She has worked hard to change her image lately, her PR folks are doing their job well.
she is evil...
she is evil...
The Attack on Obama's Character
- Thread starter muckraker10021
- Start date
Look I am not racist. I think that the Republicans are laughing at all democrats white or black. Let's see I am sure a Republican will win this next election. Who do the democrats have running a Female and An African American. Two people that have never been president before. They might as well have someone running from another country. Bush did not win the first election and he is still the president so I do not think it really matters. I think they slapped eveyone in the face by saying here is the democrats running good luck. I will still vote for Obama but lets face it we live in a country that is not free and we all know that. 
<font size="5"><center>Racism On The Radio Toward Barack Obama</font size></center>
Jackson Williams
The Huffington Post
March 3, 2007
Austin, Texas is a well-known island of political blue in a sea of red, and one of our quirks is a country radio station by the name of KVET AM and FM. The station is actually #1 in this market, but is certainly helped by the fact that it carries the hometown University of Texas Longhorns sports broadcasts.
The weekday morning show is hosted by "Sammy and Bob," a couple of longtime and tolerated local yokels. Bob Cole is the straight man and Sammy Allred plays the curmudgeon. Sam also has a country music band and was once the bandleader on the old Arthur Godfrey TV show back in the 1950's. He's ancient.
On Thursday, March 1st these two fonts of morning drive-time wisdom were discussing Barack Obama's recent visit to Austin. The presidential candidate drew over 15,000 to an outdoor rally in the middle of a rainy work day (Hillary beware!) Here is a partial transcript of their on-air banter:
Allred: "What happened to Bama Rock or whatever his name is?"
Cole: "He's moving up in the polls. Obama."
Allred: "He's a likeable guy."
Cole: "He's 'clean' is what what's-his-name said. Joe Biden told us that."
Allred: "Clean darky."
Cole: "Sammy!"
After they came back from a commercial break, Allred said:
"See, I was making fun of politicians who say things like that."
Obviously there was some serious 'scussion during the break about what 'ol Sam had said. The local NBC affiliate reports that KVET has suspended the old coot. They've also placed a statement on their website that they hope comes off as apologizing, but it doesn't apologize at all. And the statement is not even on the station's home page as one would logically expect. It's buried at the very bottom of a very long "Sam and Bob" web page where nobody will see it. It states in full:
During an on-air broadcast on 3/1/07 on KVET FM, a statement was made that might have been heard as offensive to some of our listeners. It is not our station's intention to be offensive. It is our stations' policy that we do not discriminate against individuals regardless of race, religion, gender, age or sexual orientation.
Might have been heard as offensive to some of our listeners??? In other words, the listener may have heard it wrong??? Heh Heh Heh. That's tortured language, to say the least. And remember: it's buried where nobody will find it.
The folks in the carpeted office at KVET clearly hope this matter will just go away, but the local chapter of the NAACP has other ideas. Stay tuned.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jackson-williams/racism-on-the-radio-towar_b_42545.html
Jackson Williams
The Huffington Post
March 3, 2007
Austin, Texas is a well-known island of political blue in a sea of red, and one of our quirks is a country radio station by the name of KVET AM and FM. The station is actually #1 in this market, but is certainly helped by the fact that it carries the hometown University of Texas Longhorns sports broadcasts.
The weekday morning show is hosted by "Sammy and Bob," a couple of longtime and tolerated local yokels. Bob Cole is the straight man and Sammy Allred plays the curmudgeon. Sam also has a country music band and was once the bandleader on the old Arthur Godfrey TV show back in the 1950's. He's ancient.
On Thursday, March 1st these two fonts of morning drive-time wisdom were discussing Barack Obama's recent visit to Austin. The presidential candidate drew over 15,000 to an outdoor rally in the middle of a rainy work day (Hillary beware!) Here is a partial transcript of their on-air banter:
Allred: "What happened to Bama Rock or whatever his name is?"
Cole: "He's moving up in the polls. Obama."
Allred: "He's a likeable guy."
Cole: "He's 'clean' is what what's-his-name said. Joe Biden told us that."
Allred: "Clean darky."
Cole: "Sammy!"
After they came back from a commercial break, Allred said:
"See, I was making fun of politicians who say things like that."
Obviously there was some serious 'scussion during the break about what 'ol Sam had said. The local NBC affiliate reports that KVET has suspended the old coot. They've also placed a statement on their website that they hope comes off as apologizing, but it doesn't apologize at all. And the statement is not even on the station's home page as one would logically expect. It's buried at the very bottom of a very long "Sam and Bob" web page where nobody will see it. It states in full:
During an on-air broadcast on 3/1/07 on KVET FM, a statement was made that might have been heard as offensive to some of our listeners. It is not our station's intention to be offensive. It is our stations' policy that we do not discriminate against individuals regardless of race, religion, gender, age or sexual orientation.
Might have been heard as offensive to some of our listeners??? In other words, the listener may have heard it wrong??? Heh Heh Heh. That's tortured language, to say the least. And remember: it's buried where nobody will find it.
The folks in the carpeted office at KVET clearly hope this matter will just go away, but the local chapter of the NAACP has other ideas. Stay tuned.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jackson-williams/racism-on-the-radio-towar_b_42545.html
Last edited:
<font size="5"><center>
Nevada Democrats Dump FOX:
Say Obama Comments "Went Too Far"</font size></center>
The Huffington Post
Melinda Henneberger
Posted March 9, 2007 05:32 PM
Contact/tips: melinda@huffingtonpost.com
The Nevada Democratic Party today backed out of a FOX News-sponsored presidential debate after Fox President Roger Ailes's recent remarks jokingly comparing Democratic Senator Barack Obama to al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden.
In a joint letter faxed today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Tom Collins, the head of the Nevada Democratic Party, informed Fox News executive producer Marty Ryan of the decision.
"A month ago, the Nevada Democratic Party entered into a good faith agreement with FOX News to co-sponsor a presidential debate in August,'' Reid and Collins said in the letter. "This was done because the Nevada Democratic Party is reaching out to new voters and we strongly believe that a Democrat will not win Nevada unless we find new ways to talk to new people. To say the least, this was not a popular decision. But it is one that the Democratic Party stood by.''
"However, comments made last night by FOX News President Roger Ailes in reference to one of our presidential candidates went too far,'' the letter went on. "We cannot, as good Democrats, put our party in a position to defend such comments. In light of his comments, we have concluded that it is not possible to hold a Presidential debate that will focus on our candidates and are therefore canceling our August debate. We take no pleasure in this, but it is the only course of action.''
At the same Radio-Television News Directors Association and Foundation dinner where he made the controversial remarks about Obama, Ailes referred to the pressure to drop FOX: "Pressure groups are forcing candidates to conclude that the best strategy for journalists is divide and conquer, to only appear on those networks and venues that give them favorable coverage...This pressure must be resisted, as it has been in the past. Any candidate for high office of either party who believes he can blacklist any news organization is making a terrible mistake,'' Ailes said, adding that the strategy would surely backfire with voters.
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards had already announced that he would not participate in the Fox debate.
His party was under pressure from the more than 265,000 people who signed a petition calling Fox "a mouthpiece for the Republican Party, not a legitimate news channel" and urging Nevada officials to cancel.
Danny Coyle, a MoveOn.org member who serves on the Executive Board of the Carson City Democratic Central Committee, yesterday offered a resolution calling on the state party to drop Fox, and it passed overwhelmingly among the grassroots Democrats in attendance.
"I am glad and relieved that the Nevada Democratic leadership has come to its senses," Coyle said in a statement. "Any kind of relationship with Fox is bad for the party."
Initially, Senator Reid had defended the decision to work with Fox, reasoning that it might help Democratic candidates reach out to right-leaning Fox viewers. But party activists argued from the start that any connection with Fox was a mistake.
Robert Greenwald, director of the movie Outfoxed, called the move a "victory for truth and journalism." Some 280,000 people have viewed Greenwald's new YouTube film "Fox Attacks: Obama" - located with the petition at www.FoxAttacks.com. "By standing up to Fox's right-wing smears," Greenwald said, "the patriotic grassroots, Netroots, Senator Reid, Senator Edwards, and the Nevada Democrats have all worked together to protect one of the most important elements of a free society - the press."
And Eli Pariser, Executive Director of MoveOn.org Civic Action, said he hoped the decision would "set a precedent within the party that Fox should be treated as a right-wing mis-information network, not legitimized as a neutral source of news."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melinda-henneberger/dems-dump-fox-obama-comm_b_43060.html
Nevada Democrats Dump FOX:
Say Obama Comments "Went Too Far"</font size></center>
The Huffington Post
Melinda Henneberger
Posted March 9, 2007 05:32 PM
Contact/tips: melinda@huffingtonpost.com
The Nevada Democratic Party today backed out of a FOX News-sponsored presidential debate after Fox President Roger Ailes's recent remarks jokingly comparing Democratic Senator Barack Obama to al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden.
In a joint letter faxed today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Tom Collins, the head of the Nevada Democratic Party, informed Fox News executive producer Marty Ryan of the decision.
"A month ago, the Nevada Democratic Party entered into a good faith agreement with FOX News to co-sponsor a presidential debate in August,'' Reid and Collins said in the letter. "This was done because the Nevada Democratic Party is reaching out to new voters and we strongly believe that a Democrat will not win Nevada unless we find new ways to talk to new people. To say the least, this was not a popular decision. But it is one that the Democratic Party stood by.''
"However, comments made last night by FOX News President Roger Ailes in reference to one of our presidential candidates went too far,'' the letter went on. "We cannot, as good Democrats, put our party in a position to defend such comments. In light of his comments, we have concluded that it is not possible to hold a Presidential debate that will focus on our candidates and are therefore canceling our August debate. We take no pleasure in this, but it is the only course of action.''
At the same Radio-Television News Directors Association and Foundation dinner where he made the controversial remarks about Obama, Ailes referred to the pressure to drop FOX: "Pressure groups are forcing candidates to conclude that the best strategy for journalists is divide and conquer, to only appear on those networks and venues that give them favorable coverage...This pressure must be resisted, as it has been in the past. Any candidate for high office of either party who believes he can blacklist any news organization is making a terrible mistake,'' Ailes said, adding that the strategy would surely backfire with voters.
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards had already announced that he would not participate in the Fox debate.
His party was under pressure from the more than 265,000 people who signed a petition calling Fox "a mouthpiece for the Republican Party, not a legitimate news channel" and urging Nevada officials to cancel.
Danny Coyle, a MoveOn.org member who serves on the Executive Board of the Carson City Democratic Central Committee, yesterday offered a resolution calling on the state party to drop Fox, and it passed overwhelmingly among the grassroots Democrats in attendance.
"I am glad and relieved that the Nevada Democratic leadership has come to its senses," Coyle said in a statement. "Any kind of relationship with Fox is bad for the party."
Initially, Senator Reid had defended the decision to work with Fox, reasoning that it might help Democratic candidates reach out to right-leaning Fox viewers. But party activists argued from the start that any connection with Fox was a mistake.
Robert Greenwald, director of the movie Outfoxed, called the move a "victory for truth and journalism." Some 280,000 people have viewed Greenwald's new YouTube film "Fox Attacks: Obama" - located with the petition at www.FoxAttacks.com. "By standing up to Fox's right-wing smears," Greenwald said, "the patriotic grassroots, Netroots, Senator Reid, Senator Edwards, and the Nevada Democrats have all worked together to protect one of the most important elements of a free society - the press."
And Eli Pariser, Executive Director of MoveOn.org Civic Action, said he hoped the decision would "set a precedent within the party that Fox should be treated as a right-wing mis-information network, not legitimized as a neutral source of news."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melinda-henneberger/dems-dump-fox-obama-comm_b_43060.html
Last edited:
<font size="4">
What Fox President Roger Ailes said About Barack
Obama as Osama Bin Laden and being a Terrorist: </font size>
In a rather extraordinary speech that Roger Ailes gave last night. He's clearly very frustrated with the organizing against Fox News. But let's start out with his jokes.
---------------
By Matt Stoller
Friday March 09, 2007 at 12:24:08 PM EST
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/3/9/12248/74042
What Fox President Roger Ailes said About Barack
Obama as Osama Bin Laden and being a Terrorist: </font size>
In a rather extraordinary speech that Roger Ailes gave last night. He's clearly very frustrated with the organizing against Fox News. But let's start out with his jokes.
A man in France was arrested today for using his car to run down a pedestrian. He said he thought it was Osama bin Laden. Ok, it was a mistake, but it still ranks as France's biggest military victory ever....
[Laughter]
It is true that I said Britney Spears looked great at the Academy Awards. and I later found out it was Jack Nicholson.
[Laughter/ooohs]
It is true that just in the last two weeks Hillary Clinton has had over 200 phone calls telling her in order to win the presidency she must stay on the road for the next two years. It is not true they were all from Bill.
[Laughter]
And it is true that Barack Obama is on the move. I don't know if it's true that President Bush called Musharraf and said, 'Why can't we catch this guy?'
[Laughter]
It is true that I said Britney Spears looked great at the Academy Awards. and I later found out it was Jack Nicholson.
[Laughter/ooohs]
It is true that just in the last two weeks Hillary Clinton has had over 200 phone calls telling her in order to win the presidency she must stay on the road for the next two years. It is not true they were all from Bill.
[Laughter]
And it is true that Barack Obama is on the move. I don't know if it's true that President Bush called Musharraf and said, 'Why can't we catch this guy?'
---------------
By Matt Stoller
Friday March 09, 2007 at 12:24:08 PM EST
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/3/9/12248/74042
Last edited:
For what its worth.... If he plans to "be" president.. he better get used to it.
In all my years of voting (since 1976) I do not re-call one single president who did not have his past pulled out and twisted into something it really was not.
Does that make all these attacks racist... perhaps... but public ridicule, ongoing attempt at character assasination, constant and never ending dredging up and twisting around past behavior all comes with the job.
Thats why they say.... if you can't take the heat, then get out of the kitchen.
His best move is to develop his "thick" skin now... cause it ain't gonna stop... and if he becomes president... thats an extra 4 years of personal abuse.
In all my years of voting (since 1976) I do not re-call one single president who did not have his past pulled out and twisted into something it really was not.
Does that make all these attacks racist... perhaps... but public ridicule, ongoing attempt at character assasination, constant and never ending dredging up and twisting around past behavior all comes with the job.
Thats why they say.... if you can't take the heat, then get out of the kitchen.
His best move is to develop his "thick" skin now... cause it ain't gonna stop... and if he becomes president... thats an extra 4 years of personal abuse.
Fox's Saudi Prince
By Frank J Gaffney Jr.
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 30, 2005
With surprisingly little media attention, Saudi Arabia has bought a stake in the company that owns what has been, until now, arguably its most visible and influential critic: the Fox News Network. Will this be the end of Fox’s “fair and balanced” coverage of the immense Saudi role in promoting Islamofascist terror? Or can American viewers rest assured that the royal Saudi buyer, Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, has nothing more nefarious in mind than increasing his already vast fortune?
The answer to this incalculably important question may lie in understanding who this prince is, and the nature of his deal with Rupert Murdoch, the principal owner of Fox’s parent, the News Corporation.
Al-Waleed is said be the world’s fifth richest man and now NewsCorp’s fourth largest voting shareholder (behind the Murdoch family, Liberty Media and fund giant Fidelity Management & Research Co). Such a role would appear to give the Prince some say over the way the business is run. That could, presumably, extend to the content of Fox programming and that of the company’s other media outlets (which include DirecTV and 20th Century Fox).
Will Al-Waleed be a prince, and leave these American institutions alone? Or will he throw his weight around, perhaps only behind the scenes, to – let’s say – improve the sorry image his country has earned in the United States?
Mind you, public relations is not exactly something at which Al-Waleed has previously excelled. But not for want of trying.
Recall that he was the Saudi prince who made headlines after September 11th when he visited Ground Zero and offered then-New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani a $10 million check for relief efforts.
A few days later, however, the prince released a statement that blamed the United States and its support for Israel for the devastating 9/11 attacks. To his credit, “America’s Mayor” immediately returned the prince’s check with a statement: “There is no moral equivalent for this attack. The people who did it lost any right to ask for justification when they slaughtered…innocent people….Not only are those statements wrong, they’re part of the problem.”
Then, there was the prince’s bizarre miscalculation over how to rehabilitate his image in this country. Shortly after the check fiasco, he permitted the CBS program “60 Minutes” to profile him and his hyper-rich, internationally jet-setting lifestyle. The ensuing spectacle of an indolent, Westernized Material Boy cannot have done much more for the image of the Kingdom’s royals with his country’s millions of Wahhabi have-nots than it did with the average American viewer.
The segment did, however, suggest that the prince is not above lying when it serves his purpose. For example, he told his incredulous interviewer, Ed Bradley, that that Saudi Arabia is a country with “no problems.” When pressed, he insisted, “What I'm telling you is Saudi Arabia has no civil unrest, no civil disobedience. Sorry. Saudi Arabia is a very stable country. Sure…we had these bombs here and there, but they were all related to a certain subject.”
The certain subject, of course, is the thing that deserves more attention from the American media, not less. Despite Al-Waleed’s efforts to sweep Saudi Arabia’s non-problems under the Persian rug, the Kingdom is beginning to experience what its largesse and Wahhabi ideology have visited upon the rest of the world for decades: Islamofascist terror.
Even more troubling than having a Saudi spinmeister, even a lousy one, at the decision-making table of America’s most successful, and conservative, television network is another aspect of Al-Waleed’s deal with Mr. Murdoch. The Australian entrepreneur has reportedly also given the prince the unfiltered ability to broadcast Saudi-produced materials directly into America on Murdoch’s satellite.
Here’s how that part of the deal will evidently work: Prince Al-Waleed’s Rotana Audio Visual Company, which operates TV channels in the Middle East, has signed a deal with DirecTV, the TV-satellite firm controlled by NewsCorp. As a result, it would seem Rotana will be able to beam its programs into U.S. cable boxes without interference from federal regulators, or anybody else.
Hmmm. What passes for entertainment in Saudi Arabia mostly looks like jihadist agitprop to the rest of us. Rotana has a huge library of movies, music and television programs. Such programming has to also include vicious anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-American incitement. That is, after all, the only kind of material the Wahhabi religious censors approve for production and broadcast in Saudi Arabia. Could that be what the prince has in mind for DirecTV subscribers?
Then the question occurs: Can we rely on Rupert Murdoch to keep the Saudi prince from abusing his new platforms? Perhaps not. After all, Mr. Murdoch is having succession, financial, and other problems with his business empire. In fact, he was reportedly so concerned about losing control of the News Corporation that he arranged to put a “poison pill” defense in place to stop a hostile takeover bid from one of his rivals, media magnate John Malone. Malone’s Liberty Media had taken an 18 percent share in NewsCorp’s voting stock.
Since the Murdoch family owns only 30 percent of the company’s voting shares, he is likely to be very grateful now that his prince has come. And Al-Waleed seems to understand how to reinforce that sentiment. He has told the press that he is “a vocal and open ally of Mr. Murdoch.” In his inimitable fashion, the prince added that he hasn’t given Mr. Murdoch official control of his vote, but NewsCorp’s founder can count on him to vote the Australian’s way. “He does not have proxy for me, but he has my verbal proxy.”
Even more important, in the event the fight with Mr. Malone gets messier, Al-Waleed has announced: “If the situation warrants whereby Mr. Murdoch needs more support from my side, I’m going to do it.”
While a senior Fox executive recently (privately) professed no concern on this score, the track record of Prince Al-Waleed, the Islamist interests of his family and kingdom, and the needs of Rupert Murdoch could constitute the media equivalent of a “perfect storm.” They may, indeed, translate into a worrisome new set of constraints on the network millions of Americans have come to rely upon for “fair and balanced” reporting. Nowhere has this been more important than Fox’s news coverage of the Middle East – a region CNN (especially its international arm), the BBC, and most “mainstream” print outlets cover with only slightly less hostility to America than does al-Jazeera.
Could it be that the Saudis’ troubling move on Fox and its sister companies is getting so little attention from the competition because they hope such a step will make them look at FoxNews as less “fair and balanced”? You decide
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19652
By Frank J Gaffney Jr.
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 30, 2005
With surprisingly little media attention, Saudi Arabia has bought a stake in the company that owns what has been, until now, arguably its most visible and influential critic: the Fox News Network. Will this be the end of Fox’s “fair and balanced” coverage of the immense Saudi role in promoting Islamofascist terror? Or can American viewers rest assured that the royal Saudi buyer, Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, has nothing more nefarious in mind than increasing his already vast fortune?
The answer to this incalculably important question may lie in understanding who this prince is, and the nature of his deal with Rupert Murdoch, the principal owner of Fox’s parent, the News Corporation.
Al-Waleed is said be the world’s fifth richest man and now NewsCorp’s fourth largest voting shareholder (behind the Murdoch family, Liberty Media and fund giant Fidelity Management & Research Co). Such a role would appear to give the Prince some say over the way the business is run. That could, presumably, extend to the content of Fox programming and that of the company’s other media outlets (which include DirecTV and 20th Century Fox).
Will Al-Waleed be a prince, and leave these American institutions alone? Or will he throw his weight around, perhaps only behind the scenes, to – let’s say – improve the sorry image his country has earned in the United States?
Mind you, public relations is not exactly something at which Al-Waleed has previously excelled. But not for want of trying.
Recall that he was the Saudi prince who made headlines after September 11th when he visited Ground Zero and offered then-New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani a $10 million check for relief efforts.
A few days later, however, the prince released a statement that blamed the United States and its support for Israel for the devastating 9/11 attacks. To his credit, “America’s Mayor” immediately returned the prince’s check with a statement: “There is no moral equivalent for this attack. The people who did it lost any right to ask for justification when they slaughtered…innocent people….Not only are those statements wrong, they’re part of the problem.”
Then, there was the prince’s bizarre miscalculation over how to rehabilitate his image in this country. Shortly after the check fiasco, he permitted the CBS program “60 Minutes” to profile him and his hyper-rich, internationally jet-setting lifestyle. The ensuing spectacle of an indolent, Westernized Material Boy cannot have done much more for the image of the Kingdom’s royals with his country’s millions of Wahhabi have-nots than it did with the average American viewer.
The segment did, however, suggest that the prince is not above lying when it serves his purpose. For example, he told his incredulous interviewer, Ed Bradley, that that Saudi Arabia is a country with “no problems.” When pressed, he insisted, “What I'm telling you is Saudi Arabia has no civil unrest, no civil disobedience. Sorry. Saudi Arabia is a very stable country. Sure…we had these bombs here and there, but they were all related to a certain subject.”
The certain subject, of course, is the thing that deserves more attention from the American media, not less. Despite Al-Waleed’s efforts to sweep Saudi Arabia’s non-problems under the Persian rug, the Kingdom is beginning to experience what its largesse and Wahhabi ideology have visited upon the rest of the world for decades: Islamofascist terror.
Even more troubling than having a Saudi spinmeister, even a lousy one, at the decision-making table of America’s most successful, and conservative, television network is another aspect of Al-Waleed’s deal with Mr. Murdoch. The Australian entrepreneur has reportedly also given the prince the unfiltered ability to broadcast Saudi-produced materials directly into America on Murdoch’s satellite.
Here’s how that part of the deal will evidently work: Prince Al-Waleed’s Rotana Audio Visual Company, which operates TV channels in the Middle East, has signed a deal with DirecTV, the TV-satellite firm controlled by NewsCorp. As a result, it would seem Rotana will be able to beam its programs into U.S. cable boxes without interference from federal regulators, or anybody else.
Hmmm. What passes for entertainment in Saudi Arabia mostly looks like jihadist agitprop to the rest of us. Rotana has a huge library of movies, music and television programs. Such programming has to also include vicious anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-American incitement. That is, after all, the only kind of material the Wahhabi religious censors approve for production and broadcast in Saudi Arabia. Could that be what the prince has in mind for DirecTV subscribers?
Then the question occurs: Can we rely on Rupert Murdoch to keep the Saudi prince from abusing his new platforms? Perhaps not. After all, Mr. Murdoch is having succession, financial, and other problems with his business empire. In fact, he was reportedly so concerned about losing control of the News Corporation that he arranged to put a “poison pill” defense in place to stop a hostile takeover bid from one of his rivals, media magnate John Malone. Malone’s Liberty Media had taken an 18 percent share in NewsCorp’s voting stock.
Since the Murdoch family owns only 30 percent of the company’s voting shares, he is likely to be very grateful now that his prince has come. And Al-Waleed seems to understand how to reinforce that sentiment. He has told the press that he is “a vocal and open ally of Mr. Murdoch.” In his inimitable fashion, the prince added that he hasn’t given Mr. Murdoch official control of his vote, but NewsCorp’s founder can count on him to vote the Australian’s way. “He does not have proxy for me, but he has my verbal proxy.”
Even more important, in the event the fight with Mr. Malone gets messier, Al-Waleed has announced: “If the situation warrants whereby Mr. Murdoch needs more support from my side, I’m going to do it.”
While a senior Fox executive recently (privately) professed no concern on this score, the track record of Prince Al-Waleed, the Islamist interests of his family and kingdom, and the needs of Rupert Murdoch could constitute the media equivalent of a “perfect storm.” They may, indeed, translate into a worrisome new set of constraints on the network millions of Americans have come to rely upon for “fair and balanced” reporting. Nowhere has this been more important than Fox’s news coverage of the Middle East – a region CNN (especially its international arm), the BBC, and most “mainstream” print outlets cover with only slightly less hostility to America than does al-Jazeera.
Could it be that the Saudis’ troubling move on Fox and its sister companies is getting so little attention from the competition because they hope such a step will make them look at FoxNews as less “fair and balanced”? You decide
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19652
<font face="tahoma" size="3" color="#000000">
<h2>2008 Election</h2>
<img alt="Obama" src="http://mediamatters.org/static/images/home/obama100_1.jpg" />
<p><a target="_blank" href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200703200011"><strong>Myths and falsehoods about Barack Obama</strong></a><br />
In recent months, Sen. Barack Obama has been the target of attacks, smears, and innuendo throughout the media. He has been called a Muslim who attended a madrassa and heard his church accused of having a "separatist" doctrine that "contradicts the basic tenets of Christianity"; he has been accused of lying about issues he first addressed in 1995; he has fended off baseless accusations of scandals; and he has heard playground insults mocking his name and even listened to media figures question his racial identity.
<h2><a target="_blank" href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200703200011">Read more
</a></h2></p></font>
<h2>2008 Election</h2>
<img alt="Obama" src="http://mediamatters.org/static/images/home/obama100_1.jpg" />
<p><a target="_blank" href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200703200011"><strong>Myths and falsehoods about Barack Obama</strong></a><br />
In recent months, Sen. Barack Obama has been the target of attacks, smears, and innuendo throughout the media. He has been called a Muslim who attended a madrassa and heard his church accused of having a "separatist" doctrine that "contradicts the basic tenets of Christianity"; he has been accused of lying about issues he first addressed in 1995; he has fended off baseless accusations of scandals; and he has heard playground insults mocking his name and even listened to media figures question his racial identity.
<h2><a target="_blank" href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200703200011">Read more
</a></h2></p></font>
Last edited by a moderator:
Dude...
I don't know how long you been votin... but I've been doing it a few years...
Its like this.... its called politics.... and american politics is a tit for tat game always played along partisan lines..
I wish Obama well... but like they say... if you can't take the heat, then get out of the kitchen...
Hope the guys got a "thick" skin. Thats what it takes to be a president...But.. the real way to look at is like this... if he weren't a "serious" contender... Then no one would even bother to talk about him.... good or bad.
I don't know how long you been votin... but I've been doing it a few years...
Its like this.... its called politics.... and american politics is a tit for tat game always played along partisan lines..
I wish Obama well... but like they say... if you can't take the heat, then get out of the kitchen...
Hope the guys got a "thick" skin. Thats what it takes to be a president...But.. the real way to look at is like this... if he weren't a "serious" contender... Then no one would even bother to talk about him.... good or bad.
Last edited:
<font size="5"><center>Obama's childhood in Indonesia
was not defined by Islam</font size></center>
By Kim Barker
Chicago Tribune
Posted on Sun, Mar. 25, 2007
JAKARTA, Indonesia - When Barack Obama was a boy here, he studied for three years at a religious school and prayed four times a day.
It was a Catholic school. There, Obama was registered as student No. 203, listed as a Muslim and as an Indonesian. "Yes, he prayed, because all the students here had to pray in the Catholic way - `in the name of the Father, (Son) and the Holy Spirit,'" recalled Obama's 1st-grade teacher, Israella Pareira Darmawan.
Attention on Barack Obama's childhood in Indonesia has so far focused on whether he was a Muslim and whether one of his schools was a fundamentalist Islamic madrassa.
Although his campaign has denied that Obama was a practicing Muslim, the "Islam" issue is not likely to go away soon for the presidential candidate. Some Americans link the religion with terrorism and see Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation, as being an alien place, a world away from the White House.
But initial reports have distorted the reality of the four years Obama spent in Indonesia, from 1967 to 1971. In fact, Obama's religious upbringing in Indonesia depended more on the conventions of the schools he attended than on any decision by him, his mother or his stepfather. When he was at a Catholic school for three years, he prayed as a Catholic.
When he was at a public school for a year, he learned about Islam.
Obama's stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, was also much more of a free spirit than a devout Muslim, according to former friends and neighbors. And the school described as an Islamic madrassa in media reports was actually a public school, so progressive that teachers wore miniskirts and all students were encouraged to celebrate Christmas.
Interviews with dozens of former classmates, teachers, neighbors and friends show that Obama was not a regular practicing Muslim when he was in Indonesia, despite being listed as a Muslim on the registration form for the Catholic school, Strada Asisia, where he attended 1st through 3rd grades.
At the time, the school most likely registered children based on the religion of their fathers, said Darmawan, Obama's former teacher. Since Soetoro was a Muslim, Obama was listed as a Muslim, she said.
The enrollment form from the Catholic school, which has been cited as evidence that Obama was a Muslim in Indonesia, was also rife with errors. It listed Obama as an Indonesian, listed his previous school incorrectly, and failed to list his mother, Ann, at all.
Obama and his mother moved from Honolulu to Jakarta to join Soetoro in 1967, when Obama was 6. Here, Obama became "Barry Soetoro."
In their first neighborhood, Obama occasionally followed his stepfather to the mosque for Friday prayers, a few neighbors said. But Soetoro was usually too busy working, first for the Indonesian army and later for a Western oil company.
"Sometimes Lolo went to the mosque to pray, but he rarely socialized with people," said Fermina Katarina Sinaga, Obama's 3rd-grade teacher at the Catholic school, who lived near the family. "Rarely, Barry went to the mosque with Lolo."
Zulfan Adi, a former neighborhood playmate of Obama who has been cited in news reports as saying Obama regularly attended Friday prayers with Soetoro, said he was not certain about that when pressed about his recollections. He only knew Obama for a few months, during 1970, when his family moved to the neighborhood.
Soetoro, who died in 1987, was hardly the image of a pious Muslim, friends and family members say.
His nephew, Sonny Trisulo, 49, said Soetoro always liked women and alcohol. One of his health problems was a failing liver. "He loved drinking, was a smart and warm person, the naughtiest one in the family," Trisulo recalled.
In his autobiography, Obama said Soetoro followed the same kind of Islam as many Indonesians, "a brand of Islam that could make room for the remnants of more ancient animist and Hindu faiths," the kind of Islam that meant a man could absorb the powers of the animals he ate, such as tigers and snakes.
In late 1970, Obama's family moved to another neighborhood, and Obama enrolled in Public Elementary School Menteng No. 1, the school depicted by several news outlets as an Islamic madrassa, or boarding school. The school, founded in 1934 as a Dutch school, once catered only to Dutch children and a few elite Indonesians. In 1962, the Dutch handed the school over to the Indonesian government. At the time, it was considered one of the best public schools in Jakarta.
On a recent visit, a magician performed for the students. The girls wore uniforms of knee-length skirts and no head scarfs. Boys and girls shoved each other on the playground. Weekly religious classes are required for all students, whether Muslims, Christians or Hindus, under the government curriculum. A new shiny mosque is in the corner of the courtyard.
"The Muslims learn about Islam, prayer and religious activity," said Hardi Priyono, the vice principal for curriculum. "And for the Christians, during the religious class, they also have a special room teaching Christianity. It's always been like that. We are a public school. We have always been a public school."
When Obama attended fourth grade in 1971, Muslim children spent two hours a week studying Islam, and Christian children spent those two hours learning about the Christian religion.
At holidays, the school made a practice of teaching students about different religions. Students from all religions celebrated Christmas with a Christmas tree and carols. They celebrated the Islamic holiday of Eid ul-Adha by handing out a sacrificed goat to the neighborhood's needy.
Photographs from the time show teachers in sleeveless dresses. The only woman who wore a headscarf was the Islamic religion teacher.
"I was really trendy, for example, no sleeves, and miniskirts," recalled Tine Hahiyari, 78, the school's headmaster from 1972 to 1989, a Protestant. "When I taught sports, I wore shorts."
---
http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/nation/16970186.htm
was not defined by Islam</font size></center>
By Kim Barker
Chicago Tribune
Posted on Sun, Mar. 25, 2007
JAKARTA, Indonesia - When Barack Obama was a boy here, he studied for three years at a religious school and prayed four times a day.
It was a Catholic school. There, Obama was registered as student No. 203, listed as a Muslim and as an Indonesian. "Yes, he prayed, because all the students here had to pray in the Catholic way - `in the name of the Father, (Son) and the Holy Spirit,'" recalled Obama's 1st-grade teacher, Israella Pareira Darmawan.
Attention on Barack Obama's childhood in Indonesia has so far focused on whether he was a Muslim and whether one of his schools was a fundamentalist Islamic madrassa.
Although his campaign has denied that Obama was a practicing Muslim, the "Islam" issue is not likely to go away soon for the presidential candidate. Some Americans link the religion with terrorism and see Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation, as being an alien place, a world away from the White House.
But initial reports have distorted the reality of the four years Obama spent in Indonesia, from 1967 to 1971. In fact, Obama's religious upbringing in Indonesia depended more on the conventions of the schools he attended than on any decision by him, his mother or his stepfather. When he was at a Catholic school for three years, he prayed as a Catholic.
When he was at a public school for a year, he learned about Islam.
Obama's stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, was also much more of a free spirit than a devout Muslim, according to former friends and neighbors. And the school described as an Islamic madrassa in media reports was actually a public school, so progressive that teachers wore miniskirts and all students were encouraged to celebrate Christmas.
Interviews with dozens of former classmates, teachers, neighbors and friends show that Obama was not a regular practicing Muslim when he was in Indonesia, despite being listed as a Muslim on the registration form for the Catholic school, Strada Asisia, where he attended 1st through 3rd grades.
At the time, the school most likely registered children based on the religion of their fathers, said Darmawan, Obama's former teacher. Since Soetoro was a Muslim, Obama was listed as a Muslim, she said.
The enrollment form from the Catholic school, which has been cited as evidence that Obama was a Muslim in Indonesia, was also rife with errors. It listed Obama as an Indonesian, listed his previous school incorrectly, and failed to list his mother, Ann, at all.
Obama and his mother moved from Honolulu to Jakarta to join Soetoro in 1967, when Obama was 6. Here, Obama became "Barry Soetoro."
In their first neighborhood, Obama occasionally followed his stepfather to the mosque for Friday prayers, a few neighbors said. But Soetoro was usually too busy working, first for the Indonesian army and later for a Western oil company.
"Sometimes Lolo went to the mosque to pray, but he rarely socialized with people," said Fermina Katarina Sinaga, Obama's 3rd-grade teacher at the Catholic school, who lived near the family. "Rarely, Barry went to the mosque with Lolo."
Zulfan Adi, a former neighborhood playmate of Obama who has been cited in news reports as saying Obama regularly attended Friday prayers with Soetoro, said he was not certain about that when pressed about his recollections. He only knew Obama for a few months, during 1970, when his family moved to the neighborhood.
Soetoro, who died in 1987, was hardly the image of a pious Muslim, friends and family members say.
His nephew, Sonny Trisulo, 49, said Soetoro always liked women and alcohol. One of his health problems was a failing liver. "He loved drinking, was a smart and warm person, the naughtiest one in the family," Trisulo recalled.
In his autobiography, Obama said Soetoro followed the same kind of Islam as many Indonesians, "a brand of Islam that could make room for the remnants of more ancient animist and Hindu faiths," the kind of Islam that meant a man could absorb the powers of the animals he ate, such as tigers and snakes.
In late 1970, Obama's family moved to another neighborhood, and Obama enrolled in Public Elementary School Menteng No. 1, the school depicted by several news outlets as an Islamic madrassa, or boarding school. The school, founded in 1934 as a Dutch school, once catered only to Dutch children and a few elite Indonesians. In 1962, the Dutch handed the school over to the Indonesian government. At the time, it was considered one of the best public schools in Jakarta.
On a recent visit, a magician performed for the students. The girls wore uniforms of knee-length skirts and no head scarfs. Boys and girls shoved each other on the playground. Weekly religious classes are required for all students, whether Muslims, Christians or Hindus, under the government curriculum. A new shiny mosque is in the corner of the courtyard.
"The Muslims learn about Islam, prayer and religious activity," said Hardi Priyono, the vice principal for curriculum. "And for the Christians, during the religious class, they also have a special room teaching Christianity. It's always been like that. We are a public school. We have always been a public school."
When Obama attended fourth grade in 1971, Muslim children spent two hours a week studying Islam, and Christian children spent those two hours learning about the Christian religion.
At holidays, the school made a practice of teaching students about different religions. Students from all religions celebrated Christmas with a Christmas tree and carols. They celebrated the Islamic holiday of Eid ul-Adha by handing out a sacrificed goat to the neighborhood's needy.
Photographs from the time show teachers in sleeveless dresses. The only woman who wore a headscarf was the Islamic religion teacher.
"I was really trendy, for example, no sleeves, and miniskirts," recalled Tine Hahiyari, 78, the school's headmaster from 1972 to 1989, a Protestant. "When I taught sports, I wore shorts."
---
http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/nation/16970186.htm
Last edited:
Re: Neocons wondered who was going to put the uppity Negro obama in check!!!!
the white conservatives are out to get Obama.
If you really want him to be the next president, I strongly encourage people to donate to his political campaign. Unfortunatley political representation is not free, and it will take money to run a campaign to get elected.
Even if its just $1.00 something is better than nothing. I gave $50.00 the other day. I really hope he'll be president or atleast the VP.
http://www.barackobama.com/
the white conservatives are out to get Obama.
If you really want him to be the next president, I strongly encourage people to donate to his political campaign. Unfortunatley political representation is not free, and it will take money to run a campaign to get elected.
Even if its just $1.00 something is better than nothing. I gave $50.00 the other day. I really hope he'll be president or atleast the VP.
http://www.barackobama.com/
[WM]http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Download/16135/1/Letterman-Obama-Hillary.wmv[/WM]
<font face="arial black" size="5" color="#d90000">
Official RepubliKlan (RNC) Website
Anti-Obama Talking Points</font>
<font size="3" color="#000000">
Take a look at the RepubliKlan "opposition research" released after Obama's Letterman show appearance.
Their smear attempts are pathetically weak.
http://www.gop.com/media/PDFs/040907Research3.pdf
</font>
<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="10"></hr><p>
[PDF]http://www.gop.com/media/PDFs/040907Research3.pdf[/PDF]
<font face="arial black" size="5" color="#d90000">
Official RepubliKlan (RNC) Website
Anti-Obama Talking Points</font>
<font size="3" color="#000000">
Take a look at the RepubliKlan "opposition research" released after Obama's Letterman show appearance.
Their smear attempts are pathetically weak.
http://www.gop.com/media/PDFs/040907Research3.pdf
</font>
<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="10"></hr><p>
[PDF]http://www.gop.com/media/PDFs/040907Research3.pdf[/PDF]
Last edited by a moderator:
<font face="arial black" size="4" color="#d90000">
The #1 REPUBLIKLAN Media Whore
"The pig man", Rush Limbaugh
Mocks <font color="blue">Barack Obama</font></font>
<br><object height="350" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wBca97GFs6s"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wBca97GFs6s" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="350" width="425"></object><div style="clear: both; padding-bottom: 0.25em;">
The #1 REPUBLIKLAN Media Whore
"The pig man", Rush Limbaugh
Mocks <font color="blue">Barack Obama</font></font>
<br><object height="350" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wBca97GFs6s"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wBca97GFs6s" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="350" width="425"></object><div style="clear: both; padding-bottom: 0.25em;">
Last edited by a moderator:
Obama: "will not deterred by intimidation"
<font size="5"><center>Obama Unbowed as Former Candidate
Equates Threats With Resistance to Change</font size></center>
Black Press USA
by Hazel Trice Edney
NNPA Washington Correspondent
WASHINGTON (NNPA) – Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama, who has received earliest-ever Secret Service protection - apparently because of race-oriented threats on his life - says he will not be deterred by intimidation. Another former Black presidential candidate says the threats indicate a resistance to change in America.
“It’s not something that I’m spending a lot of time worrying about or spending a lot of time talking about,” Obama told the NNPA News Service last week. “I think that all candidates for the presidency have some security risks. I don’t make these assessments. Others make the assessments for us. And I’m very happy for the professionalism and the dedication of the Secret Service folks who are with me, but I’m just spending most of my time thinking about how I can be the best possible candidate and the best possible president.”
Obama, who draws rock star-type crowds into the thousands, has said little about alleged threats since Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) reportedly said he’d received information, some from a racial standpoint, that caused him concern for Obama’s safety. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Republican leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) reportedly spoke to the Secret Service on Obama’s behalf. He received the protection a month ago.
Those who have experienced similar threats say the situation is characteristic of America.
“We can’t put a false face on fear, hatred and violence,” says two-time Democratic presidential candidate the Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr.
“The president is the highest symbolic post of leadership. Forget about politics. It is the highest symbolic post of cultural leadership in this country. And there are a lot of people who want to see that post held by someone who looks like them. And when it looks as though that somebody else doesn’t look like them, it angers them. It leaves a sense of alienation and it sets them off.”
Jackson was awarded Secret Service protection because of death threats in 1984 and 1988. He says change is the number one fear of a certain segment of America.
As another example, he points to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who as chairman of the White House Joint Chiefs of Staff had only hinted at a possible presidential run under the presidency of George Herbert Walker Bush in the early 1990s.
“Colin Powell wasn’t even someone who had announced that he would run for President and he had started to get death threats, so much so that his wife was afraid that he was going to get killed,” Jackson says. “For some people, the issue of race still touches on extraordinary sensitivity and provokes them to threaten violent behavior.”
Jackson says although race may be the key reason in the case of Obama and Powell, it is really change of any kind that triggers hate and violence in America.
“It may be race, but it may not be race in the sense that the Kennedys were killed because they were perceived as having ideas to change the Southern way of life. They became the objects of hate because they were willing to use their power to change the ways of the old South and to coalesce with people like Dr. King; then the Kennedys and King had to die because they were change agents,” says Jackson.
“If they would try to kill White presidents of the United States – if they would try to kill Ronald Reagan – you know it’s not just a question of race.”
But, it was clearly both race and change in 1984 when Jackson began to receive death threats when he was seen sweeping the nation with his “Rainbow Coalition” – promoting racial harmony and unified political power among people with a diversity of backgrounds.
University of Maryland political scientist, Dr. Ron Walters, a top aide in the Jackson campaign at that time, recalls when Jackson had to ask for help.
“In the fall of 1983, he was going around the country and Black people were saying, ‘Run Jesse run!’ an it was clear that he was going to run,” Walters recalls. “So, what happened was we had the Nation of Islam to deploy security for him. But, when he became an official candidate in November of 1983, we found out that we were eligible for Secret Service protection…We almost had to show probable cause why he should get it.”
Hatred was intense, says Jackson.
“I had so many threats prior to the election that it was a disruption. So they gave me the Secret Service protection the very first day,” he recalls.
Four presidents in U. S. history have been assassinated: Abraham Lincoln in 1865 by John Wilkes Booth; James Garfield in 1881 by Charles J. Guiteau; William McKinley in 1901 by Leon Czolgosz; and John F. Kennedy 1963, allegedly by Lee Harvey Oswald.
With so much power at stake in a country that needs so much change, it’s always a risk, Jackson says.
“Those who would dare be change agents have to be willing to sacrifice. You can’t play in the big game without stains on your uniform. Champions play with pain. Champions play with injury. I had to make that decision,” he says. “You can’t let fear and shadows interfere with your [mission] to make your contribution.”
http://www.blackpressusa.com/News/Article.asp?SID=3&Title=Hot+Stories&NewsID=13322
<font size="5"><center>Obama Unbowed as Former Candidate
Equates Threats With Resistance to Change</font size></center>
Black Press USA
by Hazel Trice Edney
NNPA Washington Correspondent
WASHINGTON (NNPA) – Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama, who has received earliest-ever Secret Service protection - apparently because of race-oriented threats on his life - says he will not be deterred by intimidation. Another former Black presidential candidate says the threats indicate a resistance to change in America.
“It’s not something that I’m spending a lot of time worrying about or spending a lot of time talking about,” Obama told the NNPA News Service last week. “I think that all candidates for the presidency have some security risks. I don’t make these assessments. Others make the assessments for us. And I’m very happy for the professionalism and the dedication of the Secret Service folks who are with me, but I’m just spending most of my time thinking about how I can be the best possible candidate and the best possible president.”
Obama, who draws rock star-type crowds into the thousands, has said little about alleged threats since Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) reportedly said he’d received information, some from a racial standpoint, that caused him concern for Obama’s safety. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Republican leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) reportedly spoke to the Secret Service on Obama’s behalf. He received the protection a month ago.
Those who have experienced similar threats say the situation is characteristic of America.
“We can’t put a false face on fear, hatred and violence,” says two-time Democratic presidential candidate the Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr.
“The president is the highest symbolic post of leadership. Forget about politics. It is the highest symbolic post of cultural leadership in this country. And there are a lot of people who want to see that post held by someone who looks like them. And when it looks as though that somebody else doesn’t look like them, it angers them. It leaves a sense of alienation and it sets them off.”
Jackson was awarded Secret Service protection because of death threats in 1984 and 1988. He says change is the number one fear of a certain segment of America.
As another example, he points to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who as chairman of the White House Joint Chiefs of Staff had only hinted at a possible presidential run under the presidency of George Herbert Walker Bush in the early 1990s.
“Colin Powell wasn’t even someone who had announced that he would run for President and he had started to get death threats, so much so that his wife was afraid that he was going to get killed,” Jackson says. “For some people, the issue of race still touches on extraordinary sensitivity and provokes them to threaten violent behavior.”
Jackson says although race may be the key reason in the case of Obama and Powell, it is really change of any kind that triggers hate and violence in America.
“It may be race, but it may not be race in the sense that the Kennedys were killed because they were perceived as having ideas to change the Southern way of life. They became the objects of hate because they were willing to use their power to change the ways of the old South and to coalesce with people like Dr. King; then the Kennedys and King had to die because they were change agents,” says Jackson.
“If they would try to kill White presidents of the United States – if they would try to kill Ronald Reagan – you know it’s not just a question of race.”
But, it was clearly both race and change in 1984 when Jackson began to receive death threats when he was seen sweeping the nation with his “Rainbow Coalition” – promoting racial harmony and unified political power among people with a diversity of backgrounds.
University of Maryland political scientist, Dr. Ron Walters, a top aide in the Jackson campaign at that time, recalls when Jackson had to ask for help.
“In the fall of 1983, he was going around the country and Black people were saying, ‘Run Jesse run!’ an it was clear that he was going to run,” Walters recalls. “So, what happened was we had the Nation of Islam to deploy security for him. But, when he became an official candidate in November of 1983, we found out that we were eligible for Secret Service protection…We almost had to show probable cause why he should get it.”
Hatred was intense, says Jackson.
“I had so many threats prior to the election that it was a disruption. So they gave me the Secret Service protection the very first day,” he recalls.
Four presidents in U. S. history have been assassinated: Abraham Lincoln in 1865 by John Wilkes Booth; James Garfield in 1881 by Charles J. Guiteau; William McKinley in 1901 by Leon Czolgosz; and John F. Kennedy 1963, allegedly by Lee Harvey Oswald.
With so much power at stake in a country that needs so much change, it’s always a risk, Jackson says.
“Those who would dare be change agents have to be willing to sacrifice. You can’t play in the big game without stains on your uniform. Champions play with pain. Champions play with injury. I had to make that decision,” he says. “You can’t let fear and shadows interfere with your [mission] to make your contribution.”
http://www.blackpressusa.com/News/Article.asp?SID=3&Title=Hot+Stories&NewsID=13322
Kerrey apologizes to Obama over remark
Ex-Senator lauds Illinois senator's qualifications to be president
Presidential hopeful, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.,
has accepted an apology from former Nebraska
Sen. Bob Kerrey for Kerrey's mention of the
candidate's Muslim heritage.
December 20, 2007
DES MOINES, Iowa - Former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey has apologized to Barack Obama for any unintentional insult he committed by raising the Democratic presidential candidate's Muslim heritage while endorsing rival candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Kerrey sent a letter to Obama on Wednesday, lauding the Illinois senator's qualifications to be president and saying that he never meant to harm his candidacy. Kerrey told The Associated Press in a telephone interview that he sent the letter on his own and had not spoken to Clinton or her campaign about the comments he made Sunday in Iowa.
"What I found myself getting into in Iowa - and it was my own fault - it was the wrong moment to do it and it was insulting," Kerrey told the AP. "I meant no disrespect at all."
Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the senator accepted Kerrey's apology, sent to the campaign in the mail and via e-mail.
While announcing his support for Clinton on Sunday, Kerrey told The Washington Post in an interview that while he hopes Clinton is the nominee, he would like Obama to have a role - especially because of his ability to reach out to black youth and Muslims around the world.
"It's probably not something that appeals to him, but I like the fact that his name is Barack Hussein Obama, and that his father was a Muslim and that his paternal grandmother is a Muslim," said Kerrey, a former governor and the current president of the New School in New York City. "There's a billion people on the planet that are Muslims, and I think that experience is a big deal."
Kerrey's mention of Obama's middle name and his Muslim roots raised eyebrows because they are also used as part of a smear campaign on the Internet that falsely suggests Obama is a Muslim who wants to bring jihad to the United States.
Obama is a Christian.
The Clinton campaign has already fired two volunteer county coordinators in Iowa for forwarding hoax e-mails with the debunked claim. Last week, a national Clinton campaign co-chairman resigned for raising questions about whether Obama's teenage drug use could be used against him, so Kerrey's comments raised questions about whether the Clinton campaign might be using another high-profile surrogate to smear Obama.
Kerrey told Obama in the letter that was not his intent.
"I answered a question about your qualifications to be president in a way that has been interpreted as a backhanded insult of you. I assure you I meant to do just the opposite," Kerrey wrote.
He went on to say he considers Obama one of the most talented people he's met in politics and "exceptionally qualified by experience and judgment to be president of the United States." He expanded on Obama's potential to bring peace to the world and his capacity to inspire hope - high praise for someone backing Obama's top rival.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22340450/
calculated and sinister. that's politics though.Kerrey apologizes to Obama over remark
Ex-Senator lauds Illinois senator's qualifications to be president
Presidential hopeful, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.,
has accepted an apology from former Nebraska
Sen. Bob Kerrey for Kerrey's mention of the
candidate's Muslim heritage.
December 20, 2007
DES MOINES, Iowa - Former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey has apologized to Barack Obama for any unintentional insult he committed by raising the Democratic presidential candidate's Muslim heritage while endorsing rival candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Kerrey sent a letter to Obama on Wednesday, lauding the Illinois senator's qualifications to be president and saying that he never meant to harm his candidacy. Kerrey told The Associated Press in a telephone interview that he sent the letter on his own and had not spoken to Clinton or her campaign about the comments he made Sunday in Iowa.
"What I found myself getting into in Iowa - and it was my own fault - it was the wrong moment to do it and it was insulting," Kerrey told the AP. "I meant no disrespect at all."
Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the senator accepted Kerrey's apology, sent to the campaign in the mail and via e-mail.
While announcing his support for Clinton on Sunday, Kerrey told The Washington Post in an interview that while he hopes Clinton is the nominee, he would like Obama to have a role - especially because of his ability to reach out to black youth and Muslims around the world.
"It's probably not something that appeals to him, but I like the fact that his name is Barack Hussein Obama, and that his father was a Muslim and that his paternal grandmother is a Muslim," said Kerrey, a former governor and the current president of the New School in New York City. "There's a billion people on the planet that are Muslims, and I think that experience is a big deal."
Kerrey's mention of Obama's middle name and his Muslim roots raised eyebrows because they are also used as part of a smear campaign on the Internet that falsely suggests Obama is a Muslim who wants to bring jihad to the United States.
Obama is a Christian.
The Clinton campaign has already fired two volunteer county coordinators in Iowa for forwarding hoax e-mails with the debunked claim. Last week, a national Clinton campaign co-chairman resigned for raising questions about whether Obama's teenage drug use could be used against him, so Kerrey's comments raised questions about whether the Clinton campaign might be using another high-profile surrogate to smear Obama.
Kerrey told Obama in the letter that was not his intent.
"I answered a question about your qualifications to be president in a way that has been interpreted as a backhanded insult of you. I assure you I meant to do just the opposite," Kerrey wrote.
He went on to say he considers Obama one of the most talented people he's met in politics and "exceptionally qualified by experience and judgment to be president of the United States." He expanded on Obama's potential to bring peace to the world and his capacity to inspire hope - high praise for someone backing Obama's top rival.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22340450/
<font size="5"><center>After attacks on Obama, Bill Clinton says:
'I'm pretty chilled out'</font size></center>
By Matt Stearns | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Tuesday, January 22, 2008
GREENVILLE, S.C. — Bill Clinton finally had a good day Tuesday: His only mistake was the color of his tie.
Campaigning in University of South Carolina country, Clinton sported a bright Clemson-orange tie instead of Gamecocks garnet.
"I left all my red ties at home," Clinton apologized to Russell Pardee, a voter who called Clinton on it at a Columbia diner.
Given the criticism recently piled on the former president as he became wife Hillary Clinton's chief attack dog against Democratic presidential rival Barack Obama, a tie gaffe is nothing. It's been so bad that influential African-American Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., warned him to "chill," and other leading Democrats admonished Clinton.
Blacks likely will make up a majority of the voters Saturday in South Carolina's Democratic primary. Some voters said the dust-up — which has touched on race, Obama's alleged admiration of Ronald Reagan and the consistency of Obama's opposition to the Iraq war — soured them on Clinton.
"He used to be my boyfriend, but I have no respect for him for the remarks that he's been making," said Bennie Bayard, 60, a black retiree from Greenville who attended an Obama rally. But Gracie Garrison, also a black retiree from Greenville, said she remains committed to Hillary Clinton because "I think she'd be the best president. She's the most experienced." Garrison added that she wasn't influenced by the kerfuffle because "Obama started it."
Asked about his behavior Tuesday morning before tucking into a breakfast of fried eggs and grits, Clinton replied: "I'm pretty chilled out, don't you think?"
Clinton remained chilled out later at town hall meetings in Aiken and Greenville, abandoning what Obama adviser David Axlerod called his "bad cop" routine and what Obama called distortions.
Instead, Clinton heaped praise on Obama and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards for their public service, insisting, "I love this election because I don't have to be against anybody. ...I like these people."
His only criticism of Obama was on health care, where he said Obama's plan would leave as many as 15 million uninsured. Both Hillary Clinton's and John Edwards' plans mandate coverage for all.
Clinton did distort some things on Tuesday — but to his and his wife's benefit, not to her opponents' expense.
He continued the mythology that the campaign has built around Hillary Clinton's legal career: "She could have taken a job with a firm ... instead she went to work with Marian Wright Edelman at the Children's Defense Fund."
In fact, Hillary Clinton worked less than two years at the Children's Defense Fund. She spent the bulk of her career — 15-plus years — as a corporate lawyer at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, Ark., serving on corporate boards and earning a six-figure salary.
Clinton boasted about his hybrid "Mercury mini-SUV that gets 39 miles to the gallon," even as he regularly circles the globe by private jet and in motorcades featuring multiple full-sized, gas-guzzling SUVs.
And he was as full of contradictions as ever. Hours after criticizing reporters in Columbia for focusing on the "spat" between Obama and Hillary Clinton at the Monday debate, Clinton told voters in Greenville: "I kind of liked seeing Barack and Hillary fight last night. They're real people. Neither one of them is supposed to be this wind-up doll who's supposed to behave a certain way. ...I like this. I think it's exciting."
Still, it's clear that Clinton is catnip to Democratic voters, as he touts his wife's plans and record and defends his own legacy (he never fails to list his successes in office during speeches on his wife's behalf). Most questions he took from voters were softballs or sweet talk.
"I've just adored you forever, so whatever you do is alright with me," one woman told him in Greenville.
Clinton's infamous temper flashed briefly when a Greenville voter asked if Clinton felt he was standing in Obama's way as the Illinois senator tries to become the first black president.
"I'm not standing in his way," Clinton snapped. "Nobody has a right to be president."
But Clinton quickly chilled out.
"I think she'd be a better president at this point in history," Clinton said. "I hope I get a chance to vote for him someday."
(William Douglas contributed to this report.)
McClatchy Newspapers 2008
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/25265.html
'I'm pretty chilled out'</font size></center>
By Matt Stearns | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Tuesday, January 22, 2008
GREENVILLE, S.C. — Bill Clinton finally had a good day Tuesday: His only mistake was the color of his tie.
Campaigning in University of South Carolina country, Clinton sported a bright Clemson-orange tie instead of Gamecocks garnet.
"I left all my red ties at home," Clinton apologized to Russell Pardee, a voter who called Clinton on it at a Columbia diner.
Given the criticism recently piled on the former president as he became wife Hillary Clinton's chief attack dog against Democratic presidential rival Barack Obama, a tie gaffe is nothing. It's been so bad that influential African-American Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., warned him to "chill," and other leading Democrats admonished Clinton.
Blacks likely will make up a majority of the voters Saturday in South Carolina's Democratic primary. Some voters said the dust-up — which has touched on race, Obama's alleged admiration of Ronald Reagan and the consistency of Obama's opposition to the Iraq war — soured them on Clinton.
"He used to be my boyfriend, but I have no respect for him for the remarks that he's been making," said Bennie Bayard, 60, a black retiree from Greenville who attended an Obama rally. But Gracie Garrison, also a black retiree from Greenville, said she remains committed to Hillary Clinton because "I think she'd be the best president. She's the most experienced." Garrison added that she wasn't influenced by the kerfuffle because "Obama started it."
Asked about his behavior Tuesday morning before tucking into a breakfast of fried eggs and grits, Clinton replied: "I'm pretty chilled out, don't you think?"
Clinton remained chilled out later at town hall meetings in Aiken and Greenville, abandoning what Obama adviser David Axlerod called his "bad cop" routine and what Obama called distortions.
Instead, Clinton heaped praise on Obama and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards for their public service, insisting, "I love this election because I don't have to be against anybody. ...I like these people."
His only criticism of Obama was on health care, where he said Obama's plan would leave as many as 15 million uninsured. Both Hillary Clinton's and John Edwards' plans mandate coverage for all.
Clinton did distort some things on Tuesday — but to his and his wife's benefit, not to her opponents' expense.
He continued the mythology that the campaign has built around Hillary Clinton's legal career: "She could have taken a job with a firm ... instead she went to work with Marian Wright Edelman at the Children's Defense Fund."
In fact, Hillary Clinton worked less than two years at the Children's Defense Fund. She spent the bulk of her career — 15-plus years — as a corporate lawyer at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, Ark., serving on corporate boards and earning a six-figure salary.
Clinton boasted about his hybrid "Mercury mini-SUV that gets 39 miles to the gallon," even as he regularly circles the globe by private jet and in motorcades featuring multiple full-sized, gas-guzzling SUVs.
And he was as full of contradictions as ever. Hours after criticizing reporters in Columbia for focusing on the "spat" between Obama and Hillary Clinton at the Monday debate, Clinton told voters in Greenville: "I kind of liked seeing Barack and Hillary fight last night. They're real people. Neither one of them is supposed to be this wind-up doll who's supposed to behave a certain way. ...I like this. I think it's exciting."
Still, it's clear that Clinton is catnip to Democratic voters, as he touts his wife's plans and record and defends his own legacy (he never fails to list his successes in office during speeches on his wife's behalf). Most questions he took from voters were softballs or sweet talk.
"I've just adored you forever, so whatever you do is alright with me," one woman told him in Greenville.
Clinton's infamous temper flashed briefly when a Greenville voter asked if Clinton felt he was standing in Obama's way as the Illinois senator tries to become the first black president.
"I'm not standing in his way," Clinton snapped. "Nobody has a right to be president."
But Clinton quickly chilled out.
"I think she'd be a better president at this point in history," Clinton said. "I hope I get a chance to vote for him someday."
(William Douglas contributed to this report.)
McClatchy Newspapers 2008
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/25265.html
<font size="5"><center>Campaign Of Falsehoods On Obama Seen Sticking</font size><font size="4">
On eve of Florida primary, signs that e-mail blitz charging
Muslim background gaining traction among Jews.</font size></center>
Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign
is fighting back against the
innuendos, distributing this week
an “open letter to the Jewish
community” from seven Jewish
Democratic Senate colleagues
condemning the “abhorrent” tactics.
Getty Images
The Jewish Week
by James D. Besser
Washington Correspondent
January 23, 2008
When Doug Bloomfield, a columnist for Jewish newspapers and popular lecturer on the pro-Israel circuit, spoke in south Florida last week, he was astonished by what he encountered.
Anonymous e-mails and not-so-anonymous charges by some Jewish leaders about Sen. Barack Obama’s alleged Muslim past have started gaining real traction in the increasingly furious battle for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, he said.
"I was really shocked by the number of people who took these things seriously," Bloomfield said this week. "One man said to me: how do you know he’s not a ‘Muslim plant’; another used the words ‘Manchurian Candidate.’"
Bloomfield said he tried to "dispel what I see as a concerted hate campaign, coming largely from the Jewish right," in
his speech.
"But people were very skeptical; they said, ‘how do you know he’s not a Muslim?"
There are no measures of how deeply the anti-Obama campaign has penetrated the Jewish electorate. But Bloomfield, for one, came away saying, "I think it will have an impact on the way people vote."
He is not alone. Jewish leaders in diverse parts of the country say the year-old campaign to pillory Obama based on the four childhood years he spent in Indonesia and the fact his stepfather was a secular Muslim continues, despite intensifying efforts by the Obama campaign to reaffirm his friendship with the Jewish community and tout his credentials as an active Christian.
Last week, a group of top Jewish leaders representing groups across the religious and political spectrum issued a statement that sought to stem the onslaught of disinformation.
Leaders of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee, among others suggested the anti-Obama campaign represented an effort to "drive a wedge between our community and a presidential candidate based on despicable and false attacks and innuendo based on religion." The group stressed their statement implied no endorsement of Obama’s candidacy.
Other signers included leaders of the United Jewish Communities, the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, the Wiesenthal Center and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs.
Newsweek magazine also published a "Fact Check" online two weeks ago examining and debunking the charges. And the Obama campaign itself is fighting back hard via press releases, public statements and distribution this week of an "open letter to the Jewish community" from seven Jewish Democratic Senate colleagues.
"Over the past several weeks, many in the Jewish community have received hateful emails that use falsehood and innuendo about Senator Barack Obama’s religion and attack him personally," the Jewish lawmakers wrote. "As Jewish United States Senators who have not endorsed a candidate for the Democratic nomination, we condemn these scurrilous attacks. We find it particularly abhorrent that these attacks are apparently being sent specifically to the Jewish community. Jews, who have historically been the target of such attacks, should be the first to reject these tactics."
The letter, written by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), was signed by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).
Missing from the letter: Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a leading supporter of Sen. Hillary Clinton’s Democratic nomination bid, and Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.). Two calls to Schumer’s office seeking information on his absence from the letter were not returned. An Obama campaign source said a decision had been made to stick with senators who were not backing any presidential candidate.
Such proclamations have not staunched the flood of e-mails, which cite Obama’s childhood experiences between the ages of 6 and 10 in predominantly Muslim Indonesia. Some messages state falsely that Obama attended a "Wahabi madrassa," or fundamentalist Muslim religious school, while there — a claim investigated and debunked by CNN, The Chicago Tribune and The Los Angeles Times, among others.
Other messages suggest Obama’s exposure to Muslim culture and a Muslim stepfather implanted within him a pro-Muslim bias that would make him a big risk as U.S. president in an age of Islamic terrorism. They ignore Indonesia’s long history as home of one of the world’s most moderate forms of Islam and his stepfather’s lax observance of his own religion.
In fact, since his 2004 arrival in the Senate, Obama has strongly backed Israel on issues ranging from its bombing of Lebanon during the war of summer 2006, which killed hundreds of civilians, to its right to be free of U.S. pressure in negotiating with its enemies. The neoconservative New York Sun, among others, has praised Obama for his strong support of the Jewish state and sharply rebutted critics who charge otherwise. Lee Rosenberg, national treasurer of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the Washington-based pro-Israel lobby, is a member of Obama’s finance committee and a longtime supporter, as is billionaire Jewish philanthropist and pro-Israel stalwart Lester Crowne of Chicago.
Despite this, Mandell Ganchrow, a former Orthodox Union president and longtime leader of a major pro-Israel political action committee, recently posted an item on his Web site suggesting Obama’s early exposure to Islam could make him a danger to Israel.
"In the Jewish religion when someone is far away from observance, however at a certain time he has a spark of Jewishness, we call it a ‘pintele Yid’ — a smattering, or a deep-seated unconscious attachment to one’s roots," Ganchrow wrote. "With a Muslim father, and being surrounded in his early youth in a Muslim environment, is there such a thing as a ‘pintele Muslim,’ with deep-seated feelings which could color decisions re: terrorism and the Middle East?"
In an interview, Ganchrow conceded he had no evidence that the Democratic contender is influenced by Muslim theology or that he would be hostile to Israel.
"I just have this question in my mind" about Obama, he said. "I don’t know what’s in this man’s heart and mind." He said his concerns are based on a "feeling in my gut; you can’t quantify it." And he said there’s little Obama can do to change that feeling.
"What’s he going to say?" asked Ganchrow. "That he doesn’t beat his mother?"
Rabbi Jack Moline, spiritual leader of a Conservative synagogue in the Washington suburb of Alexandria, Va., said he sees some of the same receptivity to unfounded charges about the religious views of presidential candidates in his own congregation — which is known for a well-educated, politically connected membership.
Rabbi Moline was so concerned that this week he wrote a letter to congregants warning against the rumor attacks.
"This stuff is scurrilous," he told The Jewish Week. "Anybody who writes it is a criminal, anybody who passes it on is an accomplice and anybody who believes it is a bigot."
But the Obama rumors are getting traction because a candidate’s religion is becoming fair game in an increasingly bitter political climate and because "political operatives understand that that kind of language gets traction in the Jewish community, even if the charges are completely false," Rabbi Moline said.
"We have a lot of self-examination and self-correction to do," he said. "This stuff wouldn’t be out there if people didn’t think it would get traction."
University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato said it is important to examine the Obama rumors in the broader context of today’s bitter, unrestrained political environment.
"I’ve said consistently that this campaign will turn out to be one of the dirtiest campaigns in American history, and the first few weeks prove it," Sabato told The Jewish Week. "Obama has borne a disgusting burden so far — attacks on his race that are worthy of the 1950s, and complete lies about his supposed ‘Muslim religion.’"
Sabato put part of the blame on the "mainstream media [which] has not done nearly enough to root out the perpetrators."
He said suspicions about Obama’s religion may compound a racial divide in the campaign in which many white Democrats are simply reluctant to vote for a black presidential candidate.
"A lot of Jewish leaders have spoken out," lamented one such leader. "But there’s no evidence they’ve had much of an impact."
http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c37_a3572/News/National.html
On eve of Florida primary, signs that e-mail blitz charging
Muslim background gaining traction among Jews.</font size></center>
Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign
is fighting back against the
innuendos, distributing this week
an “open letter to the Jewish
community” from seven Jewish
Democratic Senate colleagues
condemning the “abhorrent” tactics.
Getty Images
The Jewish Week
by James D. Besser
Washington Correspondent
January 23, 2008
When Doug Bloomfield, a columnist for Jewish newspapers and popular lecturer on the pro-Israel circuit, spoke in south Florida last week, he was astonished by what he encountered.
Anonymous e-mails and not-so-anonymous charges by some Jewish leaders about Sen. Barack Obama’s alleged Muslim past have started gaining real traction in the increasingly furious battle for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, he said.
"I was really shocked by the number of people who took these things seriously," Bloomfield said this week. "One man said to me: how do you know he’s not a ‘Muslim plant’; another used the words ‘Manchurian Candidate.’"
Bloomfield said he tried to "dispel what I see as a concerted hate campaign, coming largely from the Jewish right," in
his speech.
"But people were very skeptical; they said, ‘how do you know he’s not a Muslim?"
There are no measures of how deeply the anti-Obama campaign has penetrated the Jewish electorate. But Bloomfield, for one, came away saying, "I think it will have an impact on the way people vote."
He is not alone. Jewish leaders in diverse parts of the country say the year-old campaign to pillory Obama based on the four childhood years he spent in Indonesia and the fact his stepfather was a secular Muslim continues, despite intensifying efforts by the Obama campaign to reaffirm his friendship with the Jewish community and tout his credentials as an active Christian.
Last week, a group of top Jewish leaders representing groups across the religious and political spectrum issued a statement that sought to stem the onslaught of disinformation.
Leaders of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee, among others suggested the anti-Obama campaign represented an effort to "drive a wedge between our community and a presidential candidate based on despicable and false attacks and innuendo based on religion." The group stressed their statement implied no endorsement of Obama’s candidacy.
Other signers included leaders of the United Jewish Communities, the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, the Wiesenthal Center and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs.
Newsweek magazine also published a "Fact Check" online two weeks ago examining and debunking the charges. And the Obama campaign itself is fighting back hard via press releases, public statements and distribution this week of an "open letter to the Jewish community" from seven Jewish Democratic Senate colleagues.
"Over the past several weeks, many in the Jewish community have received hateful emails that use falsehood and innuendo about Senator Barack Obama’s religion and attack him personally," the Jewish lawmakers wrote. "As Jewish United States Senators who have not endorsed a candidate for the Democratic nomination, we condemn these scurrilous attacks. We find it particularly abhorrent that these attacks are apparently being sent specifically to the Jewish community. Jews, who have historically been the target of such attacks, should be the first to reject these tactics."
The letter, written by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), was signed by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).
Missing from the letter: Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a leading supporter of Sen. Hillary Clinton’s Democratic nomination bid, and Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.). Two calls to Schumer’s office seeking information on his absence from the letter were not returned. An Obama campaign source said a decision had been made to stick with senators who were not backing any presidential candidate.
Such proclamations have not staunched the flood of e-mails, which cite Obama’s childhood experiences between the ages of 6 and 10 in predominantly Muslim Indonesia. Some messages state falsely that Obama attended a "Wahabi madrassa," or fundamentalist Muslim religious school, while there — a claim investigated and debunked by CNN, The Chicago Tribune and The Los Angeles Times, among others.
Other messages suggest Obama’s exposure to Muslim culture and a Muslim stepfather implanted within him a pro-Muslim bias that would make him a big risk as U.S. president in an age of Islamic terrorism. They ignore Indonesia’s long history as home of one of the world’s most moderate forms of Islam and his stepfather’s lax observance of his own religion.
In fact, since his 2004 arrival in the Senate, Obama has strongly backed Israel on issues ranging from its bombing of Lebanon during the war of summer 2006, which killed hundreds of civilians, to its right to be free of U.S. pressure in negotiating with its enemies. The neoconservative New York Sun, among others, has praised Obama for his strong support of the Jewish state and sharply rebutted critics who charge otherwise. Lee Rosenberg, national treasurer of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the Washington-based pro-Israel lobby, is a member of Obama’s finance committee and a longtime supporter, as is billionaire Jewish philanthropist and pro-Israel stalwart Lester Crowne of Chicago.
Despite this, Mandell Ganchrow, a former Orthodox Union president and longtime leader of a major pro-Israel political action committee, recently posted an item on his Web site suggesting Obama’s early exposure to Islam could make him a danger to Israel.
"In the Jewish religion when someone is far away from observance, however at a certain time he has a spark of Jewishness, we call it a ‘pintele Yid’ — a smattering, or a deep-seated unconscious attachment to one’s roots," Ganchrow wrote. "With a Muslim father, and being surrounded in his early youth in a Muslim environment, is there such a thing as a ‘pintele Muslim,’ with deep-seated feelings which could color decisions re: terrorism and the Middle East?"
In an interview, Ganchrow conceded he had no evidence that the Democratic contender is influenced by Muslim theology or that he would be hostile to Israel.
"I just have this question in my mind" about Obama, he said. "I don’t know what’s in this man’s heart and mind." He said his concerns are based on a "feeling in my gut; you can’t quantify it." And he said there’s little Obama can do to change that feeling.
"What’s he going to say?" asked Ganchrow. "That he doesn’t beat his mother?"
Rabbi Jack Moline, spiritual leader of a Conservative synagogue in the Washington suburb of Alexandria, Va., said he sees some of the same receptivity to unfounded charges about the religious views of presidential candidates in his own congregation — which is known for a well-educated, politically connected membership.
Rabbi Moline was so concerned that this week he wrote a letter to congregants warning against the rumor attacks.
"This stuff is scurrilous," he told The Jewish Week. "Anybody who writes it is a criminal, anybody who passes it on is an accomplice and anybody who believes it is a bigot."
But the Obama rumors are getting traction because a candidate’s religion is becoming fair game in an increasingly bitter political climate and because "political operatives understand that that kind of language gets traction in the Jewish community, even if the charges are completely false," Rabbi Moline said.
"We have a lot of self-examination and self-correction to do," he said. "This stuff wouldn’t be out there if people didn’t think it would get traction."
University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato said it is important to examine the Obama rumors in the broader context of today’s bitter, unrestrained political environment.
"I’ve said consistently that this campaign will turn out to be one of the dirtiest campaigns in American history, and the first few weeks prove it," Sabato told The Jewish Week. "Obama has borne a disgusting burden so far — attacks on his race that are worthy of the 1950s, and complete lies about his supposed ‘Muslim religion.’"
Sabato put part of the blame on the "mainstream media [which] has not done nearly enough to root out the perpetrators."
He said suspicions about Obama’s religion may compound a racial divide in the campaign in which many white Democrats are simply reluctant to vote for a black presidential candidate.
"A lot of Jewish leaders have spoken out," lamented one such leader. "But there’s no evidence they’ve had much of an impact."
http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c37_a3572/News/National.html
America is racist? Where have I been?
The Republican Attack on Obama
<font size="3">
Apparently sensing that Hillary Clinton will not be the Democratic nominee, (doesn't matter anyway, they have a wealth of information just waiting to tear her a new one), the Republicans and the Right Wing media are fast turning their attention to, Barack Obama.
I've been noticing the building attack in several publications for a coupole of weeks now. Much of the attention can be attributed to Obama's ascension to a role he has tried hard to play down: FRONT RUNNER. Some of it, however, sheds light on what could be a McCain vs. Obama race to the White House.
I will be posting articles and links in this thread which I believe demonstrate the attack. Read and Decide, for yourself.
QueEx
<font size="3">
Apparently sensing that Hillary Clinton will not be the Democratic nominee, (doesn't matter anyway, they have a wealth of information just waiting to tear her a new one), the Republicans and the Right Wing media are fast turning their attention to, Barack Obama.
I've been noticing the building attack in several publications for a coupole of weeks now. Much of the attention can be attributed to Obama's ascension to a role he has tried hard to play down: FRONT RUNNER. Some of it, however, sheds light on what could be a McCain vs. Obama race to the White House.
I will be posting articles and links in this thread which I believe demonstrate the attack. Read and Decide, for yourself.
QueEx
Re: The Republican Attack on Obama
<font size="5"><Center>Leaking Desperation </font size></center>
February 25, 2008
Blogger
It's pretty clear that the desperation has not only set in on the Republicans, they're getting to the point that it's starting to leak out like anti-freeze from a crack in an overheated radiator. What more proof do you need than the continuing fascination the right wing has with Barack Obama's middle name and his lack of the proper lapel attire. Affable if not loony Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) was on Real Time with Bill Maher over the weekend and he repeated both the middle name and the lapel pin crap and got a derisive hoot from the host and the audience for the trouble. (And, it should be noted, Mr. Kingston was not wearing an American flag lapel pin himself, as if that actually matters.) It's gotten to the point that even some right wingers are throwing up their hands in disgust and telling their fellow conservatives and whacko conspiracy theorists to "get a grip."
The Serious Pundits are taking a different tack. Or at least one is. William Kristol, in a fit of unintentional irony, accuses Sen. Obama of making himself the focus of the race, as if he is the only one who can save the country, and thereby creating a cult of personality surrounding him rather than focus on the issues, and also uses the flag pin kerfuffle as his sticking point.
Last October, a reporter asked Barack Obama why he had stopped wearing the American flag lapel pin that he, like many other public officials, had been sporting since soon after Sept. 11. Obama could have responded that his new-found fashion minimalism was no big deal. What matters, obviously, is what you believe and do, not what you wear.
But Obama chose to present his flag-pin removal as a principled gesture. “You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we’re talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest.”
Leave aside the claim that “speaking out on issues” constitutes true patriotism. What’s striking is that Obama couldn’t resist a grandiose explanation. Obama’s unnecessary and imprudent statement impugns the sincerity or intelligence of those vulgar sorts who still choose to wear a flag pin. But moral vanity prevailed. He wanted to explain that he was too good — too patriotic! — to wear a flag pin on his chest.
No, what Mr. Obama is saying is that just because you wear a flag pin -- or put a magnetic one on the back of your Hummer -- doesn't make you a patriot. It makes you look like you're a morally superior simp who has to use jewelry (probably made in China) to reassure yourself that all you have to do is wear the pin to be patriotic instead of doing something like, oh, actually do something to make the country a better place. The flag pin is your free pass to commit sartorial demagoguery.
The irony comes from the fact that in accusing Mr. Obama of making the race "all about him," Mr. Kristol is ignoring the fact that the right wing has been running on the cult of personality they built around the sainted Ronald Reagan and trying to get it back ever since. And if you don't think that the GOP would love to have someone with the talent and the vision of Barack Obama -- even if it is just rhetorical splendor -- and that they wouldn't sell that over substance, you have obviously not been checking with your answering service.
Ever since the end of the Reagan era, they have been desperately seeking someone who had the smile and charisma to repeat the magic that overwhelmed the nation and swept out the humble and bumbling Carter administration. And what have they come up with since then? A pale imitation in the person of George W. Bush, who even on his best day couldn't summon the timing and carefully-crafted spontaneity of Ronald Reagan if it was handed to him on a silver platter. And now they're proposing to nominate John McCain, who Mr. Kristol summons his best game face to describe as someone who "more proud of his country than of himself. And his patriotism has consisted of deeds more challenging than “speaking out on issues.” Wow; not exactly what I've call a ringing endorsement.
What I think is happening is that the Republicans are realizing that with John McCain they haven't got the next Ronald Reagan, they've got the next Jimmy Carter: a competent if not inspiring candidate that stirs suspicion in the base that he's not really One of Them (David Keene of the American Conservative Union told NPR this morning that Sen. McCain barely scores a 60 on his 100-point scale of being a True Believer, and 80 is a passing grade) and that given his age, if he's elected, he'll be a one-term caretaker until they can either find the next Reagan or come up with a scientific breakthrough to reanimate the last one. (Oh, wait; the right wing thinks science has a liberal bias.) The spluttering defense of Sen. McCain against the story in the Times last week about his relationship with a female lobbyist was more about the story and the unproven sexual angle than it was about the uncomfortable reminder of the fact that Mr. McCain has had a problematic history with lobbyists in the past and has since painted himself as the paragon of virtue when it comes to Capitol Hill influence.
When John McCain loses, they will then turn on him with all the pent-up fury and frustration that's already evident in their subtext and continue to desperately seek out their next Reagan. It won't be pretty, but it will be fun to watch.
http://barkbarkwoofwoof.blogspot.com/2008/02/leaking-desperation.html
<font size="5"><Center>Leaking Desperation </font size></center>
February 25, 2008
Blogger
It's pretty clear that the desperation has not only set in on the Republicans, they're getting to the point that it's starting to leak out like anti-freeze from a crack in an overheated radiator. What more proof do you need than the continuing fascination the right wing has with Barack Obama's middle name and his lack of the proper lapel attire. Affable if not loony Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) was on Real Time with Bill Maher over the weekend and he repeated both the middle name and the lapel pin crap and got a derisive hoot from the host and the audience for the trouble. (And, it should be noted, Mr. Kingston was not wearing an American flag lapel pin himself, as if that actually matters.) It's gotten to the point that even some right wingers are throwing up their hands in disgust and telling their fellow conservatives and whacko conspiracy theorists to "get a grip."
The Serious Pundits are taking a different tack. Or at least one is. William Kristol, in a fit of unintentional irony, accuses Sen. Obama of making himself the focus of the race, as if he is the only one who can save the country, and thereby creating a cult of personality surrounding him rather than focus on the issues, and also uses the flag pin kerfuffle as his sticking point.
Last October, a reporter asked Barack Obama why he had stopped wearing the American flag lapel pin that he, like many other public officials, had been sporting since soon after Sept. 11. Obama could have responded that his new-found fashion minimalism was no big deal. What matters, obviously, is what you believe and do, not what you wear.
But Obama chose to present his flag-pin removal as a principled gesture. “You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we’re talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest.”
Leave aside the claim that “speaking out on issues” constitutes true patriotism. What’s striking is that Obama couldn’t resist a grandiose explanation. Obama’s unnecessary and imprudent statement impugns the sincerity or intelligence of those vulgar sorts who still choose to wear a flag pin. But moral vanity prevailed. He wanted to explain that he was too good — too patriotic! — to wear a flag pin on his chest.
No, what Mr. Obama is saying is that just because you wear a flag pin -- or put a magnetic one on the back of your Hummer -- doesn't make you a patriot. It makes you look like you're a morally superior simp who has to use jewelry (probably made in China) to reassure yourself that all you have to do is wear the pin to be patriotic instead of doing something like, oh, actually do something to make the country a better place. The flag pin is your free pass to commit sartorial demagoguery.
The irony comes from the fact that in accusing Mr. Obama of making the race "all about him," Mr. Kristol is ignoring the fact that the right wing has been running on the cult of personality they built around the sainted Ronald Reagan and trying to get it back ever since. And if you don't think that the GOP would love to have someone with the talent and the vision of Barack Obama -- even if it is just rhetorical splendor -- and that they wouldn't sell that over substance, you have obviously not been checking with your answering service.
Ever since the end of the Reagan era, they have been desperately seeking someone who had the smile and charisma to repeat the magic that overwhelmed the nation and swept out the humble and bumbling Carter administration. And what have they come up with since then? A pale imitation in the person of George W. Bush, who even on his best day couldn't summon the timing and carefully-crafted spontaneity of Ronald Reagan if it was handed to him on a silver platter. And now they're proposing to nominate John McCain, who Mr. Kristol summons his best game face to describe as someone who "more proud of his country than of himself. And his patriotism has consisted of deeds more challenging than “speaking out on issues.” Wow; not exactly what I've call a ringing endorsement.
What I think is happening is that the Republicans are realizing that with John McCain they haven't got the next Ronald Reagan, they've got the next Jimmy Carter: a competent if not inspiring candidate that stirs suspicion in the base that he's not really One of Them (David Keene of the American Conservative Union told NPR this morning that Sen. McCain barely scores a 60 on his 100-point scale of being a True Believer, and 80 is a passing grade) and that given his age, if he's elected, he'll be a one-term caretaker until they can either find the next Reagan or come up with a scientific breakthrough to reanimate the last one. (Oh, wait; the right wing thinks science has a liberal bias.) The spluttering defense of Sen. McCain against the story in the Times last week about his relationship with a female lobbyist was more about the story and the unproven sexual angle than it was about the uncomfortable reminder of the fact that Mr. McCain has had a problematic history with lobbyists in the past and has since painted himself as the paragon of virtue when it comes to Capitol Hill influence.
When John McCain loses, they will then turn on him with all the pent-up fury and frustration that's already evident in their subtext and continue to desperately seek out their next Reagan. It won't be pretty, but it will be fun to watch.
http://barkbarkwoofwoof.blogspot.com/2008/02/leaking-desperation.html
<font size="4"><center>
CLINTON STAFFERS CIRCULATE 'DRESSED' OBAMA</font size></center>
DRUDGE REPORT
Mon Feb 25 2008 06:51:00 ET
With a week to go until the Texas and Ohio primaries, stressed Clinton staffers circulated a photo over the weekend of a "dressed" Barack Obama.
The photo, taken in 2006, shows the Democrat frontrunner fitted as a Somali Elder, during his visit to Wajir, a rural area in northeastern Kenya.
The senator was on a five-country tour of Africa.
"Wouldn't we be seeing this on the cover of every magazine if it were HRC?" questioned one campaign staffer, in an email obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT.
In December, the campaign asked one of its volunteer county coordinators in Iowa to step down after the person forwarded an e-mail falsely stating that Barack Obama is a Muslim.
Obama campaign manager David Plouffe quickly accused the Clinton campaign Monday of 'shameful offensive fear-mongering' for circulating the snap.
Developing story ...
http://drudgereport.com/flashoa.htm
CLINTON STAFFERS CIRCULATE 'DRESSED' OBAMA</font size></center>
DRUDGE REPORT
Mon Feb 25 2008 06:51:00 ET
With a week to go until the Texas and Ohio primaries, stressed Clinton staffers circulated a photo over the weekend of a "dressed" Barack Obama.
The photo, taken in 2006, shows the Democrat frontrunner fitted as a Somali Elder, during his visit to Wajir, a rural area in northeastern Kenya.
The senator was on a five-country tour of Africa.
"Wouldn't we be seeing this on the cover of every magazine if it were HRC?" questioned one campaign staffer, in an email obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT.
In December, the campaign asked one of its volunteer county coordinators in Iowa to step down after the person forwarded an e-mail falsely stating that Barack Obama is a Muslim.
Obama campaign manager David Plouffe quickly accused the Clinton campaign Monday of 'shameful offensive fear-mongering' for circulating the snap.
Developing story ...
http://drudgereport.com/flashoa.htm
<font size="5"><center>Obama slams smear photo </font size></center>
Obama campaign hits Drudge report on
circulated photo of senator dressed as
Somali elder. Photo: AP
By: Mike Allen
Feb 25, 2008 09:50 AM EST
Obama campaign manager David Plouffe accused the Clinton campaign Monday of "shameful offensive fear-mongering" by circulating a photo as an attempted smear.
Plouffe was reacting to a banner headline on the Drudge Report saying that aides to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) had e-mailed a photo calling attention to the African roots of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).
"The photo, taken in 2006, shows the Democrat front-runner dressed as a Somali Elder, during his visit to Wajir, a rural area in northeastern Kenya," the Drudge Report said. The photo created huge buzz in political circles and immediately became known as "the 'dressed' photo," reflecting the Drudge terminology.
Plouffe said in a statement: “On the very day that Senator Clinton is giving a speech about restoring respect for America in the world, her campaign has engaged in the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we’ve seen from either party in this election. This is part of a disturbing pattern that led her county chairs to resign in Iowa, her campaign chairman to resign in New Hampshire, and it’s exactly the kind of divisive politics that turns away Americans of all parties and diminishes respect for America in the world," said Plouffe.
The Clinton campaign issued an official response to the growing tempest - but the statement from campaign manager Maggie Williams did not respond to the central question of whether staffers circulated the photo.
“Enough,” Williams said in the statement. “If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely.
“This is nothing more than an obvious and transparent attempt to distract from the serious issues confronting our country today and to attempt to create the very divisions they claim to decry. We will not be distracted.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8667.html
Obama campaign hits Drudge report on
circulated photo of senator dressed as
Somali elder. Photo: AP
By: Mike Allen
Feb 25, 2008 09:50 AM EST
Obama campaign manager David Plouffe accused the Clinton campaign Monday of "shameful offensive fear-mongering" by circulating a photo as an attempted smear.
Plouffe was reacting to a banner headline on the Drudge Report saying that aides to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) had e-mailed a photo calling attention to the African roots of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).
"The photo, taken in 2006, shows the Democrat front-runner dressed as a Somali Elder, during his visit to Wajir, a rural area in northeastern Kenya," the Drudge Report said. The photo created huge buzz in political circles and immediately became known as "the 'dressed' photo," reflecting the Drudge terminology.
Plouffe said in a statement: “On the very day that Senator Clinton is giving a speech about restoring respect for America in the world, her campaign has engaged in the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we’ve seen from either party in this election. This is part of a disturbing pattern that led her county chairs to resign in Iowa, her campaign chairman to resign in New Hampshire, and it’s exactly the kind of divisive politics that turns away Americans of all parties and diminishes respect for America in the world," said Plouffe.
The Clinton campaign issued an official response to the growing tempest - but the statement from campaign manager Maggie Williams did not respond to the central question of whether staffers circulated the photo.
“Enough,” Williams said in the statement. “If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely.
“This is nothing more than an obvious and transparent attempt to distract from the serious issues confronting our country today and to attempt to create the very divisions they claim to decry. We will not be distracted.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8667.html
I’ve always said the reason why the republicans hate Hillary is because the Clintons play their smash and smear politics as well as they do. The Clintons are well versed in the Roger Ailes, Lee Atwater, Karl Rove school of the politics of self destruction. So goes politics!
Re: The Republican Attack on Obama
<font size="3">
It’s All About Him </font size>
By WILLIAM KRISTOL
February 25, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/opinion/25kristol.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
`
<font size="3">
It’s All About Him </font size>
By WILLIAM KRISTOL
February 25, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/opinion/25kristol.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
`
Re: The Republican Attack on Obama
Bill Kristol was dead wrong on every point on the runup to the Iraq War and his "punishment" has been a column in the "liberal" NY Times.
If Barack can continue to come up with terms like "silly season in politics" and continue to combat the lies and myths GOP operatives spew against him, he won't be the next John Kerry.
Bill Kristol was dead wrong on every point on the runup to the Iraq War and his "punishment" has been a column in the "liberal" NY Times.
If Barack can continue to come up with terms like "silly season in politics" and continue to combat the lies and myths GOP operatives spew against him, he won't be the next John Kerry.
source: TPM.COM
Hillary Spokesperson Wolfson Strongly Denies Campaign Officially Pushed Obama Turban Pic
By Greg Sargent - February 25, 2008, 2:36PM
On a conference call with reporters just now, Hillary spokesperson Howard Wolfson strongly denied any official campaign role in pushing the photo of Obama in a turban and Somali garb.
Drudge reported this morning that Clinton staffers had "circulated" the photo. He didn't say who circulated it, what level of Clinton staffer had circulated it, or to whom it had been circulated. Drudge is the sole source for this email's existence. Nonetheless, the media has been all over the story today.
Asked if the campaign had any role, Wolfson said, "No, not to my knowledge...I've never seen that picture before. I'm not aware that anyone else here has. I'm not aware that anyone here has circulated this e-mail."
Wolfson did say, however, that the campaign agreed with part of the message in the email -- that if the same photo had appeared of Hillary, it would have been a big story: "It is a common view among this campaign and our supporters that there is a difference in how the media covers our campaign and how it covers Senator Obama."
Wolfson also grew exasperated with a reporter who pressed the issue, saying: "If you have any original reporting to suggest that this campaign was circulating this e-mail, please let me know."
"We've been very clear that we're not aware of it," he added. "Obviously the campaign didn't sanction it, and don't know anything about it."
Hillary Spokesperson Wolfson Strongly Denies Campaign Officially Pushed Obama Turban Pic
By Greg Sargent - February 25, 2008, 2:36PM
On a conference call with reporters just now, Hillary spokesperson Howard Wolfson strongly denied any official campaign role in pushing the photo of Obama in a turban and Somali garb.
Drudge reported this morning that Clinton staffers had "circulated" the photo. He didn't say who circulated it, what level of Clinton staffer had circulated it, or to whom it had been circulated. Drudge is the sole source for this email's existence. Nonetheless, the media has been all over the story today.
Asked if the campaign had any role, Wolfson said, "No, not to my knowledge...I've never seen that picture before. I'm not aware that anyone else here has. I'm not aware that anyone here has circulated this e-mail."
Wolfson did say, however, that the campaign agreed with part of the message in the email -- that if the same photo had appeared of Hillary, it would have been a big story: "It is a common view among this campaign and our supporters that there is a difference in how the media covers our campaign and how it covers Senator Obama."
Wolfson also grew exasperated with a reporter who pressed the issue, saying: "If you have any original reporting to suggest that this campaign was circulating this e-mail, please let me know."
"We've been very clear that we're not aware of it," he added. "Obviously the campaign didn't sanction it, and don't know anything about it."
WHY THE WAR ON OBAMA?- from the Anti-Democracy Corporatists
<font face="georgia" size="3" color="#0000FF"><b>
"The first stage of fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power"
--Benito Mussolini (1883-1945), Fascist Dictator of Italy
</b></font>
<font face="arial black" size="5" color="#d90000">Why the War on Obama</font>
<b><font size="3" color="#000000" face="verdana">
By Robert Parry
February 26, 2008</b>
http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/2008/022608.html
While some cynics still view Barack Obama’s appeal for “change” as empty rhetoric, it’s starting to dawn on Washington insiders that his ability to raise vast sums of money from nearly one million mostly small donors could shake the grip that special-interest money has long held over the U.S. government.
<br>This spreading realization that Obama’s political movement might represent a more revolutionary change than previously understood is sparking a deepening resistance among defenders of the status quo – and prompting harsher attacks on Obama.
<br>Right now, the front line for the Washington Establishment is Hillary Clinton’s struggling presidential campaign, which has been stunned by Obama’s political skills as well as his extraordinary ability to raise money over the Internet. Obama’s grassroots donations have negated Clinton’s prodigious fundraising advantage with big donors.
<br><span style="background-color: #FFFF00"><b>Powerful lobbies – from AIPAC to representatives of military and other industries – also are recognizing the value of keeping their dominance over campaign cash from getting diluted by Obama’s deep reservoir of small donors. It’s in their direct interest to dent Obama’s momentum and demoralize his rank-and-file supporters as soon as possible.</b></span>
<br>So, neoconservatives and other ideological movements – heavily dependent on grants from the same special interests – are now joining with the Clinton campaign to tear down Obama by depicting him as unpatriotic, un-vetted, possibly a “closet Muslim.”
<br>On Feb. 25, the New York Times’ new neocon columnist William Kristol attacked Obama’s patriotism by citing the Illinois senator decision to stop wearing an American flag lapel pin because, Obama said, he saw how George W. Bush was exploiting the flag to stampede the nation toward war with Iraq.
<br>“You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin,” Obama said when asked about his lack of a flag pin in October 2007. “As we’re talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest.”
<br>In a column entitled “It’s All About Him,” Kristol mocked this explanation as an example of both Obama’s dubious claim to patriotism and his pomposity.
<br>“Leaving aside the claim that ‘speaking out on issues’ constitutes true patriotism,” Kristol wrote. “What’s striking is that Obama couldn’t resist a grandiose explanation. … Moral vanity prevailed. He wanted to explain that he was too good – too patriotic! – to wear a flag pin on his chest.”
<br>Kristol then turned on Michelle Obama for her comment about how excited she was by the public outpouring for political change that has surrounded her husband’s campaign: “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country,” she said.
<br>Kristol wrote: “Can it really be the case that nothing the U.S. achieved since [the mid-1980s] has made her proud? Apparently.” [<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/opinion/25kristol.html?_r=1&oref=slogin">NYT, Feb. 25, 2008</a>]
<br><strong>Clinton</strong><strong> Money Woes</strong>
<br>Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign – having burned through $130 million and needing a $5 million emergency loan from the Clintons’ personal finances – has gone hat in hand to some of the special interests with a strong stake in protecting the Washington status quo.
<br>For instance, campaign finance director Jonathan Mantz met with donors from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in a Washington hotel lobby when these pro-Israel AIPAC supporters were in town for other business, <a href="http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120295209438666989.html?mod=blog">the Wall Street Journal reported on Feb. 14</a>.
<br>The approach made sense because these pro-Israeli lobbyists remain wary of Obama’s advocacy of high-level talks with Iran, his opposition to the Iraq War, and his skimpier record of supporting Israel when compared with Hillary Clinton or John McCain.
<br>One former Israeli official told me that the Israeli government feels it can work with Obama, Clinton or McCain, but that the Israeli lobby in the United States is adamantly opposed to Obama, preferring Clinton because “they own her.” The ex-official said the lobby has some concern, too, with McCain because of his independent streak.
<br>Like other powerful lobbies, AIPAC is threatened by Obama’s ability to raise large sums of money from everyday Americans, thus reducing the need of Washington politicians to hold out their tin cups to AIPAC’s legendary network of wealthy donors. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “How Far Will the Clintons Go?
<br>After having lost 11 consecutive contests, the Clinton campaign is now turning to what its “kitchen sink” strategy of throwing whatever it has at Obama.
<br>Over the past few weeks, Clinton surrogates have been spreading rumors about Obama’s association with people with Arab names and contributions he has received from 1970s-era student radicals (though they’re now gray-haired, middle-class professionals). Some are packaging the attacks under the title, “The Obama Scandals.”
<br>On Feb. 26, Internet gossip Matt Drudge reported that a Clinton staffer e-mailed a photo taken of Obama during a 2006 trip to Kenya when he was dressed in a turban and other traditional garb of a Somali Elder. That reinforced earlier rumors spread about Obama as a secret Muslim, though he has long belonged to a Christian church in Chicago.
<br>Obama’s campaign manager David Plouffe denounced the Clinton campaign for circulating the photo with the goal of “shameful offensive fear-mongering.”
<br>The Clinton campaign denied knowledge of how the photo was disseminated, but campaign manager Maggie Williams attacked the Obama campaign for overreacting. “If Barack Obama’s campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed,” she said.
<br><strong>Two Faces of Hillary</strong>
<br>Sen. Clinton herself seemed torn between showing voters her softer side and releasing her inner combative persona.
<br>At the end of a Texas debate on Feb. 21, Sen. Clinton extended her hand to Obama and expressed how “honored” she was to be on the same stage with him. But she soon switched tactics and launched harsh attacks on Obama.
<br>On Feb. 23, reacting to flyers that the Obama campaign distributed in Ohio criticizing her positions on the North American Free Trade Agreement and the mandate included in her health insurance plan, Clinton rebuked her rival.
<br>“Shame on you, Barack Obama,” Clinton shouted, before instructing him to “meet me in Ohio, and let’s have a debate about your tactics and your behavior in this campaign.”
<br>To some observers, Clinton’s outburst had the look of an angry queen scolding a misbehaving servant boy, or a principal pulling a wayward student by the ear to the school office.
<br> “Enough with the speeches and the big rallies and then using tactics right out of Karl Rove’s playbook,” she added, suggesting that the flyers contrasting the positions of the two rivals were somehow a novel or diabolical concept.
<br>In reality, the Obama flyers were pretty standard stuff, more from the playbook of Tom Paine than Karl Rove. If Rove’s playbook were in use, the flyers would have claimed to come from a pro-Hillary group while advocating legalization of child pornography.
<br>But the Clinton campaign was only warming up. On Feb. 24, during a stop in Rhode Island, Clinton mocked Obama’s speeches calling for change:
<br>“Now, I could stand up here and say, ‘Let’s just get everybody together. Let’s get unified. The sky will open. The light will come down. Celestial choirs will be singing, and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect.”
<br>Amid some chuckles from her supporters, Clinton added, “Maybe I’ve just lived a little long, but I have no illusions about how hard this is going to be. You are not going to wave a magic wand and the special interests disappear.”
<br>Though this Clinton line of attack is popular among some of her backers – ridiculing the supposed naivety of Obama’s young supporters – Obama has never suggested that countering the entrenched special interests of Washington would be easy.
<br>Obama’s argument has been that only an energized American public can elect representatives to bring about change and then the people must stay vigilant to make sure there is no backsliding.
<br>While it’s true Obama doesn’t spell out all the difficulties ahead, his argument is at least as realistic as Clinton’s – that Republican obstructionism can be countered with “hard work.” That approach failed miserably when her initial health care plan collapsed in 1994 despite her strenuous efforts on its behalf.
<br>More to the immediate point, however, Obama’s success in getting out from under the special-interest financial dependency may be the most significant political development of this election cycle.
<br>That success also helps explain the emerging war on Obama – and the rising hysteria among Establishment figures about his surging candidacy.
</font>
<hr noshade color="#0000FF" size="10"></hr>
<font face="arial black" size="5" color="#d90000">
Why Obama Must Be Destroyed</font>
<font face="tahoma" size="4" color="#0000FF"><b>And Why Hillary Is Willing To Do It</b></font>
<font size="3" color="#000000" face="verdana">
Sat. Mar 08th 2008
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Laelth/22
For several days now I have been in an uncomfortable state of subdued panic. The reason is this: I sense a very real threat to the Democratic Party. To be blunt, I think the party is in danger of self-destruction. This is the first time that I have ever felt this way in the twenty-seven years that I have been politically sentient, and I am deeply alarmed.
The more I have tried to identify the source of this feeling, and the more I have studied the events of the past couple of weeks of this primary, the more alarmed I have become. I have found scant evidence that my instincts are wrong and that my alarm is unfounded.
It seems obvious that the Obama phenomenon has caught many by surprise, not just Hillary Clinton. Deeply entrenched interests are absolutely terrified that Obama may actually become President. It is clear that Clinton is being encouraged to stay in the race and is being aided in her efforts by forces that do not have the interests of the Democratic Party at heart (including Rush Limbaugh, no less).
What has puzzled me, and what I can not explain, is why? Finally, on that score, I have come to a conclusion. I don't like my answer, but it rings true to me, nonetheless.
<span style="background-color: #FFFF00"><b>
I believe that "the powers that be" inside the beltway deeply fear a candidate who has a million donors. That includes the Clintons, the Bushes, the McCains, the lobbyists, the journalists ... nearly all of those involved in the machinery of government. The fact is that the whole system is driven by lobbyist money, but candidate with a million donors doesn't need lobbyist money. He can not be bought. For this reason, he is a dire threat to the entire system.
And that is why, it seems, Obama must be brought down ... even if the whole Democratic Party has to go down with him.</b></span>
This is the only answer I have found that explains what I have seen these past few weeks, and while I would have never believed that Hillary Rodham Clinton could be a willing participant in an orchestrated attempt to destroy Obama, the recent Mother Jones article on Hillary's faith has altered my view of her entirely.
It's long, but it's a fascinating read: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/20...
If, as I have speculated, the oligarchy or "the powers that be" have decided that Obama must be destroyed, the Mother Jones article explains why Hillary might be willing to do it. Read it and see if you agree.
</font>
<hr noshade color="#0000FF" size="10"></hr><p>
The Billary Plan For Victory
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/4/21311/85811/447/468408
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/4/21311/85811/447/468408
<embed width="430" height="389" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" src="http://i9.photobucket.com/flash/player.swf?file=http://vid9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2008/Video/keithClintonisNuts.flv"></embed>
<embed width="430" height="389" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" src="http://i9.photobucket.com/flash/player.swf?file=http://vid9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2008/Video/keithClintonisNutsB.flv"></embed>
<font face="georgia" size="3" color="#0000FF"><b>
"The first stage of fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power"
--Benito Mussolini (1883-1945), Fascist Dictator of Italy
</b></font>
<font face="arial black" size="5" color="#d90000">Why the War on Obama</font>
<b><font size="3" color="#000000" face="verdana">
By Robert Parry
February 26, 2008</b>
http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/2008/022608.html
While some cynics still view Barack Obama’s appeal for “change” as empty rhetoric, it’s starting to dawn on Washington insiders that his ability to raise vast sums of money from nearly one million mostly small donors could shake the grip that special-interest money has long held over the U.S. government.
<br>This spreading realization that Obama’s political movement might represent a more revolutionary change than previously understood is sparking a deepening resistance among defenders of the status quo – and prompting harsher attacks on Obama.
<br>Right now, the front line for the Washington Establishment is Hillary Clinton’s struggling presidential campaign, which has been stunned by Obama’s political skills as well as his extraordinary ability to raise money over the Internet. Obama’s grassroots donations have negated Clinton’s prodigious fundraising advantage with big donors.
<br><span style="background-color: #FFFF00"><b>Powerful lobbies – from AIPAC to representatives of military and other industries – also are recognizing the value of keeping their dominance over campaign cash from getting diluted by Obama’s deep reservoir of small donors. It’s in their direct interest to dent Obama’s momentum and demoralize his rank-and-file supporters as soon as possible.</b></span>
<br>So, neoconservatives and other ideological movements – heavily dependent on grants from the same special interests – are now joining with the Clinton campaign to tear down Obama by depicting him as unpatriotic, un-vetted, possibly a “closet Muslim.”
<br>On Feb. 25, the New York Times’ new neocon columnist William Kristol attacked Obama’s patriotism by citing the Illinois senator decision to stop wearing an American flag lapel pin because, Obama said, he saw how George W. Bush was exploiting the flag to stampede the nation toward war with Iraq.
<br>“You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin,” Obama said when asked about his lack of a flag pin in October 2007. “As we’re talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest.”
<br>In a column entitled “It’s All About Him,” Kristol mocked this explanation as an example of both Obama’s dubious claim to patriotism and his pomposity.
<br>“Leaving aside the claim that ‘speaking out on issues’ constitutes true patriotism,” Kristol wrote. “What’s striking is that Obama couldn’t resist a grandiose explanation. … Moral vanity prevailed. He wanted to explain that he was too good – too patriotic! – to wear a flag pin on his chest.”
<br>Kristol then turned on Michelle Obama for her comment about how excited she was by the public outpouring for political change that has surrounded her husband’s campaign: “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country,” she said.
<br>Kristol wrote: “Can it really be the case that nothing the U.S. achieved since [the mid-1980s] has made her proud? Apparently.” [<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/opinion/25kristol.html?_r=1&oref=slogin">NYT, Feb. 25, 2008</a>]
<br><strong>Clinton</strong><strong> Money Woes</strong>
<br>Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign – having burned through $130 million and needing a $5 million emergency loan from the Clintons’ personal finances – has gone hat in hand to some of the special interests with a strong stake in protecting the Washington status quo.
<br>For instance, campaign finance director Jonathan Mantz met with donors from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in a Washington hotel lobby when these pro-Israel AIPAC supporters were in town for other business, <a href="http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120295209438666989.html?mod=blog">the Wall Street Journal reported on Feb. 14</a>.
<br>The approach made sense because these pro-Israeli lobbyists remain wary of Obama’s advocacy of high-level talks with Iran, his opposition to the Iraq War, and his skimpier record of supporting Israel when compared with Hillary Clinton or John McCain.
<br>One former Israeli official told me that the Israeli government feels it can work with Obama, Clinton or McCain, but that the Israeli lobby in the United States is adamantly opposed to Obama, preferring Clinton because “they own her.” The ex-official said the lobby has some concern, too, with McCain because of his independent streak.
<br>Like other powerful lobbies, AIPAC is threatened by Obama’s ability to raise large sums of money from everyday Americans, thus reducing the need of Washington politicians to hold out their tin cups to AIPAC’s legendary network of wealthy donors. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “How Far Will the Clintons Go?
<br>After having lost 11 consecutive contests, the Clinton campaign is now turning to what its “kitchen sink” strategy of throwing whatever it has at Obama.
<br>Over the past few weeks, Clinton surrogates have been spreading rumors about Obama’s association with people with Arab names and contributions he has received from 1970s-era student radicals (though they’re now gray-haired, middle-class professionals). Some are packaging the attacks under the title, “The Obama Scandals.”
<br>On Feb. 26, Internet gossip Matt Drudge reported that a Clinton staffer e-mailed a photo taken of Obama during a 2006 trip to Kenya when he was dressed in a turban and other traditional garb of a Somali Elder. That reinforced earlier rumors spread about Obama as a secret Muslim, though he has long belonged to a Christian church in Chicago.
<br>Obama’s campaign manager David Plouffe denounced the Clinton campaign for circulating the photo with the goal of “shameful offensive fear-mongering.”
<br>The Clinton campaign denied knowledge of how the photo was disseminated, but campaign manager Maggie Williams attacked the Obama campaign for overreacting. “If Barack Obama’s campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed,” she said.
<br><strong>Two Faces of Hillary</strong>
<br>Sen. Clinton herself seemed torn between showing voters her softer side and releasing her inner combative persona.
<br>At the end of a Texas debate on Feb. 21, Sen. Clinton extended her hand to Obama and expressed how “honored” she was to be on the same stage with him. But she soon switched tactics and launched harsh attacks on Obama.
<br>On Feb. 23, reacting to flyers that the Obama campaign distributed in Ohio criticizing her positions on the North American Free Trade Agreement and the mandate included in her health insurance plan, Clinton rebuked her rival.
<br>“Shame on you, Barack Obama,” Clinton shouted, before instructing him to “meet me in Ohio, and let’s have a debate about your tactics and your behavior in this campaign.”
<br>To some observers, Clinton’s outburst had the look of an angry queen scolding a misbehaving servant boy, or a principal pulling a wayward student by the ear to the school office.
<br> “Enough with the speeches and the big rallies and then using tactics right out of Karl Rove’s playbook,” she added, suggesting that the flyers contrasting the positions of the two rivals were somehow a novel or diabolical concept.
<br>In reality, the Obama flyers were pretty standard stuff, more from the playbook of Tom Paine than Karl Rove. If Rove’s playbook were in use, the flyers would have claimed to come from a pro-Hillary group while advocating legalization of child pornography.
<br>But the Clinton campaign was only warming up. On Feb. 24, during a stop in Rhode Island, Clinton mocked Obama’s speeches calling for change:
<br>“Now, I could stand up here and say, ‘Let’s just get everybody together. Let’s get unified. The sky will open. The light will come down. Celestial choirs will be singing, and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect.”
<br>Amid some chuckles from her supporters, Clinton added, “Maybe I’ve just lived a little long, but I have no illusions about how hard this is going to be. You are not going to wave a magic wand and the special interests disappear.”
<br>Though this Clinton line of attack is popular among some of her backers – ridiculing the supposed naivety of Obama’s young supporters – Obama has never suggested that countering the entrenched special interests of Washington would be easy.
<br>Obama’s argument has been that only an energized American public can elect representatives to bring about change and then the people must stay vigilant to make sure there is no backsliding.
<br>While it’s true Obama doesn’t spell out all the difficulties ahead, his argument is at least as realistic as Clinton’s – that Republican obstructionism can be countered with “hard work.” That approach failed miserably when her initial health care plan collapsed in 1994 despite her strenuous efforts on its behalf.
<br>More to the immediate point, however, Obama’s success in getting out from under the special-interest financial dependency may be the most significant political development of this election cycle.
<br>That success also helps explain the emerging war on Obama – and the rising hysteria among Establishment figures about his surging candidacy.
</font>
<hr noshade color="#0000FF" size="10"></hr>
<font face="arial black" size="5" color="#d90000">
Why Obama Must Be Destroyed</font>
<font face="tahoma" size="4" color="#0000FF"><b>And Why Hillary Is Willing To Do It</b></font>
<font size="3" color="#000000" face="verdana">
Sat. Mar 08th 2008
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Laelth/22
For several days now I have been in an uncomfortable state of subdued panic. The reason is this: I sense a very real threat to the Democratic Party. To be blunt, I think the party is in danger of self-destruction. This is the first time that I have ever felt this way in the twenty-seven years that I have been politically sentient, and I am deeply alarmed.
The more I have tried to identify the source of this feeling, and the more I have studied the events of the past couple of weeks of this primary, the more alarmed I have become. I have found scant evidence that my instincts are wrong and that my alarm is unfounded.
It seems obvious that the Obama phenomenon has caught many by surprise, not just Hillary Clinton. Deeply entrenched interests are absolutely terrified that Obama may actually become President. It is clear that Clinton is being encouraged to stay in the race and is being aided in her efforts by forces that do not have the interests of the Democratic Party at heart (including Rush Limbaugh, no less).
What has puzzled me, and what I can not explain, is why? Finally, on that score, I have come to a conclusion. I don't like my answer, but it rings true to me, nonetheless.
<span style="background-color: #FFFF00"><b>
I believe that "the powers that be" inside the beltway deeply fear a candidate who has a million donors. That includes the Clintons, the Bushes, the McCains, the lobbyists, the journalists ... nearly all of those involved in the machinery of government. The fact is that the whole system is driven by lobbyist money, but candidate with a million donors doesn't need lobbyist money. He can not be bought. For this reason, he is a dire threat to the entire system.
And that is why, it seems, Obama must be brought down ... even if the whole Democratic Party has to go down with him.</b></span>
This is the only answer I have found that explains what I have seen these past few weeks, and while I would have never believed that Hillary Rodham Clinton could be a willing participant in an orchestrated attempt to destroy Obama, the recent Mother Jones article on Hillary's faith has altered my view of her entirely.
It's long, but it's a fascinating read: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/20...
If, as I have speculated, the oligarchy or "the powers that be" have decided that Obama must be destroyed, the Mother Jones article explains why Hillary might be willing to do it. Read it and see if you agree.
</font>
<hr noshade color="#0000FF" size="10"></hr><p>
The Billary Plan For Victory
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/4/21311/85811/447/468408
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/4/21311/85811/447/468408
<embed width="430" height="389" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" src="http://i9.photobucket.com/flash/player.swf?file=http://vid9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2008/Video/keithClintonisNuts.flv"></embed>
<embed width="430" height="389" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" src="http://i9.photobucket.com/flash/player.swf?file=http://vid9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2008/Video/keithClintonisNutsB.flv"></embed>
Last edited:
Re: WHY THE WAR ON OBAMA?- from the Anti-Democracy Corporatists
Even if some of this were to take place as you spell it out, what does Obama do in the meantime? Accept it? Take it? I mean nothing in this scenario suggest Obama do anything. She never trips up, she always succeeds in her attack and not even the law or the voters are willing to take a look.
-VG
Even if some of this were to take place as you spell it out, what does Obama do in the meantime? Accept it? Take it? I mean nothing in this scenario suggest Obama do anything. She never trips up, she always succeeds in her attack and not even the law or the voters are willing to take a look.
-VG
Obama, Volume 1 & 2 !@#$ing fox... i mean faux news
Obama, Volume 2
bullsh***t!
Obama, Volume 2
vol. 2
bullsh***t!
Last edited:
"I've been astonished, though probably shouldn't be surprised, at the prominence that news organizations — chiefly the cable networks — have given during the past 10 days to the flap over remarks by Barack Obama's former minister, to the exclusion of all the pressing issues facing this country."
The video below provides some context to explain how the Fox News "virus" has infiltrated other news outlets."
[FLASH]http://www.youtube.com/v/MjvNSpsPu1k&hl=en[/FLASH]
This week, Barack Obama gave one of the most honest and inspiring speeches on race in American history after weathering days of the media's relentless, divisive, and racially charged attacks. But have you wondered where these attacks came from and why they dominated the news?
Reporters like NBC's Tim Russert focused on the "Reverend Wright controversy" only after FOX and other right-wing media did. It happens over and over: FOX airs a right-wing smear and the mass media repeat it. Film director Robert Greenwald just released a short video called FOX Attacks Obama: Part 2 which shows how it happens.
We are launching a petition demanding the big networks stop parroting FOX and distracting Americans from real issues. We'll hand-deliver your signatures to major media outlets next week. Watch the video, and sign the petition, here:
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3495&id=12363-7671297-HJOMvC&t=454
The petition, which we're launching with Greenwald's Brave New Films, says: "FOX is a Republican mouthpiece, not a legitimate news organization. Real news organizations must reject FOX's smears of Barack Obama, not parrot them and distract Americans from the pressing issues of the day." The more signatures we deliver, the bigger the impact—so please tell your friends.
Media watchdog group Media Matters has chronicled how FOX spent months trying to smear Obama by associating him with Reverend Wright's words. Greenwald's new video shows how the attacks successfully migrated to the mass media—Tim Russert repeated Sean Hannity's smears virtually word-for-word!
Meanwhile, the big networks all but ignored Pastor John Hagee, whose endorsement John McCain was "honored" and "proud" to receive. Hagee says Katrina was God's punishment for homosexuality, Jews are to blame for anti-Semitism, and Catholicism is the "Whore of Babylon" and "a cult."
It gets worse. At the same time they relentlessly reported on Obama's pastor, most network journalists also ignored Rick Parsley, a televangelist who McCain called his "spiritual guide" when accepting his endorsement last month. Parsley has said:
I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed...
Ignoring McCain's spiritual advisers while going after Obama's is what we expect from FOX, which is more a Republican mouthpiece than a real news organization. But when real news outlets follow FOX's lead, we have to hold them accountable. Otherwise, FOX will continue to elevate smear after smear against Democrats into the mass media in 2008.
http://www.socialmedia.biz/
The video below provides some context to explain how the Fox News "virus" has infiltrated other news outlets."
[FLASH]http://www.youtube.com/v/MjvNSpsPu1k&hl=en[/FLASH]
This week, Barack Obama gave one of the most honest and inspiring speeches on race in American history after weathering days of the media's relentless, divisive, and racially charged attacks. But have you wondered where these attacks came from and why they dominated the news?
Reporters like NBC's Tim Russert focused on the "Reverend Wright controversy" only after FOX and other right-wing media did. It happens over and over: FOX airs a right-wing smear and the mass media repeat it. Film director Robert Greenwald just released a short video called FOX Attacks Obama: Part 2 which shows how it happens.
We are launching a petition demanding the big networks stop parroting FOX and distracting Americans from real issues. We'll hand-deliver your signatures to major media outlets next week. Watch the video, and sign the petition, here:
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3495&id=12363-7671297-HJOMvC&t=454
The petition, which we're launching with Greenwald's Brave New Films, says: "FOX is a Republican mouthpiece, not a legitimate news organization. Real news organizations must reject FOX's smears of Barack Obama, not parrot them and distract Americans from the pressing issues of the day." The more signatures we deliver, the bigger the impact—so please tell your friends.
Media watchdog group Media Matters has chronicled how FOX spent months trying to smear Obama by associating him with Reverend Wright's words. Greenwald's new video shows how the attacks successfully migrated to the mass media—Tim Russert repeated Sean Hannity's smears virtually word-for-word!
Meanwhile, the big networks all but ignored Pastor John Hagee, whose endorsement John McCain was "honored" and "proud" to receive. Hagee says Katrina was God's punishment for homosexuality, Jews are to blame for anti-Semitism, and Catholicism is the "Whore of Babylon" and "a cult."
It gets worse. At the same time they relentlessly reported on Obama's pastor, most network journalists also ignored Rick Parsley, a televangelist who McCain called his "spiritual guide" when accepting his endorsement last month. Parsley has said:
I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed...
Ignoring McCain's spiritual advisers while going after Obama's is what we expect from FOX, which is more a Republican mouthpiece than a real news organization. But when real news outlets follow FOX's lead, we have to hold them accountable. Otherwise, FOX will continue to elevate smear after smear against Democrats into the mass media in 2008.
http://www.socialmedia.biz/
<font size="5"><center>
Its Exactly 30 days to Election Day, Today
Sunday, October 5, 2008</font size></center>
<font size="3">And I have every reason to believe that we are about to see McCain & Co., rev-up its attack in any way it thinks might have an impact, however slight, on this race, including Barack Obama's character:
Palin Says Obama 'Palling Around' With Terrorists
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=5954920
Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin on Saturday accused Democrat Barack Obama of "palling around with terrorists" because of an association with a former '60s radical, a harsh attack on his character that she repeated at three separate campaign events without substantiation.
`
Desperate McCain gets tough with attack on Obama’s character
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4882402.ece
As the Democrat builds a lead in key states, the Republicans are trying to fight back by focusing on his ties to a corrupt donor.
FACED with the threat of a decisive victory for Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, his Republican rival John McCain is preparing to take the gloves off and “get tough” in the closing weeks of an increasingly aggressive election campaign.
The McCain camp has already launched a series of negative advertisements attacking Obama’s character and associates. They are being shown in battleground states that are tilting towards the Democratic senator.
`
Its Exactly 30 days to Election Day, Today
Sunday, October 5, 2008</font size></center>
<font size="3">And I have every reason to believe that we are about to see McCain & Co., rev-up its attack in any way it thinks might have an impact, however slight, on this race, including Barack Obama's character:
Palin Says Obama 'Palling Around' With Terrorists
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=5954920
Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin on Saturday accused Democrat Barack Obama of "palling around with terrorists" because of an association with a former '60s radical, a harsh attack on his character that she repeated at three separate campaign events without substantiation.
`
Desperate McCain gets tough with attack on Obama’s character
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4882402.ece
As the Democrat builds a lead in key states, the Republicans are trying to fight back by focusing on his ties to a corrupt donor.
FACED with the threat of a decisive victory for Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, his Republican rival John McCain is preparing to take the gloves off and “get tough” in the closing weeks of an increasingly aggressive election campaign.
The McCain camp has already launched a series of negative advertisements attacking Obama’s character and associates. They are being shown in battleground states that are tilting towards the Democratic senator.
`
