No, He Can't Because Yes, They Will

Obama's mantra, "Yes, We Can" is inspiring and heartwarming, but in the end is an empty phrase that will founder once the Republican political attack machine spins up. I realize that most Obamatons are so wedded to his vision of hope that any effort to point out the cracks in the foundation of the new Democratic Savior are met with fury and disdain.

If you think for a minute that the Republican party--who used Willie Horton on Michael Dukakis  to devastating effect, who portrayed triple amputee and veteran Max Cleland as a bosom buddy of Osama Bin Laden, and convinced many voters that decorated combat veteran John Kerry was a fraud--will give Obama a pass come the fall then you are in serious denial.

But, unlike the attacks on Dukakis, Cleland, and Kerry, the ammunition that Obama has provided to his political foes is significant and deadly. But try telling that to Obama disciples. You get name calling and character assassination (just read the reaction to this piece). At the same time, Obama is treated with a reverence and fawning that I have never seen in my life for a political figure. What in the world was Chris Matthew's talking about with his tingling leg adulation heaped on Obama:

During MSNBC's live coverage of Tuesday's primary elections, after the speech of Barack Obama aired, Chris Matthews breathlessly expressed his admiration...and extreme excitement for Barack Obama by saying "I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often."

So, while Democrats engage in self-censorship and promote the worst kind of affirmative action pandering in promoting the myth of Obama, the Republicans are keeping mum and, like Brer Rabbit, begging not to be tossed into the briar patch and face the fearsome Obama.  (Want to bet how many accusations of racism I will get for referring to Brer Rabbit?)

Obama's untested achilles heel is his relationship with three men--Tony Rezko, William Ayers, and Rashid Khalidi.  These names will become shorthand for Corruption, Terrorism, and the Destruction of Israel.  Oh yes, I know.  I am going to extremes.  Well, let me lay out the facts and explain how the Republicans will likely use these relationships to bludgeon Obama's Presidential aspirations into dust.  My challenge to you Obama supporters is to explain to me and other readers of this blog how Obama will defuse these issues.

The Tony Rezko Problem:

There is a growing body of material in the blogosphere on this issue (looseheadprop has an excellent overview), but the mainstream media has paid little attention and most Americans know nothing of Rezko's bribery and corruption trial.  Not yet.  But that will change starting 25 February, when Rezko goes on trial in Chicago.  The best Obama can hope for is an acquittal or mistrial.  He cannot deny his longstanding friendship with Rezko.  A man who has played a significant role in raising funds for his political campaigns and a man who helped Obama and his wife get the home of their dreams.

But it is highly unlikely that Rezko gets off.  He just got nailed for lying to the Judge about his alleged poverty and was promptly arrested for hiding millions of dollars overseas.  And he is up against Patrick Fitzgerald.  Pat Fitzgerald does not go to court unprepared and does not have a record of losing, particularly in Illinois.  Remember, this is the guy who nailed Scooter Libby and the former Governor of Illinois.  The boy plays to win.

When Rezko is convicted and, the details of the corruption and bribery charges are fleshed out and the public learns that Senator Obama got some of that dirty cash, do you really believe the public won't care that the Democratic nominee for President is involved with a convicted felon?  Hell, this is a political attack ad that writes itself.

The William Ayers Problem:

William Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist, though he is normally described as a distinguished education professor.  One does not necessarily rule out the other, but he himself acknowledges planting bombs in U.S. Federal buildings.   There is now undeniable proof of a longstanding relationship between Barack Obama and William Ayers.  We are not talking about two guys who just happened to bump into one another on the street.  We are not talking about a secret admirer (Ayers) who quietly sent $200 to an aspiring politician.

No, we are talking about William Ayers hosting a fundraiser for Barack Obama and actively working with him to secure Barack's first electoral victory in Illinois.  But wait, there is more.  Barack and Ayers also served on the board of the Woods Fund.  And they worked together to give money to some other folks, including a group with ties to the PLO.

What makes Ayers so toxic is his own written record equating U.S. Marines with terrorists.  Look at the beating that John Kerry took for tossing his medals over the White House fence.  Ayers did not toss medals, he threw bombs.  Real ones.  Bombs that exploded.

Do you think that Republicans will ignore Obama's ties to Ayers?  The two were serving on the same board in 2002.  We are talking less than six years ago and the record will come out showing some questionable grants by these two characters.  William Ayers, in the age of terrorism, will be Barack Obama's Willie Horton.

The Problem of Rashid Khalidi:

So far, the press has paid little attention to Obama's ties to Rashid Khalidi, Middle East Professor at Columbia University and PLO activist.  An article in The Jewish Week from last year offers up this tantalizing tidbit:

<font class="content"> Khalidi, now the Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University, and head of that school's Middle East Institute, declined to comment on Abunimah's recollections. But in an interview in Tuesday's Daily News, he said he hosted the fundraiser because he and Obama were friends while the two lived in Chicago. "He never came to us and said he would do anything in terms of Palestinians," Khalidi told the paper.</font>

<font class="content">Nevertheless, one Hyde Park source close to Obama, speaking only on condition of anonymity, recalled, "He often expressed general sympathy for the Palestinians -- though I don't recall him ever saying anything publicly."</font>


Obama has made his pilgrimage to AIPAC (funny, but in his campaign against special interests and their grip on Washington he gives AIPAC a pass) and worked to position himself as a friend of Israel.  But the relationship with Khalidi has not yet received the white hot media attention that tends to occur during the dog days of July and August, when the press needs a story.  And guess who helped broker the appearance of Iran's Ahmadinejad last summer at Columbia University?  Professor Khalidi.  New York Times had his reaction to the event:
Rashid Khalidi, a professor of Arab studies and director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia, said, "The tone from the host of an event was uncivil and uncalled for.

"The president of the university had every right to state his differences," he said. "That was more than acceptable. But I believe it was embarrassing to the university, frankly, that they should decide to invite him and then treat him in this manner."


Now, which Presidential candidate is calling for talks with Iran?  You do not have to be Karl Rove or Lee Atwater to figure out how to tie Obama with Ahmadinejad using Obama's friendship with Khalidi.

I don't know what else is out there on Obama.  Unfortunately, the worshipful, servile attitude of many Democrats and media personalities so far has hindered a tough look at Obama's friends and associates and his judgment.   But that will come.  What should concern Democrats keen on taking back the White House is whether or not these issues will be fully vetted before Obama is installed as the candidate.  My guess is no.

And what do Republicans think?  I only have anecdotal evidence.  I asked an old friend, who served in law enforcement (I'll leave the particular agency out of it) for more than thirty years, about the William Ayers era.  There are a lot of Federal agents who believe that Ayers is a terrorist who got away with his crimes and still owes a debt to society.  My friend wrote the following to me today:

I think many of my friends  believe Obama is beatable; however they concede that Clinton can win.   Therefore, the thinking goes, WE hope Obama gets the Democratic nod and THEN  flood the gates with information later.

Feelings of hope and inspiration about Obama will evaporate when the commercials tying him to a convicted felon slumlord, an unrepentant terrorist who hates the troops, and a Professor of Middle Eastern Studies who has been a PLO official spouting anti-Israel rhetoric.  Oh, YES THEY WILL!  YES, THEY WILL.



Display:


LOL. Great imagery! (2.00 / 4)

"...the Republicans are keeping mum and, like Brer Rabbit, begging not to be tossed into the briar patch and face the fearsome Obama."

And oh, so true!  


by Shazone on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:39:58 PM EST

Obama claims only 5 hours of legal... (2.00 / 3)

work for Rezko.  So how does that turn into favors that result in Rezko's wife purchasing - at the Seller's insistance to sell both lots at the same time - the neighboring lot for Barack and Obama.

I mean I worked in business.  I was even an attorney and did 5 hours of legal work for many clients...and not one offered me such a deal.  And, believe it or not, I'm a very likeable person.


by Shazone on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:45:37 PM EST

Re: Obama claims only 5 hours of legal... (2.00 / 1)

Well part of his help was writing a letter recommending Rezko for a 14 million land deal...


I believe in Hillary
by sonofdonkeykong on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:29:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama claims only 5 hours of legal... (2.00 / 3)

It wasn't even a separate lot. Mrs. Rezko bought part of the yard because the Obama's couldn't afford the house. You only can access the "adjacent lot" through their own yard. It's a farce that will come back to haunt them over and over again.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:34:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama claims only 5 hours of legal... (none / 0)

Yeah and all the scumbags the Clinton's associate with will just be ignored. Comedy.


by illlaw1 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:39:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama claims only 5 hours of legal... (2.00 / 1)

Obama took money from Hsu too if that's what you are talking about.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:49:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama claims only 5 hours of legal... (none / 0)

You think that's the only criminal supporter she has?  It's not.


by illlaw1 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:55:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You think Rezko is the only criminal... (none / 0)

supporter that Obama has?

Ah, don't count on it!


by Shazone on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:06:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama claims only 5 hours of legal... (none / 0)

Obama and Rezko had a 17 year relationship.


by MOBlue on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:19:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You're right, undies... (2.00 / 1)

Obama is the one chance the Repugs have for victory this year - after the 8 years of horror with W the American voter is looking for something to "change" the trajectory of our country - but not once they know/realize who the big BO is.

I am just stunned that so many people don't see it.

Sigh.


by Shazone on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:47:46 PM EST

I think either way.... (none / 0)

the Republicans are going to have plenty of dirt against either Dem. candidate.  I don't think that Obama or Clinton has been fully vetted, no matter how much they claim they have.  Decision: This one's a draw.


This administration is not sinking. This administration is soaring! If anything, they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg!
by venavena on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:57:59 PM EST

Re: I think either way.... (2.00 / 2)

Clinton is fully vetted by virtue of already being publicly accused of EVERYTHING.

What they will accuse her of killing someone new?
What they will accuse her of being bribed?
What they will accuse her of financial scandal?

They have tried it all.
THATS WHY SHE HAS THE HIGH NEGATIVES.

Obama on the other hand has had nothing thrown at him and its totally not known how deep his Rezko links go.

And with money comming from the middle east to bail rezko out its not gonna be looking pretty for Barrack Hussein Obama especially with him not being straight at first about having been raised a muslim


I believe in Hillary
by sonofdonkeykong on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:34:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think either way.... (1.00 / 1)

Was he really raised a Muslim? I've seen the accusation and have asked but no one seems to really know.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:39:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No... NT (none / 0)


by Brillobreaks on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:53:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No... NT (none / 0)

What was he raised as?


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:55:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No... NT (2.00 / 1)

Nothing... from Wikipedia: "In Chapter 6 of the book, titled "Faith," Obama writes that he "was not raised in a religious household." He describes his mother, raised by non-religious parents, as detached from religion, yet "in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I have ever known." He describes his Kenyan father as "raised a Muslim," but a "confirmed atheist" by the time his parents met, and his Indonesian stepfather as "a man who saw religion as not particularly useful." The chapter details how Obama, in his twenties, while working with local churches as a community organizer, came to understand "the power of the African American religious tradition to spur social change":"

Basically, he joined a church in 1988.

In any case, I don't care what his religion is, but if you believe the "Muslim" line you're swallowing the crap from Fox News hook, line and sinker.

Oh, and I thought Obama was spared from this already?


by leshrac55 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:08:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No... NT (none / 0)

""My whole family was Muslim, and most of the people I knew were Muslim," said Maya Soetoro-Ng, Mr. Obama's younger half sister. But Mr. Obama attended a Catholic school and then a Muslim public school where the religious education was cursory. When he was 10, he returned to his birthplace of Hawaii to live with his grandparents and attended a preparatory school with a Christian affiliation but little religious instruction."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/a merica/30obama.php
I believe in Hillary
by sonofdonkeykong on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 04:38:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Fixed link sorry I have a mac (none / 0)

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/a merica/30obama.php


I believe in Hillary
by sonofdonkeykong on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 04:39:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No... NT (none / 0)

Atheist.  His mother was openly atheist, but the liberal arts kind who thinks Buddhism is ok if you don't take it literally.  He converted to Christianity in his 20s.


by HEAP on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:17:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No... NT (none / 0)

Muslim as per his sister.  Why are you all so gung ho to deny that a child in a Muslim country born to a Muslim father raised by a muslim father ends up being muslim?

His sister said it for pete sake


I believe in Hillary
by sonofdonkeykong on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 04:41:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No... NT (none / 0)

Where did she say it?


by illlaw1 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:40:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: google works (none / 0)

Nowhere I guess. Thanks redstater. Nice to have you aboard.


by illlaw1 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:03:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: google works (2.00 / 1)

Here:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/a merica/30obama.php


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 06:42:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: bullshit (none / 0)

Dirty fucking muslims! Oh wait I thought this was LGF not a "Progressive" website. Comedy.


by illlaw1 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:04:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yes he really was (none / 0)

So everyone who goes to a Catholic school is "raised Catholic"?


DC Drinking LiberallyDC for Democracy

by KCinDC on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 05:42:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think either way.... (none / 0)

Except of course a whole new generation of voters in in line now and they're not going to remember all of that.

She's lost the African-Americans, she never had the independents, and she won't get the youth vote.

Good job!


by illlaw1 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:34:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think either way.... (none / 0)

Grow up.  Anyone who continually uses Obama's middle name as some sort of attack is a nincompoop.  Neither he nor Clinton have been fully vetted no matter how many times you tell yourself that.  If the White House records are released, there are sure to be some issues, not to mention Kazakhstan.  I'm sure they'll be more for Obama too, probably involving donors.  


This administration is not sinking. This administration is soaring! If anything, they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg!
by venavena on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 06:43:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think either way.... (none / 0)

Comedy. He's got more legislative experience than HRC and more on  the ground experience than HRC. What he doesn't have is as much baggage as HRC.


by illlaw1 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:35:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you are out of your mind then (none / 0)

She's lost eight contests in a row and she's going to lose two more on Tuesday. She's been stopped.

This is a sad, pathetic line for Clinton supporters to take: "Clinton is corrupt, dishonest, and unlikable. So must Obama be (all politicians are) and the Republicans will discredit him as they discredited her."

It's not going to happen that way, for two reasons:

* Obama is not what Clinton is.

* Whatever his character, he is a better politician than Clinton. He's owned her at every stage of the game. If someone has to face the Republican attack machine, better to send the superior campaigner -- Obama.


by EMTP democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:08:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, He Can't Because Yes, They Will (none / 0)

Larry,
Thanks for trying but I fear you are right. Obama will be the nominee and we'll go down in a landslide. It's going to be even worse than losing though. Obama's going to ruin the party name for years. It'll take us a month of sundays to dig out of the hole he'll put us in.

One hope I have is that the Rezko trial is going to be before the PA primary. If the primary is still going on them and Obama is massively damaged we can still nominate Hillary. The superdelegates would abandon Obama en masse.

Did you read where the FBI mole is going to be testifying about Obama and Blago's relationship with Rezko in court?


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:38:04 PM EST

Re: No, He Can't Because Yes, They Will (none / 0)

Well, you'll still be here in November after the election, right?

The fact is, we have no idea what will happen. Hillary could also go down in flames (and many Obama supporters believe this is far more likely than it would be for Obama).  We just don't know, so it's stupid to make these kind of statements.

We don't have a time machine, so whatever happens in November, we just don't know what "would've happened" otherwise.  

I will say one thing though: If Hillary manages to get the nomination through Super Delegates against the popular will, chances of her winning will plummet, unless Obama KILLED someone or something like that.  Whoever the nominee is, if they're selected against the popular will, they'll have a rough time in November.


by leshrac55 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:13:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, He Can't Because Yes, They Will (none / 0)

Are you kidding? With the kinds of skeletons he has in his closet he's a sure loser. There's no way anyone who takes money from terrorists is going to win a general election.

And apparently he was raised as a Muslim according ot his sister.

Are you willing to count FL & MI? Those are primaries that reflected the will of the people.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 05:12:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, He Can't Because Yes, They Will (none / 0)

You must be from LGF. Welcome!


by illlaw1 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:42:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, He Can't Because Yes, They Will (none / 0)

Nope just keeping my head out of the sand. Keep spinning the circular logic and making excuses.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:51:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, He Can't Because Yes, They Will (none / 0)

Logic? Comedy. This swiftboating of you HRC supporters doesn't rely on logic.


by illlaw1 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:53:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, He Can't Because Yes, They Will (none / 0)

*from you


by illlaw1 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:53:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, He Can't Because Yes, They Will (none / 0)

Yeah, Hillary has no "skeletons" in her closet.

And if you want to put the "she's been tested" BS, well, all that same crap will come flying out again and will have as much impact, if not more impact, than it did before.  All kinds of BS, like Vince Foster, Whitewater, etc... will all be circulated and WILL influence people, even if it's all total BS.

So don't think that somehow the fact that this shit is already out there won't have an impact on the race.


by leshrac55 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 04:43:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

selected against what popular will? (none / 0)

The candidates are tied basically in delegates, the popular vote and national polling.  They will probably be even closer as this things continues.  So what you are saying is that Super Delegates should pay attention to the popular will of those that chose to or were able to come out and caucus or  vote in a primary?  If this whole thing had been decided by actual democratic voting- secret ballot and everything, then I would agree with you, but this is a party process, not a federal election.  It is about the party and the party's rules, not some idealistic wantings concerning the popular will.


by linc on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:40:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: selected against what popular will? (none / 0)

Well, whatever... Have fun defending that in a general election.  Her candidacy would look completely illegitimate in not just the eyes of thousands if not millions of democrats, but independents as well.  She'll have a hell of time convincing people that her candidacy was so important that it was worth trumping the the will of the actual elections with people who were not elected by anyone.

Superdelegates didn't get this kind of attention before because, frankly, they haven't really mattered that much until now.  I have a feeling that their role will either be eliminated or diminished after this election.


by leshrac55 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 04:48:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i am afraid that the powers that be (none / 0)

I think it's funny that you actually try to assassinate his character so much and then blame the breaking up of the Democratic Party on him. "It's not his fault he was raised a Muslim. It's his fault he's a lying, mafia-connected, dirty rotten scoundrel".


unapologetic Obama supporter
by dantes on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:42:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, He Can't Because Yes, They Will (2.00 / 1)

Really, that is all you can come up with?  The actions of 3 people Senator Obama has associated with over the course of his life?  You can't come up with any of Senator Obama's actions, words, or legislation?

Obama's association with Rezko is nothing compared to McCain's dealings as a part of the Keating 5.


by WellstoneDem on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:04:30 PM EST

Re: No, He Can't Because Yes, They Will (none / 0)

It seems clear that if this is all the Clinton camp can come up with there's not much there. Clinton on the other hand...


by illlaw1 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:33:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

this diary sounds like a clinton wet dream (2.00 / 1)

the only problem is that anyone that is willing to believe that obama is actually a terrorist sympathizer, is probably not going to vote for him. essentially what u guys are doing is to hope that the public accepts the most outlandish interpretation of obamas relationships.

meanwhile, even before the vaunted gop attack machine concentrates on clinton, half the country has already said they won't vote for her. bills post presidential activities, whether sexual, or financial, have been barely touched on or explicitly ignored (LA times spiking story).

its sad to see so many dems pulling up their skirts before the fight has even started. im sure mccain will need some volunteers - at least we know where ur allegiance lies.


by highgrade on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:08:46 PM EST

Re: this diary sounds like a clinton wet dream (none / 0)

It is the Clinton smear machine's wet dream to see an opponent publicly shredded and their career destroyed, even if they're doing and it's a fellow Democrat.  These people make me ill.

The ironic thing is that the point of this diary is that it would be painful to watch Obama crash and burn at the hands of the Republicans and lose the election.  Their preference, apparently, would be to nominate someone who's already behind with negatives over 50% so that you know she'll lose much earlier in the game and spare yourselves the agony.


NJ Hussein Independent
by NJIndependent on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:51:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

and I can promise you (none / 0)

That there are probably more Democrats that will refuse to vote for Hillary, even if no more negative ads were ever run against her until November. Face it. Rightly or wrongly, HRC is one of those politicians that arouses as much opposition from people of all political stripes, as any other public figure. Look at what she and her campaign have managed to do in the last 6 months? They've written off entire regions of the country; alienated one of the most consistent pro-Clinton constituency; managed to burn through $150,000,000 dollars only to complain they were on a "shoestring budget"; AND this is BEFORE anyone actually "vets" what they have been doing since 2000.

Do you honestly believe that CLinton has been faithful all of these years?

Do you honestly believe that there are no more financial "scandals" that the GOP will take advantage of?

Nominating HRC would be smothering the Dems chances of holding all of the power in DC before we ever got a chance to do anything with it.  


by highgrade on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 05:40:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Rashid Khalidi (2.00 / 1)

Did Karl Rove write this?

I can actually dissect words and arguments.

You have NOTHING public of anything Obama said on the issue.  Instead, you say somebody was a friend.

Well gosh darn it we all have friends.  I have friends too.  And some of those friends I like as people even though we are VERY different politically.  Are you going to transmute the views of a friend as mine?

Come on, you know better.


by bigdavefromqueens on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:15:46 PM EST

Logical discussion? (none / 0)

Obamatrons, Obamamaniacs, cultists, Kool aid drinkers, etc...  There's more vitriol here against Obama than in Freeper land.

Logical discussion - There is no doubt that no matter who the Democratic nominee is, that nominee is going to be viciously attacked by Republicans.  We agree there?

But is it really logical to suggest that we shouldn't vote for a person because they are going to be smeared by Republicans?  That would disqualify everybody.

I happen to be an expert on logic, I teach it to kids who have to take an entrance exam to perhaps the top high school in America.  I've scored perfectly on analytical logic tests in the past, including the appropriate part of the LSAT.


by bigdavefromqueens on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 11:40:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Logical discussion? (none / 0)

No, you're clearly a Republican operative trying to get a weak, muslim, terrorist-sympathizer nominee for the Republican party.  It's clearly the only explanation.

All Obama supporters on this site are really just Republican operatives, getting their cues from Karl Rove through a secret telepathic connection.

You clearly would rather have to find ridiculous shit to use against him than to simply dredge up all the shit that you already have on Clinton, and just pile a bunch of new shit on top of it.


by leshrac55 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 04:52:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Whew (2.00 / 1)

Thank goodness Sen. Clinton has led a life free of blemish.  Thank goodness she wouldn't be so dumb as to have a guy convicted of stealing confidential national security documents as a chief foreign policy advisor ...


by Adam B on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:40:36 PM EST

Copying His Own Writings? (none / 0)

The Republicans were spreading lies to try to deflect blame for the mistakes that allowed 9/11. The lies were often based on papers that only party loyalists had the ability to get out to the press. You make it sound as if he had stolen the plans for the Norden bombsight with the intent of passing them to the Gestapo.


by jabney on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:37:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Copying His Own Writings? (none / 0)

Cute story.  Has nothing to do with what actually happened.


by Adam B on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:58:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, He Can't Because Yes, They Will (none / 0)

The Rezko trial was moved to March 3rd, just one day before the Ohio and Texas primaries.
I can see a few articles on realclearpolitics.com now that are beginning to focus on Obama's possibly being an unknown quantity that needs further examination.  Let's say you're right, and this examination is done by the Republicans after he's nominated?  That's the worst possible scenario for the election.  Dems would look like idiots for electing this guy without knowing all this ahead of time.  No matter who you're for, you need him to be scrutinized in this way now, not later.  

by FarWest on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:41:39 PM EST

Re: No, He Can't Because Yes, They Will (none / 0)

Presumably the Obama camp knows about all this and is getting ready to release the information on their own terms.  Get it out now with the spin you want on it.  I think he'll be fine.  He, himself, may not have had to deal with swiftboat attacks, but certainly his staff has thought about it.  I'd guess they'll put something out right after he seals up the nomination


by kallen808 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 05:57:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, He Can't Because Yes, They Will (none / 0)

You think Clinton has no skeletons? Has nothing to answer for?

You think the right won't bring up bullshit on her (much like you've been doing to Obama for weeks and weeks)?

You think Clinton, with a last name and husband (to say nothing of the woman herself) that have been DEMONIZED for YEARS AND YEARS, still this day, almost a friggin DECADE after Bill left office, will be somehow immune to these sorts of things?

The majority of Hillary Hate is not warranted. However, I believe it to be ingrained in our society because of the late 90's and because of the media. The media has always been quick to criticize them and quick to demonize them, and that has leaked into society's political opinions.

Do you really imagine it will be that difficult for the media and the right wing to bring that back out of us?

You are a fool if you believe so.

She CANNOT validly defend her Kyl-Lieberman vote NOR her vote for war. If she says nothing, she looks like a hawk. If she blames Bush and says she didn't think he'd go to war, then she's an idiot.

She cannot explain that away in a satisfactory manner.

And the mere sight of her name will galvanize the Republican base, sucking in Independents and Democrats who have been weened on Clinton Hatred.

Because old habits die hard.

Obviously both candidates would have to fight off attacks. Obviously we would have to play a part in that, as we've done in primaries and in 2006 for specific races.

But to somehow argue that Clinton will have an easier time of it or that there's less crap to throw at her is, as per your usual, Larry, idiotic.


by theblaz on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:29:59 AM EST

Re: were you in a coma during the 90s? (none / 0)

You're blinded by loyalty. A nifty quality at times.

I know nothing showed up when they investigated Clinton for the blow job, that wasn't my point.

Do you just stop reading if you detect anything critical of Hillary?

You answered NONE of my questions, just made the laughable assertion that Hillary is more ethical than Obama.


by theblaz on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:21:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: were you in a coma during the 90s? (none / 0)

Travelgate, the cattle futures scam, the Vincent Foster "murder" (since we're talking about what people will say, not what's true ;)), and on and on down the list.

And then we move into the last ten years, and the refusal to disclose tax returns, all of the papers from the Clinton administration, including the healthcare task force, that they are trying to keep out of the public eye, the tens of millions from "consulting" and speeches, dodgy business partners, dealings with dictators, all of those sleazy pardons, etc., etc.

Hillary Clinton is the worst of all possible worlds:

1. She unites the right.

  1. She has a reputation for sleazy, negative campaigning, which will protect Republicans from an anti-sleazy backlash.
  2. She is an honest-to-God corrupt figure.
  3. As a function of her being in the White House for eight years, there are literally millions of documents lovingly preserved, any one of which might emerge with a career-destroying revelation.

Hillary the better candidate to face the right? Promoting this garbage, you've abandoned the reality-based community.


by EMTP democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:24:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm relieved some of this is finally coming out (2.00 / 1)

I've been scratching my head for months as to how it is the party can, but again, with so many of us screaming, drive the bus off a cliff and here it comes, put your head between your knees and kiss our asses goodbye.  

I could see Obama beating McCain, probably in a squeaker, dependent more on how McCain handles himself and Democratic leaders are able to heal the party.  so far, things do not look promising.  just as likely I can see the GOP winning but again, against the most ridiculous odds, due to the intractable elitist arrogant detachment of the party from mainstream Americans.  Surely the opinions of movie stars, college students and academics, one minority group, the Kennedy clan, SEIU, and a couple million undefined "independents" speaks for the nation at large.

the Obama campaign has so seriously alienated Clinton supporters that while they may vote for him for many it won't be with much enthusiasm.  Granted, it doesn't look too good the other way either.

I've been saying it for months to no avail -- the country may well be ready for a black or female president -- it may not be at all ready for the son of a Muslim foreign father schooled in the Phillipines middle name Hussein.  We just might not be ready to take that leap in 2008 -- it's still awfully damn close to 2001.

We might also not be quite ready for a president who admits to cocaine use, however not politics as usual that candor might be.  I know we aren't supposed to talk about that and just assume when the GOP does no one in the midwest will give a damn.  Okay.    Maybe I am just that damn out of touch with how much the country is ready for change.

I also fear that Obama will be pummelled and smeared with quotes taken out of context from "Dreams From My Father".  There's pretty much one on every tenth page and few Americans are going to read all 400+ of them to get the complete drift of the book.  Using his own words they are going to paint him as distrustful and angry at the white race and deeply troubled as a young man.

finally, in reference to the same book, this quote from Steve Sailer in the American Conservative
http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_03_12/ feature.html

(referring to Obama's emergence from internal struggles over his racial identity and how he might have attempted to embrace both of his races) "Instead, Obama falls under the spell of a leftist black nationalist preacher, Jeremiah A. Wright, who preaches African-American unity through antipathy toward whites. Reverend Wright remains a major influence on the presidential candidate. (The title of Obama's second book, The Audacity of Hope, is borrowed from one of Wright's sermons.) Ben Wallace-Wells notes in Rolling Stone: "This is as openly radical a background as any significant American political figure has ever emerged from, as much Malcolm X as Martin Luther King Jr."

These first concerns about Obama the Candidate ( not Obama the man or the potential president) expressed in the diary above may only be the tip of the iceberg we are all destine to hit together in the fall.  But better we should all just join hands, stick outr heads in the clouds and chant "Yes We Can."

Arrogant + Brash +  Naive = Stupid


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:41:01 AM EST

Re: I'm relieved some of this is finally coming ou (none / 0)

Actually, I don't think the Obama camps gives two shits about your enthusiasm. Imagine if all the Clinton trash/sleaze peddlers started volunteering for them.


by crazymoloch on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:25:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Beware the GOP Attack Machine (2.00 / 2)

I just can't even imagine how horrible it will be when Obama is our nominee and unhinged lunatics start writing lengthy internet posts about his ties to Muslim terrorists and shady businessmen.

Oh, wait . . .


I just flipped off President George, I'm going to Disneyland
by alvernon on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:20:49 AM EST

Re: Beware the GOP Attack Machine (none / 0)

lol


by illlaw1 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:43:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Vetting (none / 0)

Great diary.  I have seen some Obama supporters claim that he's been vetted simply because of the questions raised by the Clinton campaign and the rather mild notice of his lack of significant political achievement.  They have no clue what the right wing will do and they're too darned snotty to look at what happened to the Clintons (or else think the Clintons deserved it).  

Check out Media Matters.  The process has already begun.  He's being called "Halfrican" and the madrassa stuff just won't die.

While the individual issues here aren't campaign killers, that's not the goal.  It's the constant repetition of half-truths, falsehoods, speculation so that a "story" coalesces around the name Obama.  Just like the instant reaction you get hearing the name Hillary.  Anyone who thinks they won't do it to Obama is a fool.


by newhorizon on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:19:25 AM EST

Re: Vetting (none / 0)

Interesting world we live in. A Democratic party driven by perpetual fear of the Republican machine. I guess I know why so many 'Democrats' voted for the war.

I don't think anyone is naive about the kind of stuff Obama is going to get hit with. I think people are at the point where they're just sick of decisions being guided by fear. Maybe they should give more thought to th worst case scenrio a little more. I just think 8 years of fear has gotten people to the point where such appeals will no longer work, no matter the merits.

Do you really want me to vote for Hillary because I'm afraid of swiftboating? Believe it or not, people aren't too crazy about picking their nominee that way. They tried that in 2004. It worked out great.


by crazymoloch on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:51:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Vetting (none / 0)

"Do you really want me to vote for Hillary because I'm afraid of swiftboating?"

Not at all.  I am just amazed at those Obama supporters who act as if the nomination (and thus the White House) is a done deal.

You raise an interesting point though about allowing fear to dictate our choices.  It's a good idea to keep in mind.  In fact, it sounds very much like the "electability" debates.


by newhorizon on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:07:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Vetting (none / 0)

Isn't this diary an 'electability debate'?

Plus, I tend to take anything Larry Johnson writes with a grain of salt. Given his support for George Bush in 2000, his political judgment means squat to me.


by crazymoloch on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:19:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Vetting (none / 0)

I'm amazed at the Hillary supporters who think she can win against McCain actually. From what I've seen coming from the Clinton camp,  her surrogates, and her supporters who are attempting to GOP him, this guy is pretty clean. Clinton on the other hand is corporate to the  core and has dirt all over her. People act like because all of her scandals are known they won't have an effect. But they're not known to the new generation of voters who were just kids when the Clinton's were in office. She's lost the African-American vote, she'll never get the independents, and she won't get the new generation of Democrats. When the youngin's who have no loyalty to Clinton because they didn't fight the silly battles of the 90's for them hear about all of her dirt anew they'll again think it's all about politics as usual and go back to chillin at school and ignoring this politics crap.

The only question is how badly she'll lose.


by illlaw1 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:49:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If Hillary looks like she (none / 0)

got the Dem nominee because she "stole" it ie had LESS pledged delegates than Obama but still wins the nomination, she is going to LOSE PERIOD.  African-Americans will feel that she took the nomination away from Obama and will not vote for her at all in the general election thus she will lose swing states.

The Dem base will be SPLIT.  


by puma on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:57:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Hillary looks like she (none / 0)

Oh certainly but I'm not sure she'll get our (AA) full support even if she wins without any games. Nor will she ever get the independents and I'm sure many of the young voters will stay at home.


by illlaw1 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 09:01:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

AGAIN (none / 0)

No one is saying the GOP won't bring up every dirty rumour, half truth, etc. That's not the point. You could search for 100 years and you'll never find a candidate that the GOP or any other political opposition won't be able to smear.

The question is who can win despite these attacks. Whose base of political support do you think is less likely to fracture and at the same time reach into new voters/moderates?  
   


by highgrade on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 05:46:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't think anyone is asking anyone to change (none / 0)

anything.  No Obama supporter is going to change their mind and the party will do what the party will do.

Obama will be the candidate, I'm resigned to that.  But seeing as the thoughts of the party regulars were ignored again through the process, the least we should get out of this is being proven right down the road.

Then maybe in four years someone will listen.  Here's hoping for that change.


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 06:00:46 AM EST

Re: I don't (none / 0)

That's the way I feel too. We should start looking to 2012 to win the presidential election. The cult will get the Obama nomination they so desire but it will also get a lesson in electoral politics in Nov. when he goes down in a landslide. Maybe next time they won't get caught up in the hype and will look at facts.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:13:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

We'll never learn (none / 0)

Every generation will have its Vietnam.  Every generation will have its George McGovern.  We learn our lesson just in time to be shoved aside by the next generation who think they don't have to pay attention to history.  Who fervently believe that this time its going to be different.


by dbrown04 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:14:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think anyone is asking anyone to chang (none / 0)

Yes, this process has really been hijacked by the democratic wing of the Democratic party.

Party politics would be really fun without all these damn voters gumming up the works.

Barack Obama is a once-in-a-generation politician with the potential to drive the conservative movement into oblivion. And all you can think about is how the hoi polloi has invaded your cozy little clubhouse and ousted your favorite party machine hack.

Tough tittes. This is now the party of the progressive movement. Door's over there.


by EMTP democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:34:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

no (none / 0)

You have totally missed the point.  The process has produced two very flawed candidates regardless of the current gushing over both.  Senator Clinton has managed to get this far with high disapproval ratings in the general electorate.  Senator Obama has gotten this far by energizing a fraction of the general electorate in a way that may very well alienate much of the rest and with attendent factors that he may not be able to overcome.

The point is to nominate someone who will win in November.  Since 2000 the process has failed us and I fear it will this year again. Obama is a once-in-a-generation orator but troubling signs are ou there that the general electorate is not looking for an energizing orator and chief this particular year.  Nor can you drag them against their will into some progressive revolution.  


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:05:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wishful thinking on your part. (none / 0)

Polls say most democrats are happy with Obama, including those that support Hillary. MyDD wackjobs do not constitute a statistically significant portion of the electorate.

Polls say Obama leads McCain.

Polls says McCain leads Clinton.

Polls say Clinton has the highest negatives of any candidate in the race, and people feel strongly about her. Historically, people who have a decidedly negative view of a candidate rarely change their minds and support him or her.

Obama is a strong candidate; Clinton is a weak candidate.


by EMTP democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 04:09:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

we will see (none / 0)

and it's far from wishful thinking on my part. I'd characterize it more as frustration and dread.  Believe or not, the GOP is laying off of Obama delibrately. I realize according to you we aren't supposed to fear their smear machine.  Okay then, I sincerely hope you are right.

And for the record, I've heard quite a bit of misgivings and concerns out here from people who don't visit blogs and post their concerns.  the misgivings are bigger than ten people on a blog, whether you choose to accept that or not and the GOP hasn't even started playing yet.


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 05:26:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: we will see (none / 0)

I do not believe it. It would require a conspiracy of massive proportions, including all the polling firms in existence and every conservative hack in existence. The right-wing smear machine doesn't have a clubhouse to which they all retire to coordinate their actions. It's a bunch of hateful people in loose association with one another who could not keep a juicy secret if their lives depended on it.

Furthermore, Hillary Clinton would smear Barack Obama in a New York minute if she had anything that would stick. All the talk about how tough she is and how she will fight the dirty fight, and her supporters want us to believe that she's too refined to do the dirty deeds the Republicans will do in the fall (while, as in this diary, trying mightly to get the swiftboat on the river, sans success.)


by EMTP democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:43:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So I guess we Dems are NOT going to win (none / 0)

this general election at all this year.

If Obama is the Dem nominee, the GOP are going to smear him.

If Hillary is the Dem nominee, they will bring up the worse vial stuff about Hillary and Bill that you can imagine. Hillary fans think that she has been thoroughly vetted.  You ain't seen nothing yet.

Either Dem nominee will be SMEARED to high heaven.

Might as well go home now.


by puma on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:40:07 AM EST

Re: So I guess we Dems are NOT going to win (none / 0)

Did Hillary take campaign donations from a terrorist? Or allow someone with terrorist connections to help her buy her house?


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:22:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So I guess we Dems are NOT going to win (none / 0)

Comedy. It's like being on redstate. I love it. The slo-mo death of MyDD and the Clinton's is an amusing thing to watch.

Considering BJC made it easier to execute people I suppose it's karma.


by illlaw1 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:31:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So (none / 0)

Nope, I don't have my head in the sand. If you think taking money from terrorists is a winning electoral issue then you need to get out of the bubble.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:33:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So (none / 0)

I guess HRC is actually controlled by China then. The only solace I have is that people like you don't actually have any power.


by illlaw1 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:51:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I am absolutely sure (none / 0)

that the GOP has PLENTY of ammunititon against Hillary that they can't wait to spring on the American public.  

Hillary already has a 50% negative and she isn't likeable even by folks in the Dem party. Her negatives will probably be 60%, 70%, or beyond if she looks like she is trying to steal the Dem nomination at the convention AND after the GOP attack machine gets a hold of her.

This election will NOT be a cakewalk no matter who is the Dem nominee.

The only good thing for the Dems is that the Dem convention is not until the end of August and we probably will not know who the nominee is until then.  Thus less time to smear the Dem nominee.


by puma on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:37:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am absolutely sure (none / 0)

Do you realize that Obama undefined and there fore easier to raise the negatives of? The GOP even admits that Obama's negatives are going to easily be raised to 60% or more. Hillary is already defined and not much is going to change. Remember Kerry's low negative numbers that shot sky high once the GOP got done with him? Expect the same from Obama.

Do you really think this is going to go to the convention? I doubt it. Dean has said he wants it finalized in April.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:54:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am absolutely sure (none / 0)

Yeah so his go to 40% and hers shoot to 60% when the new generation learns about her.

Either way she doesn't have a chance to win.


by illlaw1 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:57:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

April? (none / 0)

How the hell is this going to end in April?

Even if Clinton wins Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, she will still have LESS pledged delegates that Obama in April.

No way does this end in April.

This will at least go through June and has about a 50% chance of going to the convention.  Hillary even said she will fight to win this nomination in the convention.  I believe her that she would rather tear the party apart than to lose the nomination.  However, by splitting the party she will LOSE the general.

Yep Obama's negatives will go up as John Kerry's did because of the GOP attack machine. So will Hillary's.  Hers will go to 60% and beyond plus she will have a MOTIVATED GOP base against her.  Hillary is not likeable while Obama is.

Again this election will NOT be a cake walk no matter her the Dem nominee is.


by puma on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 09:08:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It ends in the second week of March. (none / 0)

. . . when Clinton quits.


by EMTP democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 04:11:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, He Can't Because Yes, They Will (none / 0)

I would like to be able to support Hillary.
Can some one explain why she will not release her and Bill's tax returns now? If there is nothing to hide what is the big deal? She says she will release them if she is the nominee, so why not a few months earlier? Why not let us see where the 5 Million came from? Don't we need to know from who and how she earns her money?  
by graham poor on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:03:39 AM EST

I'm a Clinton supporter but ... (none / 0)

Its true that Obama hasn't been thoroughly vetted.  Its true that Clinton has.
Its true that the Republican slime machine just can't wait to get their hands on Obama.  
In addition to all of the material in this diary, the Republicans are going to represent him as to the left of Lenin.

But this leads me to two conclusions:

1. Any candidate put up by the Democrats is going to be slimed by the Republicans for something.  So we just need to be ready.  And wouldn't it be delicious if the Republicans pulled out all of the stops and we won anyway?  I think it could happen.

Of course, there's the corollary.

2.  The reason Clinton's negatives are so high is that she has already been thoroughly "vetted" by the Republican slime machine.  That's not going to keep me from voting for her.


by dbrown04 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:09:04 AM EST

Her negatives are so high (none / 0)

is because she is NOT LIKEABLE, not just because she has been thorougly "vetted" which of course we know this is not true. One question comes to mind is why isn't Hillary releasing her tax return now?  I predict there is going to be something really concerning there that the public will find out.

Bill Clinton has been just as "vetted" as Hillary and got through an impeachment yet he ended office with a HIGH approval rating and still has one. One of the reasons is that he is LIKEABLE.  Hillary is not.  


by puma on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:43:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Based on what evidence she's not likable? (none / 0)

I don't know how old you were in the 1990s but Hillary got hammered for silly things like not having a favorite cookie recipe.  She wasn't "likable" because she didn't want to be the standard American President's wife.  She had ideas of her own and wanted to be part of the policy-making process.

The likability meme doesn't come from any particular knowledge of her personality.  It comes from the discomfort we feel when she challenges traditional roles.

You know, the last time we elected the more likable candidate, we got George Bush.  You really want to go down that path again?


by dbrown04 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:18:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes he can because no you can't make (none / 0)

a coherent argument.


by illlaw1 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:29:50 AM EST

Re: Yes he can because no you can't make (none / 0)

This is demonstrably false.  Lots of people were going around quoting Larry in the not so distant past when his friends Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame were still getting the respect they deserve and Larry was defending them.  But now, Obama supporters want to turn their backs on the former heroes and their defenders simply because these seasoned professionals believe Senator Clinton is a better candidate.

I just have to shake my head at the intentionally selective memory one has to have to make statements like the one you made here.


by Mike Pridmore on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:54:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes he can because no you can't make (none / 0)

That is the crux of the matter. One side want party machine hacks -- or, excuse me, "seasoned professionals" -- to decide the nomination. The other wants the voters to decide.


by EMTP democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 04:14:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

John "I HATE GOOKS" McCain (none / 0)

will also be smeared as well.    

My prediction:  if Obama makes it through the Rezko trial this Spring with people still liking him and with high approval ratings, he will be able to battle the Repub smear that he will endure in the Fall if he is the nominee.

Both McCain and Hillary will go after Obama during this trial.  We will know more after that trial.  If Obama makes it through that trial, I say he will have a fighting chance to battle the smears.


by puma on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:48:59 AM EST

Rezko (none / 0)

He had one client who turned out to be scummy (later) but BHO was doing the right thing by using his energy to help the people. HRC had plenty of scummy clients and she was using her energy to do bad things on behalf of her scummy clients who she knew were scummy.

Big difference.


by illlaw1 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 09:00:26 AM EST

The weathermen (none / 0)

Wow! Do you really think we will get to relive the Days of Rage?

How many people today even know about the weathermen?


by MoDem on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 09:18:22 AM EST

Re: The weathermen (none / 0)

I know you don't have to be one to know which way the wind blows.


by EMTP democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 04:17:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, He Can't Because Yes, They Will (none / 0)

The cards of this diary have been played so many times they are worn out...
Days of rage As I recall there were mass arrests in D.C. and they put over 10,000 in the football stadium by just arresting every person in sight.
"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud"...Arlo Guthrie
by nogo war on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 09:31:07 AM EST

Re: Hillary is not vetted (none / 0)

The Clintons have been busy since Bill was president and the list of Rezko's that they have been associated with as donors and business associates who are now under investigation or in jail could fill a phone book.

Norman Hsu, Marc Rich, Aaron Tonken, Peter F. Paul, Sant S. Chatwal, International Profit Associates (IPA) , Yah Lin "Charlie" Trie, John Huang, James Riady, Johnny Chung, Roger Tamraz

The list could go on. I'm sure though you will never hear Obama mentioning any of them. He's not desperate and grasping at straws.

But guess what, none of it matters. Neither the Clintons or Obama is the subject of any investigation or is going to be indicted or is there any eveidence that any of them did anything illegal.

They didn't take down Kerry and Gore because of a suspect donor or business deal. They just made shit up.

Hillary has never faced a tough campaign against a Republican as a candidate. Her NY campaigns were cakewalks compared to what she will face in the general. She has completely lost the contest to control the media narrative in this primary which was deadly to Kerry and Gore. The proof of which is her surrogates are all crying about how mean the media