Down pillow soft.
Baby's bottom soft.
So no one should be surprised that Obama had a nightmare night. He finally got real questions for which he should have had ready answers. Over the last year Barack Obama has gotten a complete pass on his record, his life and everything associated to his political rise. In fact, if Senator Obama had been subjected to the scrutiny that Hillary Clinton has been subjected to he would have turned to ash by now.
So forgive me if all the blogospheric bellyaching permeating Democratic circles is not impressing me much. In fact, it's a laugh out loud moment.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm more than willing to blame the traditional media for piling on a Democrat, which they do often. But do these progressives now crying fowl really believe they could protect Mr. Obama, as his Democratic challengers did all last year, throughout the rest of this campaign? Asking a question about Rev. Wright? A question about William Ayers? The horror! Seriously, is Senator Obama so frail that he shouldn't be subjected to questioning that should have come a long time ago and will inevitably come in the general election? If nothing else and at the very least, everyone in the Democratic party should want to know how he's going to handle this stuff if he's our nominee. Because there can be no doubt that the wingnuts will lock and load Barack's greatest hits, then share them with the electorate in a cascade of negative gifts.
Mind you, this is questioning I've been doing for a year and getting excoriated for it. So I feel Charlie and George's pain. Going for substance isn't easy amidst the Political Idol crowd.
The facts are that the progressive community and Obama supporters have done their candidate no favors by the kid glove treatment they've applied to all things having to do with him and his record, including his associations. What happened last night is a result of one year of people ignoring reality. That's right, reality. Because the closer Obama got to the nomination and the general election, the curtain would eventually be pulled back on every event in his life, good, bad and horror show, which includes Rev. Wright.
This is the reason we lose elections.
What, did Obama's adoring fans think they could hermetically seal him and protect him from the meanies out there, then simply deliver him to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue because "he's the one?" Good grief.
If Obama would have been put through his paces last fall, he might have been past this by now. If his own campaign had faced up to his associations long ago, head on, he wouldn't be dealing with this now.
Again, I'd blame Gibson and Stephanopoulos, but it's not their fault that someone, anyone finally asked questions that have been out there for months and months. It's not tabloid to ask about Ayers any more than it was tabloid to question Bill Clinton about his past. Hillary's been asked about everything more than once, as they reload to ask it all over again.
Oh, and as for Keith He's No Edward R. Murrow Olbermann, don't send a sportscaster to do a political analyst's job. Talking to Howard Wolfson, with Olbermann whining about the questions about Ayers, isn't doing us any favors either. He's just giving Obama fans a false sense of security. It's as if the only people dealing with reality and preparing for the Republican attack machine is the Clinton campaign. Olbermann is on planet Zen if he thinks that Ayers won't be part of the dialogue come September. (You know, because you never roll out a new campaign in August.)
We need a nominee that can walk through fire. Whoever we offer up should be able to withstand anything, and I do mean anything. Because that's what always comes at Democrats, with the traditional press inevitably having a thing for the guy on the other side. Considering that guy will be John McCain, the hero worship will be out in force.
No Democratic politician in the last 20 years has gotten a softer introduction onto the national stage than Barack Obama. Nobody has gotten an easier ride to the top step of presidential politics either. He paid for it last night.
10 comments :
Wow, at last the public finally got a look at the real problem of the news media coverage of Obama with kid gloves. Obama may not be in the position he is in now if the news media did their job in a truthful way concerning these issues. They just promoted Obama every night like they did Iraq having WMD with out any proof and they were never curious. Great Blog.
Asking a question about Rev. Wright? A question about William Ayers?
^ Gimme a freakin' break!! A question about? The entire debate was dedidcated to the character attacks and lies by the two Democratic candidates. The Republican party had to be clearly giddy over ABC's decision to do their best FAUX News impersonation. BTW, I am glad to see that Hillary finally acknowledged that her Bosnia tales were calculated lies. While the media and Senator Clinton was focused on the "bitter" remarks all of the past week, nary a mention was given in the news to the facts that the White House has ackonowleged sanctioning of torture. Our current leaders admitted international war crimes and we're hung up on bitter?
NOW THIS:
Who Is This New Guy They're Using To Smear Barack Obama?
Be-Elected BE ELECTED
by Christine Bowman
Last night George Stephanopoulos asked Barack Obama about "the general theme of patriotism in your relationships ..." He said:
A gentleman named William Ayers, he was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol and other buildings. He's never apologized for that. And in fact, on 9/11 he was quoted in The New York Times saying, "I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough."
Who is that? He's William C. Ayers, Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He serves on the board of the respected Woods Fund of Chicago, as did Obama from 1999-2002.
The Woods Fund "supports nonprofits in their important roles of engaging people in civic life, addressing the causes of poverty and other challenges facing the region, promoting more effective public policies, reducing racism and other barriers to equal opportunity, and building a sense of community and common ground."
The Woods Fund is a highly respected member of the traditional Chicago foundation community and they chose Ayers for his expertise in education to join their board. The Clinton Camp, ABC News, and the McCain camp might as well accuse a major Chicago philanthropic organization of being in bed with the Commies, as imply something is horribly amiss by implying guilt by association in Obama's case.
Obama responded to Stephanopoulos as follows:
SEN. OBAMA: ... This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.
And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense, George.
Hillary Clinton couldn't leave it there, though. This smear is one she embraces:
SEN. CLINTON: Well, I think that is a fair general statement, but I also believe that Senator Obama served on a board with Mr. Ayers for a period of time, the Woods Foundation, which was a paid directorship position.
And if I'm not mistaken, that relationship with Mr. Ayers on this board continued after 9/11 and after his reported comments, which were deeply hurtful to people in New York, and I would hope to every American, because they were published* on 9/11 and he said that he was just sorry they hadn't done more. And what they did was set bombs and in some instances people died.** So it is -- you know, I think it is, again, an issue that people will be asking about. And I have no doubt -- I know Senator Obama's a good man and I respect him greatly but I think that this is an issue that certainly the Republicans will be raising.
And it goes to this larger set of concerns about, you know, how we are going to run against John McCain. You know, I wish the Republicans would apologize for the disaster of the Bush-Cheney years and not run anybody, just say that it's time for the Democrats to go back into the White House. (Laughter, applause.)
There's a lot of fact checking needed here, and we can only begin to skim the surface. Stephanopoulos, Obama, and Clinton all selectively recall or misstate facts. The AP has posted a brief "fact check," and The Huffington Post provides some links that look at political commentators' views of Ayers.
But are we at BuzzFlash the only ones who noticed that Barack Obama didn't even know what department Bill Ayers teaches in? (It's not English, Barack; he's in Education.)
As reported by ABC News February 22, 2008, this smear's had ample help from camp Clinton. Clinton spokesman Phil Singer was pushing the Ayers story with emails to reporters two months ago.
"Wonder what the Republicans will do with this issue," mused Clinton spokesman Phil Singer in one e-mail to the media, containing a New York Sun article reporting a $200 contribution from William Ayers, a founding member of the Weather Underground, to Obama in 2001. ...
In a separate e-mail, Singer forwarded an article from Politico.com reporting on a 1995 event at a private home that brought Obama together with Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, another former member of the radical group.
Clinton Camp Pushes O-Bomber Links: Ignores Her Own Radical Ties (abcnews)
BuzzFlash Editor Mark Karlin provided analysis of those smear tactics on February 24:
It is another sleazy attack that Senator Clinton supporters will have to compromise their souls to support.
Why? Because William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn in their adult lives have devoted themselves to improving the lives and prospects for children. Ayers is a professor of education at the University of Illinois in Chicago, and Dohrn – who became a lawyer – heads a highly regarded program at Northwestern University that is dedicated to the rights and welfare of children. Obama served on the Board of Directors of a prestigious foundation in Chicago with Ayers -- and they all live in the Hyde Park (University of Chicago) neighborhood. So, here are two people, now virtually senior citizens, who have devoted their adult lives to children (they have two of their own and raised another), and the Clinton campaign, which claims that their candidate is a champion of youth, trashes both Ayers/Dohrn and Obama by bringing up a radical movement from the ‘60s.
Who would be against that? Sixties radicals like Ayers (and Tom Hayden, for another) can find redemption. Bill Clinton himself recognized that fact, after all:
In his final day in office, President Clinton pardoned another one-time member of the Weather Underground, Susan L. Rosenberg, after she had served 16 years in prison on federal charges.
Rosenberg had been arrested in 1984 while unloading 740 pounds of dynamite, a submachine gun and other weapons from the back of a car.
Rosenberg admitted the materials were to supply others for politically-motivated attacks. Authorities had been searching for Rosenberg since 1981, for what they believed was her role in the robbery of a Brinks truck in Rockland County, N.Y. The attack, for which Rosenberg was thought to have aided with surveillance and getaway driving, left two police officers and a guard dead.
Letter to Hillary: Remember When John McCain Slimed Your Daughter?
Dear Hillary,
Reasons abound why you should do all you can to defeat John McCain--but for you, it should be personal. Maybe you've forgotten in the heat of the Democratic contest. But remember McCain's cruel joke about your daughter, when Chelsea was 18 and vulnerable. This alone should give you every reason to stand against McCain--and nothing to boost his chances.
McCain made the joke at a 1998 Republican Senate fundraiser. "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?" he asked. "Because her father is Janet Reno." Chelsea was a lovely young woman then, and is even lovelier now. But when you're 18, an attack like that can be deeply wounding. It's outrageous for McCain to slime an innocent young woman who'd done nothing to offend him--just to throw red meat to a Republican crowd.
It would be bad enough had McCain's joke targeted only Janet Reno and you, feeding the misogynist myth that any assertive woman must be gay. But as adults, both you and Reno could recognize the nasty joke as reflecting solely on the man who made it. Sliming teenage Chelsea like that, however, crossed a fundamental line--a line that I'm sure matters for you and Bill as parents.
Sure, McCain apologized after a flurry of media coverage, but talk of that sort is cheap. It's like his using the excuse that he'd had a long day, after telling his own wife at a 1992 campaign event: "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c*nt." That was his public response to her teasing him about his thinning hair. But the Chelsea "joke" was from a prepared text, not accidental. It's a window into McCain's cruel side. Your lovely daughter was the target of his abuse.
You should want to defeat McCain for other reasons too. He pushed strongly for the 1998 bill supporting Iraqi "regime change," said the country's people would greet us as liberators and has no problem with our staying as occupiers for a hundred years. He thinks it's fine to do little or nothing about people whose homes are being foreclosed on, fine for Bush to have vetoed a bill banning waterboarding, and fine to joke about bombing Iran. The Children's Defense Fund rated him the worst senator in Congress for children last year, and he got a zero rating from the League of Conservation Voters. He voted against a Martin Luther King holiday and gave the commencement address at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University after Falwell claimed the 9/11 attacks happened because God was angered by the gays, lesbians, feminists, abortionists, the ACLU, and People for the American Way. Any of these should be reasons enough for voters to reject him. But you should also have an intensely personal reason: McCain can be decent and charming, but he also has a mean streak--one he exercised at the expense of your beloved only child.
Please remember McCain's ugly actions and words between now and November. Don't let their import dissipate in the passion of the Democratic contest. It must be difficult to have envisioned your making history as America's first women president, with the chance to lead the country toward your most passionate heart-felt goals--and then to see the nomination steadily slip away. I'm sure you're frustrated and angry that after withstanding all the right-wing assaults, you may miss the electoral prize. But think of your daughter and dedicate yourself from this point forward to defeating McCain. It's your right to keep running; but stop attacking Obama in your speeches, your ads, and your surrogates' statements (including those of Bill). A few weeks ago, you whipped up a crowd to boo Obama in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. You stood by and said nothing while Machinist Union head Tom Buffenbarger used recycled lies to dismiss his supporters as "latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies." You said you and McCain had enough experience, while Obama had nothing but "a speech he made in 2002." You and your surrogates are taking an accurate point Obama raised about anger in economically devastated communities, caricaturing it with classic Republican talking points tarring him as an out-of-touch "elitist," and running an overwhelmingly negative slate of Pennsylvania ads are, as opposed to focusing on your strengths.
You may feel these attacks are just politics ("the fun part," in your words), and that Obama's gone after you just as harshly. But remember, your words have an impact. At my Washington State caucus, Obama supporters listened respectfully while your spokesperson made her pitch. Then your supporters heckled and booed the Obama person, and several even turned their backs. You've seen the recent Gallup poll, taken mostly before Obama's Philadelphia race speech, where 28% of your supporters say they'd vote for McCain in November if Obama is the nominee (as would 19% of Obama's, were the situation reversed). As the pollsters pointed out, people often give similar responses during intensely fought primaries, and then shift back in November. But I've gotten far too many emails from your supporters that dismiss Obama's strengths using the very words and themes your campaign has stressed, like saying they mistrust a candidate "who's done nothing in his life." These responses may be just a way to vent for those who see their own dreams of America's first female president at least temporarily snatched away. I trust most will come around by November, whoever is the Democratic nominee. But not all will. And the more you conduct a scorched-earth campaign, the more the likely defections. If past campaigns are any guide, you won't be able to turn on a dime and erase the rancor at the last minute.
So keep on through the final primary if you think it makes sense. But remember what John McCain did to your daughter. And make clear in every public statement that you'd give Obama your full and enthusiastic support if he ends up the nominee. I was delighted when you started the Pennsylvania debate by doing this--then dismayed when you spent much of the next 80 minutes repeating Republican attack points. So keep your message ads focused on your own experience and ideas, including in your ads, and tell your surrogates to do the same. You can certainly ask this as well of Obama, who's stated repeatedly and unequivocally that he'd back you energetically if he lost. Then let the delegates make their choice. If you aren't the winner, take a well-deserved vacation, then come back and campaign as hard (well nearly as hard) for an overall Democratic victory as you did for the presidential nomination. After all, the broader the Democratic victory, the more you can accomplish in the Senate.
That would be the best response to McCain's cruel and capricious assault on Chelsea. It would also be the best possible way to move toward a future you'd be proud to have your daughter inherit.
BTW JOHN,
How do you suggest it's a "free pass" when Barack Obama's patriotism is attacked by every news organization because he doesn't wear a lapel flag pin? They asked him about his patriotism during the FAUX/ABC debate. Meanwhile, Hillary herself didn't have on a flag pin. Why has HER patriotism not been questioned? The MSM has spent the better part of a month on Reverend Wright's comments but where is the same coverage of John McCain speaking at Liberty University after Pat Robertson stated that the attacks on 9/11 was God's punishment for us being a hedonistic nation? Nary a peep. So don't think poor, poor perpetual victim Hillary Clinton is the only one who's been raked over the coals. John McCain, The MSM described "war hero", is the only one getting a free ride from the MSM!!
The Weather Underground 'Theme'
By Robert Parry
April 17, 2008
While nearly all politicians shade the truth now and then, some utterly disdain the truth, a category that includes George W. Bush and increasingly Hillary Clinton, as she made clear again in Wednesday night’s debate on the strange topic of Vietnam-era Weather Underground leader William Ayers.
Since last year, the Clinton campaign has been pushing the supposed Ayers connection to Barack Obama as an attack "theme" to take down his candidacy. But Clinton went even further in the debate suggesting that Ayers had reveled in the 9/11 attacks – a false claim clearly meant to inflame Americans against Obama.
Ayers, now a graying college English professor living in Chicago, did support Obama’s state senate campaign and served with Obama on a board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a philanthropy that gives out grants aimed at alleviating poverty.
I first heard this Ayers connection from a Clinton operative in December when it already was circulating in media circles. However, mainstream journalists generally dismissed it as a cheap-shot case of guilt by a tenuous association. It got little traction.
But Clinton surrogates didn’t give up, taking the Ayers attack line to right-wing talk radio and the Internet where it was kept alive. The Clinton campaign’s doggedness was rewarded as the issue surfaced prominently in Wednesday night ’s debate in Philadelphia.
ABC News moderator George Stephanopoulos, whose national career was launched when he served as a top spokesman for President Bill Clinton, framed the Ayers question much as the Clinton campaign and the right-wing media have, suggesting some dangerous association between Obama and a mad bomber.
Stephanopoulos even suggested that Ayers had taken pleasure in the 9/11 attacks, saying: “In fact, on 9/11 he was quoted in the New York Times saying, ‘I don’t regret setting bombs; I feel we didn’t do enough.’”
Obama was left protesting how the ABC moderators were conducting a debate largely devoid of policy substance and focused on silly distractions.
“The notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn’t make much sense, George,” Obama responded.
“So this kind of game, in which anybody who I know, regardless of how flimsy the relationship is, is somehow – somehow their ideas could be attributed to me – I think the American people are smarter than that. They’re not going to suggest somehow that that is reflective of my views, because it obviously isn’t.”
Piling On
At this point, Sen. Clinton could have demurred, but instead chose to pile on. (After all, her campaign has been flogging this theme for months behind the scenes.) She also couldn’t resist pushing the 9/11 hot button.
“If I’m not mistaken, that relationship with Mr. Ayers on this [Woods Fund of Chicago] board continued after 9/11 and after his reported comments, which were deeply hurtful to people in New York, and I would hope to every American, because they were published on 9/11 and he said he was just sorry they hadn’t done more. And what they did was set bombs and in some instances people died,” Clinton said.
In her comments, Clinton created the clear impression that Ayers had either hailed the 9/11 attacks or used the 9/11 tragedy as a ghoulish opportunity to suggest that more bombings were desirable.
But none of that is true. The offensive comment that Clinton and Stephanopoulos referred to was from an interview about a memoir that Ayers published earlier in 2001. The comment was included in a New York Times article that appeared in the newspaper’s Sept. 11, 2001, edition.
As Sen. Clinton and Stephanopoulos surely know, that edition went to press on Sept. 10, hours before the 9/11 attacks. In other words, the Ayers comment had no relationship to the 9/11 attacks.
What Clinton and Stephanopoulos did was what lawyers refer to as “prejudicial” – they introduced an emotional component, 9/11, in a deceptive way to elicit a visceral reaction from those listening.
“I’m going to have to respond to this just really quickly,” Obama said after Clinton finished. “By Sen. Clinton’s own vetting standards, I don’t think she would make it, since President Clinton pardoned or commuted the sentences of two members of the Weather Underground, which I think is a slightly more significant act.”
After the debate, the New York Times published a fact-checking article that noted the time discrepancies between Ayers’s comment and 9/11:
“Mr. Ayers did not make the remarks after the attacks on the World Trade Center that day. The interview had been conducted earlier, in connection with a memoir that he had published, Fugitive Days, and he was referring to his experience in the Weather Underground.” [New York Times, April 17, 2008]
The subject of ones patriotism should not be questioned. I made that clear in comments long time ago, especially not by journalists and other elected officials. Take it out on George who asked the question. No one has been asked more unrelated questions to the issues than Senator Clinton. Evidently some think it is ok for moderators to go on the attack against Clinton but want Obama to be immune from such attacks. Any way take it out on the moderators.
The subject of ones patriotism should not be questioned. I made that clear in comments long time ago, especially not by journalists and other elected officials. Take it out on George who asked the question. No one has been asked more unrelated questions to the issues than Senator Clinton. Evidently some think it is ok for moderators to go on the attack against Clinton but want Obama to be immune from such attacks. Any way take it out on the moderators.
John said...
The subject of ones patriotism should not be questioned. I made that clear in comments long time ago, especially not by journalists and other elected officials. Take it out on George who asked the question. No one has been asked more unrelated questions to the issues than Senator Clinton. Evidently some think it is ok for moderators to go on the attack against Clinton but want Obama to be immune from such attacks. Any way take it out on the moderators.
^ Before you suggest that one candidate is getting a free pass while another is handled with kid gloves, maybe you need to go back and objectively look at the news coverage and pay closer attention. Is consistently calling Obama, B. Hussein Obama REALLY impartial coverage. It's been a staple on FAUX NEWS, the network that the Clinton campaign called the "fairest" of the news networks. Is Reverend Wright really that big of a campaign issue that the networks spend more than a month on it? The same can be said of the "bitter" comments. While we allow the MSM to get away with character attacks, the Bush administration and the McCain camp have the REAL issues largely ignored.
The Republicans can't win on issues, only on character assassination. Unfortunately, the Clinton campaign is all warm and cozy sleeping with the enemy, from cozying up to Richard Mellon Scaife, who pushed for the Clinton impeachment, and disparaging the group that was initially formed to help them in their impeachment battle, moveon.org; From having fundraisers sponsored by Rupert Murdoch to not only legitimizing FAUX NEWS but calling it the "fairest" of the MSM.
NOW, they're trashing the party's progressives, suggesting that the young, energetic activists, the future of the party, is the reason they have lost the caucuses; that somehow their rambunctiousness has dissuaded and prevented their supporters from participating. Let me allow you this. If by some miracle HRC does win the Democratic nomination, she will regret a lot of the things she's said in the past couple of months and some of the people that she has disparaged unfairly!! The start of the fall of the Republican party was when they turned on some of their own, the moderates in the party.
I don't know what news anonymous is talking about but I never heard Clinton call Obama, Hussein. Take it out on the media or the person who said that not Clinton. I have been reading this blog for a long time and politidose has run many stories concerning the incompetence of Bush and McCain. Take that out on the media in general also. Politidose has also run stories concerning Republicans trying to divide the country. Also it was Bill Clinton who long ago said and I quote, "The only way the Republicans can win is by dividing the country." The fact of the matter is that this race is close in the popular vote of the people and they will decide the election of the democratic nominee. No one should put any stock in the news media reporting and especially in the moderators of debates. Politidose also ran stories when the debates first started about moderators not asking questions that define what a candidate stands for and what that candidate would do if elected president. There is a voice that touched upon this when the primaries first started.
John said...
I don't know what news anonymous is talking about but I never heard Clinton call Obama, Hussein. Take it out on the media or the person who said that not Clinton.
^ Pardon me if I'm wrong but the article (on this blog) that we're responding to suggests that the MSM has treated Obama with kid gloves. Am I wrong? Please google "Fox Attacks Obama" (I or II) and see how, not only Fox but, ALL of the major MSM has piled on Obama. Your constant whining about how poor Hillary is under constant attack while Obama has been given a free ride is totally preposterous.
Post a Comment