The whole world is ending, oh my GOD! Obama is unpatriotic! Now the terrorists win! O!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/barackobamadotcom/

quote:

---

Obama has taken an extremely immoral stand on the Palestinian-Israeli issue by, among other positions, actually applauding Israel's siege and starvation of 1.5 million innocent Gazans, and by mourning Israel's losses to Palestinian rocket fire (12 people in seven years) without bothering even to mention the approximately 2,600 Gazans killed by Israeli rocket fire, airstrikes, and assassinations in those same seven years. He made one reference last year to Palestinian suffering, was immediately dumped on by Jewish leaders, and has since said nothing honest about the occupation -- not even expressing support for the two-state solution. Source

---

Chris Floyd is similarly unimpressed...

Hence, we know a lot about his middle name, his childhood in a "muslim" country, the fact that he went to Somalia and played dress up.

But we don't hear a lot about his ties to sleazy developers, or his hypocrisy on campaign financing, or the fact that his crusade against high drug prices is drawing record support from pharmaceutical companies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercy:
The one issue that's recieved more coverage here then down there is the fact that sources in the Canadian embassy contend that Obama's camp phoned them to assure them that his anti-NAFTA rhetoric is all b.s.

---

A story that was itself subsequently revealed to be B.S.

quote:

---

Right now, that looks like Obama to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:

A story that was itself subsequently revealed to be B.S.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lord Palmerston:
Matt Gonzalez on Obama:

http://tinyurl.com/2qtxfv

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sandy47:
I'm only saying one day one will be no different from the other, both the better and the worse choices will be so horrible whoever is elected will be toxic to those who have to endure their administration.

---

Okay then, would you rather have the person who opposed the Iraq War from the outset, and plans to withdraw US forces by the end of the year, or the person who will invade Iran before withdrawing from Iraq. Putting at risk further thousands of American lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi lives, and burning about another... what 500 billion dollars?

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Okay, then. Would you rather be hanged or shot by firing squad? (blindfold optional)

---

quote:

---

So far, Obama’s campaign has responded with aggressive corrections that tout his Christian faith, attack the attackers and channel a cooperative witness before the House Un-American Activities Committee. “Barack has never been a Muslim or practiced any other faith besides Christianity,” states one fact sheet. “I’m not and never have been of the Muslim faith,” Obama told a Christian News reporter.

Of course Obama must correct the record, but he doesn’t have to stop there. What is disturbing about the campaign’s response is that it leaves unchallenged the disgraceful and racist premise behind the entire “Muslim smear”: that being Muslim is de facto a source of shame. Obama’s supporters often say they are being “Swiftboated,” casually accepting the idea that being accused of Muslimhood is tantamount to being accused of treason.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
what of these false rumors spread across the U.S., and in the middle of that party's nomination race no less, that Obama is a Muslim and anti-Christian?

---

I was hoping someone would say "why is it slander to say someone's a Muslim, any more than it's slander to say someone's Jewish?" But that would have required independent thought, I guess.

Edited to add: I see Naomi Klein said it first. Seldom differ, etc.

[ 02 March 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:

Okay then, would you rather have the person who opposed the Iraq War from the outset, and plans to withdraw US forces by the end of the year, or the person who will invade Iran before withdrawing from Iraq. Putting at risk further thousands of American lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi lives, and burning about another... what 500 billion dollars?

I guess they're the same though.

---

In this case, I really do think they are the same. As for Obama being against the Iraq war 'from the beginning'... voicing one's opposition while campaigning for a seat in the Illinois legislature hardly constitutes a condemnation, or a rock solid policy position, or even, necessarily, a genuine belief in what he's uttering for public consumption.

Besides, as Matt Gonzalez notes, his position on Iraq seems... somewhat fluid now that he's on the national stage.

quote:

---

Let’s start with his signature position against the Iraq war. Obama has sent mixed messages at best.

First, he opposed the war in Iraq while in the Illinois state legislature. Once he was running for US Senate though, when public opinion and support for the war was at its highest, he was quoted in the July 27, 2004 Chicago Tribune as saying, “There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who’s in a position to execute.” The Tribune went on to say that Obama, “now believes US forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation – a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration.”

---

And according to Floyd's piece, he ain't about pulling any troops out of anywhere either...

quote:

---

We know that Obama has called for the American military to be even larger and more powerful, more ready to strike anywhere in the world with overwhelming force whenever the nation's "interests" – defined solely by the elite – are "threatened." We know that his plan for "withdrawing" from Iraq involves leaving an undetermined number of troops in the conquered land, carrying out the same "missions" which they are supposedly conducting now: training Iraqi security forces, fighting terrorism, protecting American assets and personnel, bringing "stability to the region," etc. And as Jeremy Scahill points out, Obama's plans could also lead to an increase in the number of private contractors – mercenaries – in Iraq. Obama has refused to support legislation banning the use of these volatile hired guns in war zones.

---

This guy is all BS. From health care to the justice system, to the continuation and the expansion of olde-tyme US gunboat diplomacy, he doesn't represent any real change from bu$h in current policy at home or abroad, but he's glib, and he speaks as if he does. He may look like salvation, but he's just more of the same.

quote:

---

Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:

Okay then, would you rather have the person who opposed the Iraq War from the outset, and plans to withdraw US forces by the end of the year, or the person who will invade Iran before withdrawing from Iraq. Putting at risk further thousands of American lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi lives, and burning about another... what 500 billion dollars?

I guess they're the same though.

---

"Progressives" need to head into this exercise with their eyes open - and they're not. As has been noted elsewhere Obama hasn't committed to a real withdrawl from Iraq and he's stated his readiness to ignore the sovereignty of other nations if it's in the so-called "US interest" (even that of "US allies" like Pakistan!). His plan for "universal health care" is anything but.

Here's my thinking.

Best case scenario: Obama wins and, shortly thereafter, we have a long hangover where the guy delivers nothing but broken promises and everyone wonders why we were so excited. They then get to work on mobilizing to implement the agenda that they thought they'd get by voting Obama.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lord Palmerston:
Matt Gonzalez on Obama:

http://tinyurl.com/2qtxfv

---

Andry's Blog
Source of Obama photo from Kenya

The Obama photo from Kenya (in Somali-elder garb)
was posted on the [conservative] Free Republic

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1975546/posts site on February 24, 2008 and is apparently scanned from "EXAMINER FEBRUARY 4,
2008." It was posted there on Sunday, February 24
mid-day, BEFORE Drudge ran the photo on Monday, February 25, and claimed it was from the Clinton campaign. The Free Republic poster of that photo is "cmsgop". He is not likely a Clinton staffer, judging from that profile linked.
http://www.freerepublic.com/~cmsgop/

EXIF data shows the scanned photo was created
February 23, 2008 using Microsoft Windows Photo Gallery and is stored at the Fotki site. The
context is from a very misleading article.
http://hotimg2.fotki.com/b/75_85/224_153/o-bob.jpg

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
A friend on another forum posted that the author of this piece is running as Nader's VP, and naturally wouldn't be an Obama (or Clinton) supporter.

---

Maybe it's the other way around: Gonzalez sees no point in supporting Obama, so he's running with Nader.

What difference does it make?

[ 03 March 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

...a funny thing happened on the way to the 2008 election.
Unless Hillary Clinton wins big on Tuesday, Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee. And he's not at all the kind of candidate one might have expected to emerge out of the backlash against Republican governance.(...)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coyote:
I think the last 8 years have been so horrible that some repudiation is necessary. Even if it is only symbolic. I don't actually want things to get any worse. I'll stick with my former rage as opposed to the last 8 years of my life every day saying to myself at least once: "this cannot be fucking happening".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:
[QB]

A story that was itself subsequently revealed to be B.S.

---

See today's http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Democrats-NAFTA.html?scp=1&sq=nafta+obama+canada&st=nyt

or, if you don't have or want free registration there, the AP story they referenced, at
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jDNxeklf0BK1BNTepCdWL94fPBkwD8V65RVO4
or, shorter: http://tinyurl.com/2zdnlq

The key paragraph, in the memo by the Consulate that was sent to 1,300 parties, is:

"Noting anxiety among many US domestic audiences about the US economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign. Consistent with CHCGO/WSHDC's analysis, he cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans..."

Obama, interviewed after that, said that he had not been aware of the meeting. Goolsbee said he didn't say this (at least not in this more flowery way).

Unfortunately, Obama has a way of having to admit things after the fact, such as his having dealt with Rezko personally on the house purchase (not admitted previously).

His telling an Iowa audience that a certain bill was "the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed ... I just did that last year" was disconcerting to NY Times and others, because the bill never passed, and by the time he revised it according to nuclear company wishes and Republicans involved, the regulatory portions were taken out of the bill and replaced by language that the company would "consider" timely reporting of leaks.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coyote:
I'm not arguing that. And, fyi, I'm not one of those who's going to take pot-shots at those who can't bring themselves to support the Dems: I get it, believe me.

I think the last 8 years have been so horrible that some repudiation is necessary. Even if it is only symbolic. I don't actually want things to get any worse. I'll stick with my former rage as opposed to the last 8 years of my life every day saying to myself at least once: "this cannot be fucking happening".

---

Apparently the Obama campaign is extremely angry with the Conservative government (justifibly so).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lord Palmerston:
Matt Gonzalez on Obama:

http://tinyurl.com/2qtxfv

---

Granted Matt Gonzalez is not objective -- who is? -- but he can make us ask the crucial question "did we see more than was there?"

quote:

---

Oprah made Obama. Without her boosting him he'd not be where he is today. Oprah has a great show.. But she can be conned.

---

A few million other dupes along for the ride too.

[ 04 March 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

Hillary Clinton told reporters that both she and the presumtive Republican nominee John McCain offer the experience to be ready to tackle any crisis facing the country under their watch, but Barack Obama simply offers more rhetoric. “I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say,” she said. “He’s never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adam T:
Anybody who thinks there is not a dimes worth of differences between the Democrats and the Republicans has obviously either not been paying attention the last 7 years or is extremely stupid, and probably both.

---

The end result has been EXACTLY the same.

Don't you think you're spinning a bit?

[ 04 March 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

And along with victimhood, Clinton has finally found a powerful theme, the same theme that George W. Bush used at his convention and in his reelection campaign in 2004: Vote for me or die.

With her “3 a.m. phone call” ad, she is saying exactly what Bush said: I will protect you and your children, and the other guy will not.

Yes, there is irony in a Democrat trying to getting the nomination by adopting a Republican tactic, but, hey, you know what? It worked back then, and Clinton is betting it will work now.

It is not a perfect theme for Clinton. She cannot point to any examples of actually having solved a national security crisis at 3 a.m. or any other time, but her argument is that she has the judgment and experience that Obama lacks to protect the nation.

She is throwing in “kitchen sink” stuff, too: She is hitting Obama for not being candid about NAFTA, and she is even making some odd (and unpleasant) statements on his religion.

On “60 Minutes” Sunday, when Steve Croft asked Clinton if she believed Obama was a Muslim, she replied: “No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know.”

“As far as I know”? Doesn’t that just continue a smear?

---

Here's the original "Red phone" ad.

[ 04 March 2008: Message edited by: mary123 ]

quote:

---

On “60 Minutes” Sunday, when Steve Croft asked Clinton if she believed Obama was a Muslim, she replied: “No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know.”

“As far as I know”? Doesn’t that just continue a smear?

---

A smear? Thats ridiculous. And an unfortunate example of how easily this gets ridiculous.

It's similar to the outcry over practices in Florida that have disenfranchised those who have similar names to convicted felons. I didn't hear Moore or Palast or anyone else questioning the legitimacy of disenfranchising those who actually were convicted felons.

quote:

---

Originally posted by aka Mycroft:
This reminds me of the days when politicians would be accused of being "crypto-Jews".

---

quote:

---

Roger Simon: "On “60 Minutes” Sunday, when Steve Croft asked Clinton if she believed Obama was a Muslim, she replied: “No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know.”

---

[ 04 March 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

What is this world coming to when a castrating bitch like Hillary can come along and change everything!? She's single-handedly turning American politics into a rough-and-tumble contest! How unseemly! Unladylike!

P.S. No, I'm not attributing the "castrating bitch" opinion to anyone here. I know babblers aren't like that. But the more US news and commentary (and bloggers, particularly DEMOCRATIC ones), the more annoyed I get. Of course, I also get annoyed at stupid stuff like the "Change you can xerox" line that Clinton's speechwriters came up with and she parroted. But let's not pretend that she's the first Democrat to ever "go negative" or to fight hard for the nomination.

[ 04 March 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adam T:
However, I see the New Democrats here are still fooling themselves that they are holier than thou.

---

I don't know about thou. But we are holier than the Liberals.

[ 04 March 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

This is so stupid, it plays right into John McCain's hands.

And to boot, Canada seems to have played a role in this close race where it doesn't take much to move voters one way of the other.

Maureen Dowd has hardly been neutral, but this is good nonetheless:

quote:

---

With Obama saying the hour is upon us to elect a black man and Hillary saying the hour is upon us to elect a woman, the Democratic primary has become the ultimate nightmare of liberal identity politics. All the victimizations go tripping over each other and colliding, a competition of historical guilts.

People will have to choose which of America’s sins are greater, and which stain will have to be removed first. Is misogyny worse than racism, or is racism worse than misogyny?

---

Somewhat less conciliatory to the most ferocious supporters:

quote:

---

Just as Michelle Obama urged blacks to support her husband, many shoulder-pad feminists are growing more fierce in charging that women who let Obama leapfrog over Hillary are traitors.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercy:
Especially when the Obama camp is doing the same damn thing.

Obama's infamous mailer on Hillary's health plan regurgitated the talking point of the private health lobby? That's not just attacking your opponent. That's attacking progressive reform. Where's the outrage?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
I know. It's amazing! She actually has the nerve to, you know, fight hard for the election and do what men have been doing for years in American politics. Golly, no one has ever, ever gone negative before! Gosh, my virgin ears, no one has ever played up their own good points and highlighted their opponents' weak points before!

What is this world coming to when a castrating bitch like Hillary can come along and change everything!? She's single-handedly turning American politics into a rough-and-tumble contest! How unseemly! Unladylike!

[ 04 March 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

---

quote:

---

and at least one of them minimizing the sexism she's facing

---

That's unfair Michele.

In the first place, I acknowledge the sexism she faces- and not in a back handed manner.

Then I try to draw a line around the kind of defenses of Clinton for which there is reason to be skeptical because of their clear partisan interest.

I can see that doesn't belong in the thread, but it wasn't a case of me minimizing the sexism she faces.

And BTW- doesn't this work out well having 2 different threads?

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
Here I can take potshots at martin for what an unscrupulous piece of business I think he is, without derailing a thread that really should be about feminism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:

There's no outrage because there was nothing untrue about the mailer. Clinton's idea of health reform is to require everyone to buy an insurance policy. Just what the "private health lobby" wants. Some reform.

---

** crickets **

Look, Clinton and Obama are both running on the same set of empty platitudes. The difference is when Obama mouths them a lot of people are treating them as divinely inspired. When Clinton takes a shot at him she's being cynical and undermining the Democrats. When Obama takes a shot at her he's unifying the country.

quote:

---

On the argument of which candidate was better prepared to protect the nation – an issue Mrs. Clinton raised with the advertisement featuring a telephone ringing in the White House at 3 a.m. – Mr. Obama suggested that Mrs. Clinton has not explained why she would be better prepared to take such a call.
“It’s important to examine that claim and not just allow her to assert it, which I think has been going on for quite some time,” Mr. Obama said. “What exactly is this foreign experience that she’s claiming? I know she talks about visiting 80 countries. It is not clear, was she negotiating treaties or agreements, or was she handling crises during this period of time? My sense is the answer’s no. I have not seen any evidence that she is better equipped to handle a crisis. If the only criteria is longevity in Washington, than she’s certainly not going to compete with John McCain on that.”

---

Personally, I think he's got the better argument here. I hope he does start to reiterate those points.

ETA: I'm surprised by how disappointed I was last night at Clinton's "comeback".

[ 05 March 2008: Message edited by: pookie ]

Who could ever have reckoned that he wants the U.S. under his watch to act pretty well the same as it always had?

quote:

---

I don't know about thou. But we are holier than the Liberals.

Of course, since the Liberals only excel at theft and corruption, it isn't difficult to be holier than them.

---

Two answers
1.Actually, since the N.D.P have never been in power federally, we don't know if they're holier than the Liberals.

Obama, being called Muslim is not a smear.

quote:

---

The turban "scandal" is all part of what is being referred to as "the Muslim smear." It includes everything from exaggerated enunciations of Obama's middle name to the online whisper campaign that Obama attended a fundamentalist madrassa in Indonesia (a lie), was sworn in on a Koran (another lie) and if elected would attach RadioShack speakers to the White House to broadcast the Muslim call to prayer (I made that one up).

So far, Obama's campaign has responded with aggressive corrections that tout his Christian faith, attack the attackers and channel a cooperative witness before the House Un-American Activities Committee. "Barack has never been a Muslim or practiced any other faith besides Christianity," states one fact sheet. "I'm not and never have been of the Muslim faith," Obama told a Christian News reporter.

Of course Obama must correct the record, but he doesn't have to stop there. What is disturbing about the campaign's response is that it leaves unchallenged the disgraceful and racist premise behind the entire "Muslim smear": that being Muslim is de facto a source of shame. Obama's supporters often say they are being "Swiftboated," casually accepting the idea that being accused of Muslimhood is tantamount to being accused of treason.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
"Barack has never been a Muslim or practiced any other faith besides Christianity," states one fact sheet. "I'm not and never have been of the Muslim faith," Obama told a Christian News reporter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Gee - and here I thought Obama was a pacifist socialist anti-imperialist progressive anti-racist friend of the world's people.

---

Didn't you catch him saying he'd invade Pakistan to chase terrorists running from Afganistan if Musarraf didn't do anything?

ETA: I can't remember Obama's exact words on the subject.

[ 06 March 2008: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by pookie:
That said, he has every right to correct the record.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:

Didn't you catch him saying he'd invade Pakistan to chase terrorists running from Afganistan if Musarraf didn't do anything?

ETA: I can't remember Obama's exact words on the subject.

---

quote:

---

Standing in front of a Stars and Stripes flag, Mr Obama said: “There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

---

And when he started to speak, he flubbed up Obama's name, calling him "Osama...uh, Obama..."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
And when he started to speak, he flubbed up Obama's name, calling him "Osama...uh, Obama..."

---

Will Obama's campaign issue a disclaimer:

quote:

---

Don Martin of the National Post is on the "At Issue" panel tonight on The National, talking about the NAFTA leak.
And when he started to speak, he flubbed up Obama's name, calling him "Osama...uh, Obama..."

Unbelievable!

---

I'm not a big fan of Don Martin because of his snarky, negative tone, but I don't think he's particularly ideological.

I think it's possible for people to make honest slip ups and we don't have to always assume the worst.

[ 06 March 2008: Message edited by: Adam T ]