought for women’s rights, but nothing was ever achieved.

    I suggest taking a closer look at her actions rather than believe everything she says; it is what she doesn’t say that worries me.

    Actions speak louder than words.

    I support Obama. I did my research and found him to be the most qualified. Insofar as experience he has been an elected official for 11 years — 4 more years than Hillary.

    Furthermore Obama’s experience as a community organizer requires having insight into the inner-workings of the mind. Obama knows and understands people. He is a fighter who cares passionately about the causes he believes in without demonizing those whom differ.

    Moreover his record shows he believes justice is a strength and the rule of law matters, accountability and transparency are vital components for a healthy democracy. Legislation and bills he’s written and/or co-sponsored are proof he is a man of his word. “Actions speak louder than words.” He earned my trust based on his actions, not just his words.

    Sound judgment, reasoned logic, intelligence tempered with forethought and foresight reflect the qualities of a leader. Obama is that leader.

  5. cal1942 says:

    “Brian Luce Said:

    This idea of who can best stand to republicans is loser thinking. The Democratic party needs, once and for all, to stop running scared and sack up.”

    And what about Mr. Obama who in many ways is running against his own party.

    He hung out the false idea that Social Security was in crisis. As
    Pamela said, Republicans will use his own words against him. By making that stupid claim Obama managed to subject Social Security to another assault from the right and has created a wedge to damage his own party. Think about this: He made the statement to attract still more support from young people who’ve had the false tale of crisis drilled into them. For his own personal gain he’s put at risk a program that millions will need as a shield against poverty during the most vulnerable period of their lives.

    That tells me a lot about Mr. Obama. He’s willing to risk the well being of others for personal gain.


  6. cal1942 says:

    Corporations – Yes. People – Not so much

    Here’s an example of Mr. Obama’s wonder world or unity and bi-partisanship from yesterday’s NYT.


    February 3, 2008
    Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate
    When residents in Illinois voiced outrage two years ago upon learning that the Exelon Corporation had not disclosed radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear plants, the state’s freshman senator, Barack Obama, took up their cause.
    Mr. Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was “the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.”

    While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks.
    Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama’s comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate.
    “Senator Obama’s staff was sending us copies of the bill to review, and we could see it weakening with each successive draft,” said Joe Cosgrove, a park district director in Will County, Ill., where low-level radioactive runoff had turned up in groundwater. “The teeth were just taken out of it.”
    The history of the bill shows Mr. Obama navigating a home-state controversy that pitted two important constituencies against each other and tested his skills as a legislative infighter. On one side were neighbors of several nuclear plants upset that low-level radioactive leaks had gone unreported for years; on the other was Exelon, the country’s largest nuclear plant operator and one of Mr. Obama’s largest sources of campaign money.
    Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama’s campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. …
    Another Obama donor, John W. Rowe, chairman of Exelon, is also chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear power industry’s lobbying group, based in Washington. Exelon’s support for Mr. Obama far exceeds its support for any other presidential candidate.

    As Paul Krugman said. If Obama’s elected we can forget about universal healh care. The Republicans just won’t like it.

  7. Katherine says:

    2004 – Obama: “My view on the war in Iraq is the same as President Bush’s…” That one’s going to be a sound-bite on every single channel at 7 pm every night of the week until election time… the Republicans are leaving him alone (now) because they know he is easier to beat than Hillary and they want him to win the nomination, so they can keep the WhiteHouse. I am so lost at how STUPID democrats are being throughout this primary… The part about this change of mind of his that bugs me the mosts is even though he knows he changed his stance on the war once he became a Senator, he is using his “anti-war” stance as his main selling point against the other nominees… that’s another lie; the nuclear thing is huge too — he woosed on that one; and then the Union thing in NV — well, that was corruption at its finest, but it wasn’t the teachers’ unions, it was the heads of the culinary union… many of their own members now are suing them, because they were intimidated by their own union bosses into not being able to caucas (in the casinos) if they didn’t go along w/the union’s desire to back Obama… He knows this; still his campaign and he tried to use this once they distorted it, against Hillary. Everybody says Ted is mad at Hil because she gave more credit to Johnson than to Kennedy re the equal rights; I think she just stated a fact — it was Johnson who passed that legislation… frankly, Obama says he will use “ted’s” healthcare plan as his in the WhiteHouse… I think that is why Ted is endorsing him –so he gets that credited to him. Otherwise, “ted” is just really thin-skinned and petty, and I don’t trust that endorsement either… the Kennedys that are part of the street level efforts to fix the environment, to bring about social change are for Hillary… I think the Kennedys who are endorsing Obama are just pining for the past…

    It won’t be quiet with either candidate from the Republicans — Hillary has been there done that, won already …

    He’s a good speaker — but he changes what he says (and never owes up to) his views… I don’t trust him; I ABSOLUTELY KNOW the Republicans are just waiting for him.. so they can win another election.

  8. Brian Luce says:

    “He hung out the false idea that Social Security was in crisis.” -Cal

    Except that a number of studies indicate SS *is* in fact in trouble in terms of it’s ability to remain self funding. This is nothing new–it’s an issue even Bush has addressed with stop gap measures.

  9. Brian Luce says:

    “2004 – Obama: “My view on the war in Iraq is the same as President Bush’s…” That one’s going to be a sound-bite on every single channel at 7 pm every night of the week until election time… the Republicans are leaving him alone (now) because they know he is easier to beat than Hillary and they want him to win the nomination”

    Man, you guys are looking for anything to get traction. Try again though, Obama went on the record against the war when it wasn’t politically expedient to do so–he was in the middle of a political campaign.

    Hillary: wrong on Iraq/wrong on Iran.
    36 years of Bush/Clinton is too long.

  10. Barack Obama was a part-time legislator in Illinois and has spent two years in the US Senate…but to believe that by singing kumbaya and giving some good speeches that the right-wing smear machine won’t attack him with all their vitriol…the republicans are itching to run against Obama..if he wins the democratic nomination you just wait and see how the “bradley effect” takes hold and we have four-eight more years of repressive republican rule…

  11. Brian Luce says:

    Hey David, one thing about Hillary, she’ll unite the party, unfortunately she’ll unite the REPUBLICAN party. That’s bad.

  12. bjerryberg says:

    Ms. Leavey’s point is very well-taken. And Sen. Clinton was most diplomatic in her observation that Sen. Obama has never been tested under withering enemy fire on the campaign trail.

    I, however, would go further and point out that Sen. Barry Obama is a swift-boating or much worse–waiting to happen. His most well-connected backers plan to dispose of him not inaugurate him.

    Virtually all well-heeled Obama backers are far stronger backers of the corporatist privatizer & ‘Wall St. independent’ hopeful Mike Bloomberg.

    They have the dossier on Obama–but unanimously endorse Obama now–the better to wreck the Democratic party. (The GOP seems to have committed suicide some time ago, with the increasingly feeble McCain now cast as the leader of the ‘living dead.’)

    When even Bloomberg’s Fox-y chum Rupert Murdoch endorses Sen Obama’s ‘drive to bring us together’ you know they are counting on liberals to be suckers–about Obama’s supposed ‘electability.’

    Barry Obama’s relationship to Tony Rezko has been central to his career–and not a youthful indiscretion as the Senator seemed to suggest in a recent debate.

    And Mr Rezko is an international organized crime figure–not a mere ‘slumlord.’

    And neither of those facts is a secret that will survive the campaign.

    The best Sen. Obama can hope for is that his supposed friends give him the Giuliani treatment and not something more violent.

    A vote for Obama is a vote for Bloomberg–the Wall St. right-wing’s choice for an American Mussolini.

  13. No, Pamela, someone DOES NOT, “have to throw this man a lifeline before he sinks us all.” Do you really think that Barack is as dumb as you constantly portray him? You say that his message of hope and sunshine will not hold up against a McCain or a Rommey. Well, it looks as if his message of hope, change, and giving the government back to us (as oppossed to the DC lobbyists) has worked fairly well against your candidate of choice. Just a four scant weeks ago Hillary had a double didget lead over Obama. Now it’ a dead heat! He is not a dumb idealist, as you are prone to portray him. Apparently the sentiments he expresses so eloquently in his “Audacity of Hope” are drawing a positive reaction.
    How can a candidate named “Clinton” stand for change? During the last Democratic debate they aired an emailed question of a 38 year old female from South Carolina. Her question was addressed to Senator Clinton. Before posing the question, she stated that every presidential election she has voted in (since being of legal voting age) has had either a “Bush or a “Clinton” on the ballot. She wanted to know how voting for someone from either one of these two families could be viewed as change? Hillary skillfully deflected the question by using a bit of humor. She stated that, “It took a Clinton to clean up the White House after the first President Bush, and it might likely take a “Clinton” to clean it up after the second President Bush. ” The audiance then laughed and applauded.
    But, let’s think this through just a little. I think you would agree that the GOP nominee opposing her (if she becomes our party’s choice) would have had a field day with this question. Her husband at first morally bankrupted his office by having a sexual indiscretion in the Oval Office. Then, to make it even worse, he then legally bankrupted his office by commiting purgery in his sworn testimony. DOES THIS CONSTITUTE CLEANING UP”?
    My purpose in referring this is NOT to drag Hillary down. She is smart and certainly qualified. If she becomes our nominee, I will actively work to get her elected!! The Republicans, as usual, will be ruthless in their attacks. They, rightly or wrongly, feel that they would have a far better chance of defeating her than Senator Obama. WE NEED AT THIS POINT TO BE LOOKING PAST OUR FAVORITE CHOICE, AND INSTEAD BE CONCENTRATION ON ELECTABILITY. It is my humble opinion, that it would be Hillary and not Barick who would require a strong lifeline, before sinking us to our third consequtive presidential defeat!!

  14. JCar says:

    I just read yesterday, that the McCain campaign wants to run against Hillary in the general election.

    McCain is so disliked by many conservatives, that they consider Hillary their only hope… that Hillary Hatred among those on the right, is the only thing that will get them out to the polls to vote for John McCain.

    Many Americans (some of them conservatives) feel that Obama is the one who can re-unite the country post-Bush. My formerly lifelong Republican father, is now a Democrat just because he wanted to vote for Obama in the primary. He watches every single Obama speech he can find on CSPAN. A few days ago he watched Michelle Obama, and was so impressed by her as well. I’ve tried to convert this guy all of my life, and who finally succeeded?

    Barack Obama. If he accomplished the above, he can work other miracles. Like beating the Clintons (co-ed tag team)? Maybe so. And if he can beat the Clintons, he can beat McCain.

  15. indc says:

    Hillary is has repeated demonstrated very poor judgment and character. She stands for whatever is expedient to her… Bubba was a marginal president who greatly benefited from the end of the cold war, the coming of age of the pc, and the coming of age of the internet. He gave jobs away via nafta and other deals. He will not release the names of donors to his library, his wife will not release her papers… these people have a great deal to hide and her negatives are nearly at 50%, so the probability of her election in nov is nearly theoretical rather than actually possible.

    Her crying manipulations ran their course.. these two are low life folks who think they have some special gift when all there is is ambition and self interest… her experience is common, her accomplishments given the opportunities she has had are negligible, and her honesty is always in question… votes for war in iraq and iran some experience, some judgment…

    this country can do better, much better.. no more bushes or clintons.. we have had our period of selfish, self centered mediocrity and worse.

  16. Brian Luce says:

    Anyone catch Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean on Chris Mathews tonight? Dean essentially left the door wide open to certify the Florida and Michigan Primaries–which Hillary won because of name recognition–as Obama (and Clinton) weren’t allowed to campaign. This smells like Hillary’s trump card and REAL firewall. If she loses, start making phone calls and presto, the Michigan and Florida votes suddenly count!

    If this happens, kiss the democratic party goodbye. Hillary will get her 4 years, yes 4, and Jeb will be ready to come rescue us again.

    Screw these political dynasties.

  17. Brian

    I heard that Obama has said he also wants to the seat the delegates because the way system works, he actually gets some of the FL delegates.

  18. Brian’s comment that, “The idea of who can best stand up to republicans is loser thinking” just totally blew me away. I guess I was under the mistaken illusion that our ultimate goal is to get a democrat elected president!! I guess I was way off base by thinking that the ultimate prize was to have a democrat sworn in on 1-20-09. So, for the good of our party, let’s just forget about which of our two candidates is most ELECTABLE. Instead, let us stay on course, and simply ignore electablity and just continue to go with the one “we like”.
    The realistic evaluation of electability in no way can be construed to represent a loser mentality. David Q. states that, “republicans are just itching to run against Obama.” Then why aren’t they saying this? All GOP candidates have publically stated that they hope to run against Hillary, as they find her a far easier candidate to defeat. Hillary is truly a polarizing candidate. Those who support her do so with absolute, unconditional loyality. Those who despise her do so with absolute, unconditional loathing. I am not advocating either loyality or hate. I am just echoing the annalysis of the majority of political pundits who have stated that a Hillary candidacy will represent national polarization at a level NEVER witnessed before. I fail to see how the consideration of ELECTABILTY in any way mimics a “loser mentality.” If anything, it is putting the good of our party over our personal loyality to one particular candidate. Let’s wake up and smell the roses before it’s too late.

  19. William Stoddart

    “David Q. states that, “republicans are just itching to run against Obama.” Then why aren’t they saying this? ”

    Why on earth would they give away their strategy?

  20. Brian Luce says:

    William, the idea is to elect someone who can lead the free world, bring America back, capture our imagination, stop waterboarding, bring back habeas corpus, create prosperity, foster hope, diffuse antiamericanism, inspire our youth, improve the economy, stuff like that, it’s NOT who has the best come back lines against Republicans. That’s not playing to win, it’s playing not to lose and there’s a big difference. That’s what pisses me off about you democrats, sack the hell up and start playing ball. You guys are running scared.

    Also, It looks like it’ll be McCain. McCain’s idea of a swiftboat attack is pointing out that Romney never served in the military–not exactly Rovian. He’s a good dude with a helluva lot more class than either Clinton.

    I agree with all the other stuff you said, Hillary is the most divisive figure in politics outside of Bush. Not to mention, Hillary in the White House would mean 36 years of Clinton/Bush. To hell with that crap. Dynasties suck.

  21. Brian Luce says:

    Pamela, the Republicans (not McCain) cannot hide their glee at the idea of a Hillary run at the White House. Most of them, get this wolfish grin when her name comes up. It’s practically sexual.

    She gonna tell McCain about all her experience? He’ll laugh in her face. What’s she going to run on? The war she voted for? Iran? She’s got a brand name and policy knowledge. The polls are already show her going down in flames against McCain.

  22. Brian Luce says:


    I heard that Obama has said he also wants to the seat the delegates because the way system works, he actually gets some of the FL delegates”

    Really? Never mind then.

  23. Brian

    Hey did you see Hillary winning red states tonight. Wow – so divisive! Yeah right.

    And oh, big DUH – it’s in Obama’s favor too on the FL delegates.

  24. CJbushwacker says:

    I believe Rove and the boys are still in the picture. They are spreading the idea that republicans will cross over and Hillary will rnergize the GOP. I believe they are also trying to make McCain “liberal” to appeal to be a acceptable choice to an African American-Muslem (what the will be pushing). I also believe that they have a concrete plan to swift boat Obama with Rezco- cocaine use and selling etc.

  25. Brian Luce says:

    I don’t see how anyone could argue that Hillary isn’t a divisive figure. You might want to check some of the polling on that one. It’s really beyond contestation. Remember the “Vast right wing conspiracy”? The impeachment? Make no mistake, the Clintons are despised in many circles and Hillary is by no means out of the loop.

    Regarding Swiftboating, remember who the original swiftboat victim was? John McCain in the 2000 South Carolin primary. Remember who the most recent victim was ? Obama in the 08 south Carolina Primary. Looks like the Clintons were wrong, Obama is NOT the Jesse Jackson of our day.

  26. Brian

    Obama was not swiftboated in S.C.. To claim so on this blog and to this blogger who worked for Kerry in ’04 and repeated defended his record here after from swiftboaters is ludicrous.

    Furthermore, if you want to claim Obama was swiftboated, then you need to look hard and fast at all the crap you have said about HRC here, because you are in fact making false claims about her here.

  27. CJbushwacker says:

    The Clintons by the right wing because he buried George H Bush that ended 12 years of GOP rule. The divisiveness was completely from the right wing nuts, and was echoed by the “liberal media”, the same “liberal media that trashed Gore and gave Bush a pass. I have no hatred for Obama, I am worried about continued GOP rule and what it will do to this country. I am not a racist, but I believe that the combination of Obama being an African American with a name that sounds like Osama, and a middle name of Husein is much more of a liability than the hatred of the far right towards Hillary.

  28. CJbushwacker says:

    P.S. Knowing Cheney and Bush, what would happen if there was a ” National security ” incedent before the November election . Would the nation turn to Obama or McCain the nation. Do not put that past these people

  29. Pingback: The Democratic Daily

  30. Brian Luce says:

    Bill Clinton raised the spectre of Jesse Jackson in an attempt to minimize Obama and remind all the white folks that this upstart is not viable outside socalled Black states. It was a fully transparent and sleazy attempt to pigeon hole Obama as the “Black” candidate. Meanwhile, Clinton surrogates were reflecting on the Obama candidacy with the following language “Drugs, cocaine, marijuana, drug dealing, cocaine, cocaine, cocaine, read his book….” I won’t even get into the email stuff that was going on.

    The Clintons were doing Rove before Rove was doing Rove.

  31. Brian

    1) I wasn’t aware that “drug use” was a race indictive issue.

    It’s not.

    Drug use is prevelent among a broad spectrum of demographics in this country, so if any thing the Obama camp turned the issue into race, because it was never said by the Clinton campaign surrogate, Bill Shaheen that brought it up, that it was a race issue.

    2) I look at the Jackson statement from Bill Clinton thusly: If someone from the Obama camp noted that Hillary won in a state that say Geraldine Ferrar won in, would it be called a sexist statement? I doubt it.

    3) For all the cries of indignance from Obama supporters that Clinton’s played the race card, which they did not in my opinion, Obama certainly has benefited from being the Black candidate. Don’t ya think?

    Chicago politicians have been doing Rove for decades and that’s where Obama learned to play the game. Get a clue.

    Obama has been playing dirty for months now. But all you Obama supporters do is whine that it’s all the Clintons. That is bull shit. Sheer, utter bull shit.

  32. Brian Luce says:

    1) I made no connection whatsoever to drugs and race. My point was about Clinton Swiftboaters and dirty tricks.

    2) No one from the Obama camp has made any Geraldine Ferrar/womens references! That’s the point!!!

    3) Okay, let me get this right, Chicago has a rep for dirty politics. Obama is from Chicago. Therefore Obama is a dirty politician.

  33. Brian

    You totally missed the point. That’s my point. The Ferrar point was hypothetical. The drug points were based on facts about drug use and the fact that the Obama team spun it as a racist comment. It was not. Drug use is prevelent in all in many demographics in this country. It’s not a race specific issue.

    The Clintons were not engaging in swift boating to say so diminishes the reality of what swift boating is and what John Kerry went through at the hands of the swift boaters.

  34. bjerryberg says:

    Some unsolicited advice, Pamela…

    It is not necessary to argue tit-for-tat with fantasy-ridden Obama supporters.

    It is not about Barry’s ‘stated positions,’ it is about his prime sponsors and their intentions.

    Barry Obama’s lavish promotion in the media and access to limitless funds suggests that he is the Establishment’s intended losing Dem
    candidate this year.

    And lotsa luck proving otherwise, since the Tony Rezko-Organized Crime dossier has now leaked in the British press.

    Corporate media in the USA will give Barry a pass–for awhile– in the hope that he can knock out Hillary. Then, he is history.

    As such, Obama is, today, a stalking horse for billionaire Bloomberg’s candidacy–Wall Street’s choice–until proven otherwise.

    Mussolini-imitator Bloomberg, of course, is the checkbook who re-elected Joe ‘Nuke Iran’ Lieberman to the US Senate. And who hired Caroline Kennedy to help him privatize NYC’s schools.

    Fegela Mike espouses a bi-partisan kind of fascism.

  35. CJbushwacker says:

    Many of the young obama supporters have just recently gotten interested in politics and they are not aware of the history of the past few decades. After Nixon was forced out of office to avoid being inpeached and convicted, the right wing began building up the right wing media outlets that would assure that something like that again. When Reagan came to power (by allegedly making a deal to hold the hostages in Iran untill after the election)While in power he ended the fairness in broadasting act, where both parties would have equal time on the air waves. This led to all the Russ Limbaugh types to take over talk radio and push the “liberal media” to the far right( they say that journalist learned early on in the Reagon years that it was bad for their carreer to cross the GOP party line. Reagon and HW Bush escape prosecution in Iran-Contra because of this.When Bill Clinton had the audacity to kick their ass the went after him and Hillary with full force. Despite 8 years of bombardment, the Clintons were able to have 8 years of peace and prosperity. He was so successful that he left office with an 80% approval rating , despite the bogus attempt to impeach him ( which was said to be pay back for Nixon)

    Geoge W Bush won the election because this “liberal media” made Gore out to be a serial liar and Kerry was a A traitor who didn’t earn his metals.If you think that what Bill Clinton said was swiftboating(since when is stating a FACT is swiftboating?) then sit back and watch what they can do to Arfrican-American with a name that sounds like Osama Husein

  36. CJbushwacker says:

    P.S. I saw a where Obama said if he couldget by the Clinton ‘s research team, he could easily fight off the GOP swfitboaters. that shows he he doesn’t get it. It doesn’t matter if it’s true, it’s if it’s perceived to be true.

  37. CJBushwacker

    You are right about the young voters not knowing much about the past few decades of history. The schools don’t teach much on it – my daughter graduated high school last June.

    Also the there’s a piece here on what Obama said about getting by Clinton’s research team.

    He’s dreaming if he thinks he’s seen all there is that can get thrown at him

  38. Brian Luce says:

    Obama’s supporters come from small donors. Clinton is financed by the powerful. Obama is ON THE RECORD as not accepting lobbyist money. This is public record people. Does anyone here watch the news? To portray the Clintons as anything but consumate insiders is crazy. What job did Bill have? PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. It doesn’t get any more inside than that! They’ve been living in the hyper reality of the privileged since the 1960’s at Yale. That contrasts dramatically from both Obamas.
    And it’s simple to use fact to swift boat, here’s two words from the past: Willie Horton. Remember him? It’s all about context and publicity. You don’t see Obama screaming “Semen stains! White Water! Pot smoking! Futures scams! Perjurer!”
    Btw, according to Newsweek Magazine, Obama does NOT want the Florida and Michigan delegates seated. Here’s a big “Duh” back atcha.

  39. Brian

    Funny you should bring up Obama and Lobbyists.

    Here you go: Bundlers for Barack Obama Who Have Registered as Federal Lobbyists

    Oh, and I wouldn’t take everything you hear in the news as truth. The media is controlled by the noise machine. If you bothered to read the first link in the you would get that.

    Funny thing about those insiders priveleged Clintons, you know she attracts more lower and middle income voters than Obama. And seems he’s led a rather priveleged life too.

    Good gracious put down the Bam flavored KoolAid Brian.

  40. Brian Luce says:

    Bundlers for Barack Obama Who Have Registered as Federal Lobbyists

    Your link supports the claims of the Obama campaign. Obama does not take money from lobbyists. Can Cliinton make the same claim? NO SHE CAN’T. Thank you for proving my point.

    So now Obama is the son of privilege? Why distort things? He was raised by a single mom in decidedly middle class surroundings. Even upon graduation from Harvard, he made $13,000 a year as a community organizer. Unlike Hillary, he hasn’t ridden any coat tails or lived in the bubble of the hyper connected for the last 35 years. NO HE HASN’T.

    The mainstream media is where most people get their info. We can’t rely on blogs because as your assertion about Obama’s privileged upbringing shows, there’s more spin here than at the Maytag Quality Control Lab.