Obama the "Uniter" Divides Democrats with False Ads and Smear Tactics
Submitted by Nick Kelly on February 24, 2008 - 12:48pm.
Barack Obama | Hillary Clinton | Democratic politics
UPDATE Hillary is fed up with Obama's False Ads
Frankly, I don't see any way Obama can unite our country. His campaign and his supporters have already made countless accusations against Hillary and Bill Clinton designed to divide Democrats along racial, gender and generation lines. And if that's not bad enough, his glossy mailers and television ads include outright falsehoods and empty promises which are dividing Democrats on the crucial matter of Universal Health Care. Furthermore, it's completely unacceptable for him to (rather quietly, mind you) plan to implement his lame attempt at health care reform some vague time before the end of his first term. Americans need and deserve health care reform immediately if not sooner, and they also deserve a Democratic President who can and will champion and do everything it takes to enact needed reforms immediately upon their inauguration. Obama, however, evidently wants to host endless discussions about his lame proposal on CSPAN for the next 4 years. Yawwwwwwn..... Does he really think those endless discussions will help the families of sick and dying Americans to feel more united with his allies in the health insurance industry and his enemies in the Republican Party? Or is he simply following that route at the recommendation of his health care advisers, who likely include many with connections to some of the most conservative elements of the health care industry?
UPDATE mad4clark comments that Obama is also lying about Hillary's position on NAFTA! Apparently, this "Saint" has more than one big sin to answer for!
Sorry for beginning with a rant; but I am deeply concerned that the "St. Obama, the Uniter" image that has propelled him this far has been aided and abetted not only by wide-spread ignorance concerning the facts of what he is proposing, but also by the to date mostly unanswered effect of the Obama campaign's negative attack ads. I know for a fact that those false and misleading ads helped him quite a lot in Colorado, and I suspect they did the same in Wisconsin as well. Indeed, Obama's ads have probably mislead voters all across our country.
It's a sure thing that he would have long ago been called on all of that negative campaigning if he were then facing a Republican. Hillary, however, perhaps giving Democratic Primary voters and caucus goers more credit than we collectively deserve, has mostly stayed silent about Obama's negative campaigning until now. Here's a picture of her holding Obama's vicious Harry and Louise mailer which grossly misrepresents her health care plan. I hope this does create the firestorm some media pundits have said that it will. I further hope that the people of Texas, Ohio, Vermont and Rhode Island will take a close look at this, and not let Obama's glossy propaganda mislead them the way that it did voters in my state.
Texas, Ohio, Vermont, and Rhode Island voters need not just take my word for it. Paul Krugman, noted columnist and economist, has expressed his disgust with Obama's misrepresentation of Hillary's plan, as well as his concern that Obama's plan cannot lead to single payer. For more on that, read this.
UPDATE: I noticed in general discussion that "Blackie", our fellow CCN poster, saw the lies and distortions the Obama campaign has been mailing to voters at this excellent Scott Ross diary.
Here's some of what I posted concerning Obama's glossy health-care lies on February 12
There is lots of evidence that Senator Obama's campaign is very seriously distorting Hillary's health-care plan in an attempt to scare people away from supporting her.
For example, just prior to our Colorado caucus, when I was out of town, we received several glossy mailings from "Obama for America". I was so busy getting back into caucus mode that I didn't actually look at them until yesterday.
In large print, they say (several times), "Hillary's health care plan forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it. Is that the best we can do for families struggling with high health care costs?"
They also say, "Punishing families who can't afford health care to begin with just doesn't make sense. Barack Obama believes that it's not that people don't want health care, it's that they can't afford it....That's why the Obama plan covers every American by reducing costs more than Hillary Clinton's, saving the typical family up to $2,500 per year....Tha Obama Health Care Plan: Offers health care coverage for all Americans similar to that of members of Congress, and subsidies to help those who cannot afford it."
By now, I'll bet practically all of you can pick up the multiple lies and distortions of fact in the above glossy pro Obama literature.
So, Obama is peeved that Bubba misrepresented his comment that Republicans were the party of ideas? Poor innocent Barack, the undeserving victim of that evil Bubba! Not. Barack's campaign would never misrepresent anything about Hillary, would they?
Except maybe for multiple last-minute mass mailings of multiple glossy lies probably to every caucus state Democrat whose address they had. And then there's Barack's own incredibly offensive comment that Hillary's health insurance mandates are like telling a homeless person they must buy a house.
Obama and his people know better. But they are doing it anyway.
It bothers me a little that Hillary hasn't yet strongly taken him on concerning this. I worry that this is akin to JK letting the swift-boat lies percolate. But then, perhaps she will take Obama on when she thinks the time is right. I would love to see some video ads featuring Democrats who were taken in by these glossy lies and Obama's own comments just before they caucused for Obama, and who have subsequently concluded that the Obama campaign mislead them, something like Bush did before his disastrous invasion of Iraq.
And here is what I said about his Wisconsin TV ad.
This is an outrage. Obama's ad says:
On health care, even Bill Clinton’s own Labor Secretary says Obama covers more people than Hillary and does more to cut costs, saving $2,500 for the typical family.
That statement alone conveys the false idea that Obama's health plan clearly saves the typical family $2,500. Clearly to anyone with an understanding of the health insurance business, it can't do anything of the sort. [The plan itself cleverly] claims that it will save the typical family up to $2,500. Of course that will be true if it saved them maybe $10 or $15 through:
The Obama plan will improve efficiency and lower costs in the
health care system by: (1) offering federal reinsurance to employers to help ensure that
unexpected or catastrophic illnesses do not make health insurance unaffordable or out of
reach for businesses and their employees (2) ensuring that patients receive and providers
deliver the best possible care; (3) adopting state-of-the-art health information technology
systems; and (4) reforming our market structure to increase competition.http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf
The Obama plan to reduce costs by (cleverly) "up to" $2,500 is all pie in the sky flim-flam and hype folks, and we need to tell the people that.
Not only that, his reference in that ad to 18 debates is beside the point. He has directly debated Hillary on only one occasion to my memory. It's quite disingenuous for his campaign to refer to all of those other crowded stages where it was impossible to pin him down on anything.
I certainly hope that the moderators of the upcoming debate in Cleveland allow Hillary to pin Senator Obama down, and get him to either prove his claims or disavow them. It simply won't do for the media and the moderators to simply trust his word. Republicans won't. I can guarantee that.
I notice that one of them attributes the estimated "up to" savings of the Obama health plan to some unnamed Harvard professors. Well, I'd want to remain pretty anonymous myself if I had made any such assertion about his plan. Because it won't do any such thing if it gets enacted.
I'm no Harvard professor, but I am a Stanford educated systems analyst who has studied and worked in and around the health care industry for over 40 years, and I can guarantee that O's plan will not save anything like $2,500 for most Americans. In fact, it's unlikely that it will save them anything whatsoever. Hillary's plan, on the other hand, could indeed save virtually every American family quite a lot. I see from one of the links you provide that her folks estimate $2,200/yr. That is not unreasonable since her plan really will be a nice big step towards single payer, and since it would rather quickly appeal to as many as 100 million new subscribers. Ultimately, it would appeal to virtually all Americans, but right off the bat the administrative cost savings for those 100 million alone would be enormous.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark still could be the national security candidate.
Primaries pit one or more candidates against other candidates and the party faithful "side up" with the candidate of their choice. That is nothing new.
Once the primaries are decided the faithful come back together to defeat the real enemy...in this case that being the Republicans.
When looking at it from that perspective both of the two remaining candidates are "divisive".
That's true, however, the gap between our two remaining candidates seems particularly wide. I have witnessed first hand some very mean-spirited comments made by Obama supporters about Hillary Clinton. Comments that indicate they would vote for McCain before her. Comments that scores of his young supporters would be disillusioned if he didn't win, and they would drop out.
Now, when we all worked for Wes, there was no doubt in our minds that he would always want us to conduct ourselves as he does. Leadership comes from the top, and while Obama can't control his supporters, he can certainly let it be known, just as Wes did, how he would expect them to conduct themselves. It's no wonder that his supporters say they wouldn't vote for Hillary since he has a hard time saying it, and his wife couldn't say it during a televised interview. There is no excuse for that.
from both sides. Just today one of our bloggers let it be known that they would vote for Nader if Obama is the nominee. And I've seen other Hillary supporters mention they might vote for McCain or "sit out".
This whole thing has ended up being a case of the pot calling the kettle black (no pun intended).
Obama supporters are "delusional".
Non Clinton supporters are "haters" (women haters in particular) even if they are not Obama supporters.
It just goes on and on.
In a way it's comical to some of us who support neither of them. In another way it's tragically sad.
The radicals on either side will do what they will do and no one will be able to convince them otherwise.
The rational will take pause, take a few deep breaths and then rally around the nominee...because it's that importatnt.
I'm properly chagrined, and will be sitting in the corner until it's determined I can come out.
I hope it's sooner rather than later, as it's really going to be crowded in that corner.
I hope that those of you who have remained completely impartial and above the fray, can come to some agreement soon, and let those of us who have been drawn to one side or the other of this primary know when it's alright to speak our hearts and minds once more.
should not speak our hearts and minds Dorma? If we do we're trying to "discipline"?
Guess no matter what we say it's going to be considered wrong.
If you want to see a crowded corner try the one I've been trying to hide in the past few months. There are a lot of us old time Clarkies who are trying to "remain above the fray" as you put it.
make up your mind are you planning on voting for both of them? Or neither? :)
1984 happened, but the media didn't tell us.
I won't be voting in the primary...I'll leave that to the folks who really like one of these candidates. Reverting to my old Independent ways. I'll vote for the Dem who gets the primary nod in the general.
2004 was the first, last and probably, only time I ever voted in a primary...and I was proud to cast my vote for Wes Clark. Someone I actually was voting for as opposed to voting against the other. :)
but it really seemed to have been calming down.
I went away late Thursday, popped in briefly Friday, and then was away until a little bit ago.
And it's off the charts again, and there's some real pie flying around. And it seems to happen when one group of Clarkies decides to come in and spank the Hillary supporters and phrases like, "I'm so disappointed to see this behavior on the Generals board."
It's terribly condescending, and really frustrating. Hillary supporters feel that they can at least come here to talk about supporting Hillary, bad stuff about Obama with which they disagree, and not get smacked around and accused of being 'bad' in some childish way. Because there really are very few places where we can congregate, and when Wes endorsed Hillary, it took alot of work for most of us to get on board.
And for what it's worth, there are a lot of us 'old time Clarkies' who are supporting Hillary Clinton for President. Passionately. With cash, time, gas, feet, hearts and heads.
And we talk about that here too.
particularly, if you are running as the great "uniter" who is going to "transform American politics"! If that's your ultimate purpose and campaign promise, it might be best to avoid the use of false ads and smear tactics against your fellow Democrats. It might also be better for the country you propose to unite and transform if you did something positive to stop those of your supporters who engaged in absurd allegations of racism or who engaged in relentless attempts to demonize your principle Democratic opponent.
Obama has done nothing whatsoever to put a lid on all of the Clinton hatred that apparently festers and so frequently surfaces amongst a huge number of his supporters. In fact, he would not be where he is now in the delegate count if he hadn't enabled that sort of negative politics as usual. Imo, that makes his entire campaign message one big hypocritical load of ____.
Hillary has been much too patient with him until now. In reality, she has been doing her best to be the uniter. He's merely the latest and craftiest ever politician to ground a big part of his campaign on the very fertile "anybody but Clinton" ground that right-wingers have so frequently plowed and fertilized.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark still could be the national security candidate.
is from the radical folk on both sides of this race, pure and simple...and it is always so. Those who are more personally invested in A candidate than in THE good of the nation. Those folks take everything way to personally, IMHO.
And, not trying to be snide, but Wes said he reads the blog all the time. (at least someone posted that he said that) Has he ask that the hatred for Obama often posted here have a lid put on it?
I don't think some of the over the top statements posted here regarding Obama are indicative of what Hillary believes any more than I think the same nonsense against Hillary is what Obama believes.
what I have seen posted here against Obama isn't "nonsense." It's why many of us can't support him. And probably never will.
1984 happened, but the media didn't tell us.
However, it's not.
Call me crazy, Ohio; but I see distinct differences between the two camps.
Granted, there is nonsense on both sides. That's extremely common in most political campaigns, and there is no way anyone can ever truly "put a lid" on all of it.
However, I really don't see anything here on this site that remotely mirrors the extent and degree of negativism I hear or see expressed by virtually every O supporter I exchange views with. Many of those negative Clinton views have been supported and repeated and magnified by the major media outlets.
Sure, it would be great if everyone always played nice. But in spite of the fact that O runs on that idea, he hasn't lived up to it in this campaign. For the most part, the media hasn't called him on that. I'm happy that Hillary finally has.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark still could be the national security candidate.
Divide and Conquer...thats the GAME!! Suprisingly sport metaphors plays right into Rove's game play...just my opinion.
There will not be any unity, and the games he is playing will not be healed. I hope all the college and young adults he is gathering stick with him. (which I don't think they will) Its Rove's plan with all the memo's sent to the "Young Repulicans"!!
Many in Michigan and Florida will vote for McCain. Not that they support his policies, but because he is experienced in Gov't, and is a hero, streight shooter, and you know what you are getting.
I cannot support a candidate, that is baseing his entire campaign on CHRISMA. His policies are weak, and he is lacking foreign policy experience along with his economic inexperience. I refer to that, simply by the transaction of buying his house, that was boneheaded decision, and was supported by a man who is now sitting in jail.
If he wins, so be it, but I will not support him.
So good luck everyone, who thinks he is the great uniter. I don't think so.
...you have one candidate who has decided to campaign from the Right. He is not just attacking Hillary, he is attacking progressive issues.....and in turn his own party's brand.
"The Right always knows who its enemy is" Lance Mannion
..over health care and NAFTA. They spent a lot of time on health care during last Thursday's debate, and Hillary said she'll take him on this coming Tuesday during the Cleveland debate, so let's see what comes of it.
I've watched the video of Hillary decrying Barack as shameless, and have read print headlines such as "Clinton Furious Over Obama's Mailings."
If Hillary is correct, she has a right to be outraged, but watching her furiosity I am reminded of one of my basketball coaches who had a habit of excessive protesting, only to get a technical foul called on him. Thinking the coach was hurting the team, I mentioned it to my dad, who explained, "he does it to fire up the team."
Oh lord, I'm so sick of the sports metaphors.
For many reasons. Mostly because I'm sick to death of every damn thing everywhere, all the damn time, in virtually every gd situation, being reduced to another sports story or quotable quote. Intellectual shortcuts - all of 'em. Drove me crazy in school, at jobs, and now - here. Am I just not cut out to be an American, or something?
(So much this season is apparently my own unique perception. At least according to the people around me. For the most part. Heh.)
I keep thinking I'm going to leave, but I am starting to like this place. What with donjo and I playing board games (see ongoing repartee)and the "Thrilla in Cleveland" scheduled for tomorrow night -- finally! The CCN is a fun place.
Men who get outraged are strong, women are shrill.
Must not forget Must not forget Must not forget
"The Right always knows who its enemy is" Lance Mannion
excessive protesting". If any of the candidates has such a habit, it's your O, who has played the "I am a poor and innocent victim of the mean nasty Clinton machine card" on every possible and even some very improbable occasion(s) during this campaign.
Barack plays a great victim. Lots of Democrats automatically feel sorry for alleged "victims". Let's see how that works for him with Republicans and Independents if he secures the nomination.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark still could be the national security candidate.
She is now, full time, defending the policies of her husband, to whom she is bonded in blood, and her status as a lady.
Now, in times such as these, that's not such a terrible thing, I'll grant you, but it isn't in the interest of the country.
Hillary is spending all her time defending the Clintons. You Clinton supporters here are spending all your time defending the Clintons.
Sen. Hillary Clinton is a great lady, I know this. I know she is trying to fight for me, even, and I love her for it, but the White House is not the way, not now. We need a cooler head, this we can count on, because the Rule of Law, ultimately, must triumph. That means, right now, getting behind Obama. But that doesn't mean I want Senator Clinton to go away, although some may think that's what it means.
Another Clinton Administration is another four years of the roller coaster. I can't seek that in good conscience.
I just can't.
Obama 08
has shown the slightest interest in working for YOU? His history tells us something entirely different. I think you may be only person in the country believing what you just wrote.
1984 happened, but the media didn't tell us.
...and the Clinton Presidency was soooo bad.....no prosperity....no jobs......sucessfull bad engagement in the Balkans....of which Gen.Clark was a part.
Yeah....terrible times the 90s. ~shudder~Z
And much to the chagrin of the RW, Corp Media and the gullible Dems who listen to them.....Bill Clinton's approval ratings are in the 70s! Yup! After the hash job he endured throughout his 8 year presidency and all the oohing and aahing over the BJ. His approval ratings TODAY are in the 70s!!
So what's to defend pray?
Now.....I can see the BC's presidency being attacked by Republicans. They HATE that Bill was so successful.....but from a supposedly fellow Dem?????
Bad form, I say. Or does he really believe the RW drivel that comes out of his mouth?
Either way....not good
"The Right always knows who its enemy is" Lance Mannion
I'm as sick of the tribulation bullshit as anybody. More even. And that's what you just can't accept, that anyone has more experience than you, that anyone has suffered more than you, that anyone has fought against bigger odds and learned more than you. You have raised your OWN experience so high that you just CANNOT allow it to be touched.
Experience says that Clinton is NOT the democratic choice for the White House and the next Adminstration, but your OWN pride and the pride of the Clintons has blinded you.
It's YOUR dream that if the CLINTON name has enough power than the foe will withdraw. It's a bad move, Maddy. It's fuedal. It's aristocratic. It's mercantilist.
And it's wrong.
No words. You have just been called some nasty things there Maddy. I'd let this one lie, because it's certainly out of bounds.
And DonL, might I add, that this is your perception. You word everything here as empirical 'fact.' Kind of like MSM pundits tend to do when asked their opinion. Which is not helping any one.
...from what I've seen of most O supporters.
We make the mistake of coming armed with facts, figures, links, what have you. They don't want to hear them. They would rather resort to empty platitudes and personal attacks.
Phew....thought I was on Kos there for a moment.
heh
"The Right always knows who its enemy is" Lance Mannion
First of all, Hillary IS the Democratic choice for the WH. SHe has beaten Obama amongst registered Dems in almost every contest. He is winning right now because of Indies and Republicans who voted for him in the primaries and will vote for McCain in the GE.
And........The Clintons have beaten the Republicans every damn time they have run against them
And please WHF is this drivel?
It's fuedal. It's aristocratic. It's mercantilist.
Obama is the DLC candidate. He is the darling of the corporations. He watered down an energy bill to please a nuclear power facility. He watered down an insurance bill when he was in the IL senate to please the Insurance companies.
Bloomberg isn't running because he thinks Obama will be the Dem nominee. Could anything be more clear that he is the choice of the Republicans....after McCain.
You, sir, are misinformed.
"The Right always knows who its enemy is" Lance Mannion
...that railed ENDLESSLY about Republican partisanism, about one party government (General Clark himself, Ma'am), about the need for balance, about diplomacy, about dialog, about sitting down at the table with the opposition.
Then, when someone does it more successfully, it's a bad thing. So you mean to tell me all the dialog, diplomacy and sitting down at the table with the other side and giving all concerned a voice was what? A mistake? No, that's not what you meant? Too much, too soon?
What? Were you just kidding?
He never forgot he was a Democrat. He never pandered to the Republicans. He defended Bill Clinton's legacy at every turn.
He also never forgot who the enemy was...called GWB out by name many times on the trail
Does "Karl Rove, I've got news for you" ring a bell.
How about "I'll kick the shit out of them"
He never ever attacked his opponents from the right using RW talking points......Never! Republicans who said they would vote for him came to him on Wes's terms.
Big difference from what O is doing
"The Right always knows who its enemy is" Lance Mannion
...that you were asking honestly, I'd post more info. But since you have completely ignored the evidence I've already provided, I have to assume you are just taking the mickey.....which is fair enough.
But excuse me if I decline to play along
"The Right always knows who its enemy is" Lance Mannion
"... about the need for balance, about diplomacy, about dialog, about sitting down at the table with the opposition"
Can that pertain to blogging and responding to posts here on CCN and anywhere else?
It’s interesting how there are different ways we can defend or promote the candidates we like and yet diplomacy seem to be the last resort on our own part.
And I don't get the impression diplomacy on your part when responding to some posts here, or am I missing something?
Politics are tough, aren’t they :-(.
in order to win Sen. Clinton the sympathy vote was a bad move.
We don't you just admit that's what you did?
admitting to your sentance, "... about the need for balance, about diplomacy, about dialog, about sitting down at the table with the opposition." , and I didn't even mention Hillary or Obama. And I wasn't even thinking of mangler and degrade (which I don't think they are diplomatic words.)
Also, I was trying to be as objective as possible but at the same time I didn't want mad4clark get the impression I was referring to her ...
If you have a better way of explaining what I was trying to write as to telling the truth and being equitable, I would be very happy and I am looking forward to being humbled... :-)
How is Obama the candidate of the DLC, founded by Bill Clinton supporters including Will Marshall, a long time supporter of the Iraq War?
In May 2003 the DLC included Obama in its yearly list of "100 New Democrats to Watch." As a state senator, he had passed progressive legislation--a record that he vowed to add to when he began his run for the US Senate on a platform of clear opposition to the Patriot Act, the Iraq War and NAFTA, all positions anathema to the DLC.
Obama responded to his inclusion on the list that neither he or his staff had had any direct contact with the DLC since he began campaigning and that he didn't know who nominated him for the DLC list. He added that he certainly did not view such inclusion as an endorsement on his part of the DLC platform.
..whether he's an active member or not. The fact that he has said as such means nothing to me. He makes a habit of saying one thing and doing another.
But whatever the truth, he is certainly the DLC chosen candiate....
There is something both sad and hilarious about Kagro X's outrage that that the DLC and Lieber-types like Dan Gerstein are on the Obama bandwagon:
Please, God, don't let Harold Ford clamber onto the back of this [Obama] bandwagon now. . . . Allowing them suckerfish themselves onto what Obama's managed to build for himself would be an unimaginable tragedy. Allowing them to do it while they're also endorsing Republicans for Congress is a recipe for disaster.UPDATE: Lord help us, it's a trend:
2 . Friday February 15, 2008
. . . Bill Bennett discussed the political landscape with Democratic strategist and Obama supporter Dan Gerstein
. . .
This is sad and hilarious because not for one moment can Kagro imagine WHY the DLC and Dan Gerstein might support Barack Obama. He can not imagine that Obama's Unity Schtick is precisely what the DLC and Joe Lieberman have been preaching for decades and that the progressive blogs were supposed to be fighting AGAINST.
Excuse me, but has anyone in the progressive blogs actually been paying attention to what Obama has been saying? Probably not, too busy slamming Hillary Clinton.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/2/23/12655/5195
Yes, DLCers have chosen to support Obama over Hillary.
My guess is that it's because Hillary has always been more liberal than Bill, and she's certainly running her campaign very much on progressive values....something sure to scare the pants off of DLCers.
"The Right always knows who its enemy is" Lance Mannion
..his say on Obama the DLCer..
Sen. Obama, in his long-standing quest for Republican and Independent votes during the Democratic primary, has been employing right-leaning dog-whistle rhetoric in many situations, education being one of them:
Obama is "Open" to VouchersYesterday, I asked if Democrat Barack Obama would stand up to teachers' unions and embrace policies that they would oppose.
Well, it seems he's doing just that.
In an eyebrow-raising statement to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the Illinois senator said he's a skeptic of vouchers, but that he might be open to them if studies show that's "what's best for kids." (UPDATE: Watch the video here.)
The entire passage is worth repeating, since even an "openness" toward vouchers is a major departure for a Democratic presidential candidate:
Obama said he has been a strong supporter of charter schools "as a way to foster competition in the public school system."He pronounced himself a skeptic of private school vouchers, saying: "My view is you're not going to generate the supply of high-quality schools to meet the demand."
Obama said he was surprised to learn from Gov. Jim Doyle that "there was no assessment process" for the Milwaukee program but indicated he might be open to supporting voucher programs if studies show they work.
"If there was any argument for vouchers, it was 'Let's see if the experiment works,' " Obama said. "And if it does, whatever my preconception, you do what's best for kids."
I'm sure that as you read this, the folks at the pro-voucher Friedman Foundation and the Alliance for School Choice are assembling a binder full of studies to send Obama.
More here:
Obama said he believes the federal government should help support charter schools and look at new ways to improve performance and pay good teachers more money. He said teacher unions "haven't been thrilled" about some of his ideas.
Obama also said that on trade and other economic issues, "What I want to do is try to unify the two wings of the Democratic Party -- what's considered the more progressive wing of the party, what’s considered the more centrist wing of the party. I think that we can craft an approach that is pro-American, pro-worker, pro-business, pro-growth and is not caught up in some of the ideological battles that have consumed us for the last 20 years."
Well, I do congratulate Sen. Obama for unifying the DLC with the self-proclaimed Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party. His supporter (Lieberman shill) Dan Gerstein wrote this recently in the Democrat-hating Wall Street Journal op-ed page:
The Kossacks and their activist allies -- who skew toward the Boomers -- believe that Republicans are venal bordering on evil, and that the way Democrats will win elections and hold power is to one-up Karl Rove's divisive, bare-knuckled tactics. Their opponents within the party -- who skew younger and freer of culture war wounds -- believe that the way to win is offer voters a break from this poisonous tribal warfare and a compelling, inclusive vision for where we want to take the country.The country got an initial taste of this tactical tussle in 2006 when the Lieberman-Lamont Senate campaign in Connecticut went national -- and an initial test of the relative merits in the general-election portion of that race (in which I was Joe Lieberman's communications director).
With a discredited Republican candidate in the race, the choice came down to two Democrats who actually agreed on most issues outside of Iraq, but differed on the kind of change we need in Washington. Mr. Lieberman called for a new politics of unity and purpose; Mr. Lamont mostly called for Messrs. Bush's and Lieberman's heads.
The hope candidate soundly beat the Kos candidate -- Kos actually taped a commercial for Lamont -- by 10 points. More importantly, Mr. Lieberman won independents (the biggest voting bloc in the state) by 19 points, which is all the more remarkable because they opposed the war by a margin of 65%-29%.
[....]
In this, you might say that Mr. Obama did not kill Kos-ism so much as co-opt it -- by harnessing its most powerful forces and channeling it in a more constructive, convincing direction for a new political moment. He recognized early on that the primary electorate was changing in the wake of Mr. Bush's departure, and that it was hungry (post-Boomer voters in particular) for something bigger and better than the same polarization wrapped in a blue ribbon.
The signs of change are unmistakable. Over the last year, the Kossacks themselves seemed to be waning -- the number of monthly page views on the site is down dramatically.
Moreover, in the last few weeks they and their avatars have been flocking to the great reconciler. First Ned Lamont endorsed Mr. Obama, a mentee of Mr. Lieberman in the Senate. Then on Wednesday, in the first Daily Kos straw poll after Mr. Edwards left the race, Mr. Obama beat Mrs. Clinton by 76%-11% (a result inflated by the Netroots' unbreakable contempt for Hillary). Just yesterday, MoveOn.org gave its formal blessing to the "post-partisan" candidate.
The best evidence that Kos-ism is about kaput, though, comes from Kos's mouth himself. Yes, the most delicious irony of this campaign is that the supposed hatemonger is supporting the hopemonger.
Gerstein also said this:
(Not surprisingly, throughout 2007, Mr. Edwards was the runaway favorite in the regular Kos reader straw poll -- besting Mr. Obama by 21 points as late as Jan. 2, 2008.)Now that Mr. Edwards has formally dropped out of the race, we can say it's official -- hope and unity crushed resentment and division.
As I said in my previous post, that's just code for something else that's been pretty obvious in parts of the blogosphere these past few months - the "Clinton Double Standard".
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/012025.php
Obama hasn't hidden any of this. He has been very open about his views on the "excesses of the 60s", and how the the Republicans had all the good ideas the past 10 - 15 years.....which by the way has nothing to do with Reagan as that time frame includes the 2 Bushes and BC.
I don't know if it's a problem with supporters...especially on the net.....listening to more of how rather than what he says, or it's just that they are so blinded by their crazed hatred of all things Clinton, they don't want to hear what O is actually saying.
Meanwhile they play a lot of W.O.R.M.
Either way, there is going to be a rude awakening for some of them if O is the nominee.
"The Right always knows who its enemy is" Lance Mannion
"puppy-love" for O. In fact, that may be even a bigger factor.
I know that phrase will sound like some sort of generational put-down to many O supporters, but I don't mean it that way at all. It's simply my short-hand for three things I see in many Obama supporters, whether young or old.
Number one is that they've fallen in love with him. I think I can even understand why many of them have, and I address that in "Children of the Flower-Children. The "make love, not war" candidacy."
Number two is that this love affair seems to be the hottest amongst O supporters who say they've "never felt this way about a candidate before". Oh sure, there are some older supporters who say they felt similarly towards RFK (for example), but for the most part, O's most passionate supporters have never been passionate about any other candidate and they say they are sick and tired of having only Bushes and Clintons in the White House. In other words, O is their first political love. Their "puppy" love.
Number three is that so many of his ardent supporters don't seem to care about the details, they just know that they like what they see and hear on the surface. Sort of like I was the first time I fell in love with a little puppy many years ago. I didn't care how big he might get, or how good or bad he might be at protecting me.... The details didn't matter. I was in love with a puppy, and I just had to have him as mine, no matter what anyone else might say to me. Well, luckily, my puppy love was rewarded because Rusty turned out to be a great dog. And isn't that usually the case with puppies? Don't most of our puppies turn out to be great dogs?
But puppies are one thing. Human first loves and Presidential candidates are another. The latter don't always turn out the way their supporters hoped they would. That's why it's very dangerous to fall into "puppy love" with an untested candidate like O. But just try telling that to someone who has.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark still could be the national security candidate.
Seems like a little reverse psychology would work in that situation. Go over the top with Obama adoration. I mean really over the top. Let your imagination run wild. Before you know it that Obama puppy lover might just say, "Well, he's not really all that..."
It might work with some of them.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark still could be the national security candidate.
Going Nowhere:
In May 2003 the centrist Democratic Leadership Council published its yearly list of "100 New Democrats to Watch." The DLC frequently puts out these lists as a way to publicly solidify its identification with the New Democratic movement within the Democratic Party. The 2003 list, however, contained a number of questionable additions, including then-Illinois State Senator Barack Obama. As a state senator, Obama had continually passed progressive legislation--a record that he vowed to add to when he began his run for the US Senate on a platform of clear opposition to the Patriot Act, the Iraq War and NAFTA, all positions anathema to the DLC. The puzzling addition caused The Black Commentator magazine to wonder, a month after the DLC list came out, whether Obama had been "corrupted" by the centrist group. Obama's reply to the Commentator was indicative of how the DLC plays the "New Democrat" card.
"Neither my staff nor I have had any direct contact with anybody at the DLC since I began this campaign a year ago," Obama wrote. "I don't know who nominated me for the DLC list of 100 rising stars, nor did I expend any effort to be included on the list.... I certainly did not view such inclusion as an endorsement on my part of the DLC platform." After realizing that his name appeared in the DLC's database, Obama asked to have it removed. The message was clear: The DLC needed Obama a lot more than Obama needed the DLC.
Today, the same is true for many politicians. After dominating the party in the 1990s, the DLC is struggling to maintain its identity and influence in a party beset by losses and determined to oppose George W. Bush. Prominent New Democrats no longer refer to themselves as such. The New Democratic movement of pro-free market moderates, which helped catapult Bill Clinton into the White House in 1992, has splintered, transformed by a reinvigoration of grassroots energy....[...]
MORE:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050321/berman
(talk about old news)
Hi Fred!
"The citizen who sees his society's democratic clothes being worn out and does not cry out is not a patriot but a traitor." -- Mark Twain
Oh, my God. Not mercantilist! Please, that cuts to the quick! Stop the torture! End the suffering!
By the way, you seem to know an awful lot about Maddy's psyche. Just where did you get that knowledge?
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
Sorry, but you have imagined why we support Hillary; and you are also entirely wrong about how she is spending her time.
Finally, there is no proof whatsoever that we can count on O. None. When were you ever in a foxhole with him to develop such complete trust? When was anyone?
Get real, and maybe we'll talk.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark still could be the national security candidate.
I'd like for you to take out your identification, if you see my name on that identification card, I'll gladly vote for whomever you ask.
and posting something that starts with "this is the basic problem with Senator Obama". Just thinking about it, but somehow my upbringing and many other things I have learned indicate that it would not be very proper or very productive.
I guess some people just don't get that we're perfectly happy supporting the SAME candidate that General Clark endorsed.....and rather early in the game, I might add.
Why others just can't seem accept that is beyond me. I think they keep coming back here because they aren't TRULY SOLD on their candidate. Apparently they dislike Hillary (and Bill?) more than they like Barack Obama.
Not my problem.....
If you go in to Huffingtonpost now, it will show a big picture of Hillary at a campaign rally calling out my junior Senator from Illinois about the negative mailers he'd sent out to potential voters. Not only has he proven to be no different than any other politician by speaking out of both sides of his mouth by saying he's the candidate that will 'change the negative tone in Washington' by being a uniter, not a divider (we've heard that one before), but then turns around and sends out the dirty mailers distorting what Hillary stands for, and why not to vote for her. He once said of her that she'd do or say anything to get elected. Apparantely, he is no better. Too bad the media is too afraid to put him under the microscope a little more, for if they did a little more research, they'd find out that he's left behind a lot of dissappointed constituents here, mostly for kicking us to the curb when he hit the national political stage, and for not delivering on the promises he made to get elected to his Senate seat. Shame on him, all right.
You're right, and you're also far from being the first to talk about the media not doing their jobs to inform us by doing due dilligence when it comes to Obama.
So - those of you in Illinois especially - maybe it's time we start bombarding the talking heads and studios to start putting Obama under the microscope to the same degree they have for Hillary.
When people complained about Chris Mathews comments about her, the studio responded and made him apologize...twice. So - with enough pressure they do respond. And even Mathews is starting to come out of the ether a little, at long last.
OK - maybe we have to their leg work for them. Fine. Lets do it and mail it in. Be absolutely factual, though. Facts will carry more weight and be a lot tougher to ignore than our gut feelings about Obama - even if we are sure we're right.
I don't mean a few letters here or there. I mean hundreds, or thousands...and phone calls...and emails...and letters to the editors of every major and minor newspaper and weekly you can find, especially those in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont, and Pennsylvania, etc.
If you have friends who are reporters, including free-lance, get their help.
I can't hurt, and it just might help. A lot.
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers
I'd be interested to know what people from IL think of Obama. It sounds like he promised a lot and delivered on little, but he does have a long list of legislation he has been involved with in the senate. Also he won IL in the primary.
In my mind, the folks from IL should be a credible source for assessing the job he has done and may do.
I know Dorma and Nelsons have posted about his tenure on several occassions, and frequently it wasn't positive.
I put great stock in their opinions anyway, but even more so in their opinions of their Senator. They are in a far better position to know, as you've said.
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers
before his senate run in 04. And then - he seemed to come out of nowhere.
I've been through his district many times. The U of C area, known as Hyde Park, is full of stately homes and university housing, and the attendant businesses that thrive on college students and a thriving university. Go a few blocks out, and it's not so welcoming, nor pretty. There's been a huge amount of development on the loops south side, but Mayor Daley and the City Council have taken the credit for that. And seeing as it's development of property, and it's common knowledge that the Alderman hold their seats at the behest of the developers for the most part, that's to be expected.
I honestly don't know a single person who has been impacted by anything Obama has accomplished in the state senate. And no one, not even the most fervent supporters I come across (daily) can tell me what he's done that has impacted their life as a citizen of Illinois.
I suppose my best bet would be to peruse the state house records from his tenure, and see what I can find. My neighborhood is largely Latino, and at my local grocery store, many of the customers are part of the Illinois Link program. It's lower middle class, with a large influx of immigrants.
I'm not saying anything here to outright slam Obama. This is simply the truth from where I'm standing. I can't tell you what hasn't been visible. All I know is, if it wasn't for a speech at the 2004 convention, he'd not be where he is today. And I still don't get it. More to the point, I do get a segment of it, and that segment disturbs me.
Here's what a dear friend (and Obama supporter) said to me over the weekend. We were discussing my thoughts on Clinton being ready to hit the ground running; she knows what's going on in DC, she knows the players and the motivations. My feelings are that shes in a much better place because of this awareness to start moving policy forward.
My dear friend said, "So, you don't think he knows. That's fine. But what about in March 2009, and he comes on television and says, "I haven't been in DC long, but since I've been here, this is what I've seen..." and then he calls out all the names and tells what's going on?"
I said, "Wow, that would be amazing." And in deference to our friendship, I didn't say "and highly improbable." Because if he'd wanted to stand that ground, and make that noise, and use it to unite the Senate, he could have been doing that since January of 2005. In fact, it's the main reason I was so excited about this unknown guys campaign. He made us believe that that was precisely what he had in mind, and was going to work to accomplish.
And then he didn't. I don't know if he just figured it was impossible, or decided that being POTUS was a better platform. Perhaps the latter, with the full enablement of Emmanuel and Durbin. I just don't know.
But he hasn't done a single thing, and no one, not even the wonky I hang with, can tell me anything other than, "great campaign!" and the usual suspects, H, I and C.
So. That's from this Illinoisian. Perhaps there's others round here who are more aware of his state record, and his actual avtivism. The most I knew about him was that he lectured on Constitutional Law at U of C for a time. Really - he was that unknown to many of us. I don't know what we were thinking...
Also NAFTA....
For those who may have missed it, loads of people have called BO out on stopping short of truly universal health care here here, here, and here. Ok back to the Washington Post article…)
The second mailing, on the North American Free Trade Agreement, quotes a 2006 Newsday article suggesting Clinton believed the agreement had been a “boon” to the economy. NAFTA and other trade agreements are extremely unpopular in Ohio, which has suffered an exodus of blue-collar jobs to other countries in part due to such agreements.“I am fighting to change NAFTA,” she insisted. “Neither of us were in the Senate when NAFTA passed. Neither voted one way or the other.”
Clinton said Newsday had corrected the record about her views on the agreement. Indeed, the paper published a blog item earlier this month saying Obama’s use of the word “boon” was unfair.
“Obama’s use of the citation in this way does strike us as misleading,” the paper said. “The quote marks make it look as if Hillary said “boon,” not us. It’s an example of the kind of slim reeds campaigns use to try to win an office.”
From ABC’s Jake Tapper…
In the fierce fight for votes here in Ohio, where NAFTA is not popular among many blue collar Democrats, Obama has repeatedly attacked Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., for the trade deal pushed by President Bill Clinton and passed in Congress in November 1993.“Yesterday [Saturday], [Clinton] said NAFTA was ‘negotiated’ by the first President Bush, not by her husband,” Obama said today. “But let’s be clear: It was her husband who got NAFTA passed. In her own book, Sen. Clinton called NAFTA one of Bill’s successes.”
Obama also relayed to the small crowd at the National Gypsum plant a number of quotes from Clinton he said indicated she had praised the trade agreement — including one from 2004, when she allegedly said, “I think, on balance, NAFTA has been good for New York and America.”
Said Obama, “One million jobs have been lost because of NAFTA, including nearly 50,000 jobs here in Ohio. And yet, 10 years after NAFTA passed, Sen. Clinton said it was good for America. Well, I don’t think NAFTA has been good for America — and I never have.”
Hillary’s team hit back with the following in an effort to set the record straight. Take a look…
Obama Continues To Mislead on Hillary and NAFTA2/24/2008 1:54:42 PM
“Senator Obama’s insistence on repeating attacks that have been demonstrated to be false by independent entities proves once and for all that his speeches about the new politics are just words. That’s not change you can believe in.”
—Clinton spokesman Phil Singer
Today, Sen. Obama said the following:
And yesterday, Senator Clinton also said I’m wrong to point out that she once supported NAFTA. But the fact is, she was saying great things about NAFTA until she started running for President.
This is false. Hillary criticized Sen. Obama for sending out a mailer that claimed she said NAFTA was a “boon to the economy” when she never did. Today, the University of Pennsylvania’s FactCheck.org concluded “We do judge that the Obama campaign is wrong to quote Clinton as using words she never uttered, and it has produced little evidence that she ever had strong praise of any sort for NAFTA’s economic benefits.”
Also, Hillary has been critical of NAFTA long before she started running for President. For example, here’s Hillary in March 2000:
What happened to NAFTA I think was we inherited an agreement that we didn’t get everything we should have got out of it in my opinion. I think the NAFTA agreement was flawed. The problem is we have to go back and figure out how we are going to fix that. [Working Families Party, 3/26/00]Sen. Obama touts his consistent opposition to NAFTA. But speaking in Illinois in 2004 Obama said the United States “benefited enormously” from exports under NAFTA and talked about the need to continue to pursue trade agreement like NAFTA that support “a system of free trade in this nation that allows us to move our products overseas.”
Alegre at No Quarter has done the research on both issues
So.....Obama is not only using RW rhetoric, he seems perfectly comfortable copying their tactics too.
Whilst spouting the words of MLK to adoring audiences, he must have missed the part about the "content of their character"
He likes to sell himself as some kind of Messiah.
The truth is ....he is an ordinary, dirty tricks type, Chicago pol.
I wonder what will happen to the faithful when the evidence becomes too much for even them to ignore. Will they continue to twist themselves into pretzels trying to justify him or will their hearts be broken?
I guess only time will tell.
"The Right always knows who its enemy is" Lance Mannion
Thanks, Maddie. O's glossy lies concerning Hillary's position on NAFTA are another terrific example of just how devious and unprincipled his campaign really is.
I'll update my diary and point to your comment re: his NAFTA lies.
I love that John Glenn is on our side. Ohioans hold him in high respect. And I happen to be an Ohio Buckeye by birth. Lived there until I was 21. Ohioans are very much like the country at large. You can never "fool all of them all of the time", and I have a suspicion that a majority of those who vote in the Dem primary will not be fooled by O's slick lies.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark still could be the national security candidate.
...the upcoming debate is on the Clinton Derangement Syndrome Network, otherwise known as MSNBC.
A Rake’s Progress....
Facts about Hillary’s health care plan that Obama doesn’t want voters to have.
And you are right about Obama being the divider. He is not only trying to destroy the Clinton legacy but the whole Democrat Brand.
As Anglachel says....