The Anti-Obama Narrative

I don't usually do this, but I watched Fox News tonight for a few hours.  Fox News is replaying this clip of Obama again and again.

This new anti-Obama narrative is fairly standard - he hates the troops, he's anti-American, and he's weak on national security (the PM Howard story fits in here).  It'll be interesting to see if they can mash this with the 'is he black or white he can't even decide!' theme and find a sticky narrative.  

My guess is no, though I'm wrong a lot.  They really have nothing new to offer, it's all retread Jesse Helms-style nationalistic racism.



Display:


Re: The Anti-Obama Narrative (none / 0)

They really have nothing new to offer, it's all retread Jesse Helms-style nationalistic racism. Roaches have been around forever too, for much the same reason.
by Eli on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 01:11:45 AM EST

Re: The Anti-Obama Narrative (3.00 / 1)

Peering out from my liberal bubble, I see nothing wrong with this. Fox is making sure that everybody knows Obama thinks the war was wrong? That's the majority position these days.

No doubt they will try really hard to find a narrative that sticks. That's what they do. And with 20 months to innovate, I'm sure they will come up with something. Yes, I'm counting to the general - Obama roo00lz!

But here's the thing. I think the right wing message machine is going to get into such overdrive over Obama (and Hillary) that they will show even the lowest-information voter their true selves, raw racism and all. People will figure it out. Unhinged lunacy versus Mr. Unflappable serious optimist.

(Yes, I may be overly optimistic. Or I am also thinking of entering a monastery on a remote island for the next 20 months. And no Faux for me in any case.)


by kvenlander on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 01:18:43 AM EST

Re: The Anti-Obama Narrative (none / 0)

The wording they object to is that Obama used the word "wasted." What Fox isn't mentioning is that Obama was pressed about the wording he used by the press, and he said he regretted the word choice.

Washington Post today:


...[Obama] "absolutely apologized" for saying Sunday the lives of U.S. servicemen and -women killed in Iraq had been "wasted," and he argued there are "pretty substantial" differences between his position and Clinton's on the war in Iraq, the clearest early line of demarcation between the two.

Here's another clip from Fox last night of Hannity acting all outraged at Obama's initial choice of words without mentioning context or that Obama had apologized:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tmh__yDyQ qU


TheDailyBackground.com
by remove on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 03:12:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Anti-Obama Narrative (none / 0)

the operative term here is acting . This is a news entertainment show, where people are not tuning in to find out about the world - they are simply filling their time and reinforcing their own smaller sense of the world. It is as relaxing to them, to hear hatred - as the coo of their own mothers voice.

the simple job of getting up and doing something about an awful condition - escapes them. they, like karl rove, are busy sitting on their fat arse and thinking about how to run a war all the while not even daring to sacrifice one iota of their current, soft, and uninteresting life for it.


.. and when I win the lottery, gonna donate half my money to the city so they have to name a school or a park after me - camper van beethoven
by heyAnita on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 07:49:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Anti-Obama Narrative (3.00 / 0)

There is nothing wrong with saying that the soldiers' lifes were wasted.  Obama's statement does not criticize the soldiers but their political leaders who deployed them recklessly.

One cannot do more for soldiers than holding politicians accountable.  Every act of accountability is a celebration of the life of a soldier.

I am sick and tired of Fox News, Dick Cheney, and George W. Bush hiding behind the troops.  The troops deserve to live.  They deserve a rational commander in chief.

The scandal is not what anyone says.  The scandal is that George W. Bush wasted the lifes of our soldiers while Fox News cheered.


by Hellmut on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:16:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Anti-Obama Narrative (none / 0)

I don't know why he appologized. Frankly, the more FOX News airs this piece, the more support Obama will get.

They don't actually want the American people to HEAR anything substantive that the candidates have to say anyway. The MSM want a huge vacuum echo chamber where they get to spin empty criticism and meaningless right-wing smears.

The minute Obama actually gets on TV and talks direct to the American people, it's a LOT harder to come up with anything other than "he's BLAAAAACK! He's a MUSLIIIIM! BE AfAID! BE VERY AFEARD!"

By 2008 Bush will have turned "Republican" into a dirty word.


by Cugel on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 11:28:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Anti-Obama Narrative (none / 0)

He apologized because the low information voters will buy into the FOx narrative...  I think he had two choices to be effective.  FIght back hard which will take a lot of effort away from your stump and keep the issue in the headlines or Apologize immediately for "bad word choice" and highlight your objections to the war.  THE worst thing he could do was let it sit and hang like Kerry did with the swifties.  The response works and this will die.  He wasn't wishy washy on it, he came out definitively and THAT is a great sign


by yitbos96bb on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 11:51:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Anti-Obama Narrative (none / 0)

  Maybe, but Fox viewers don't vote in Democratic primaries. Heck, they can barely read.


by Master Jack on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 01:04:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Anti-Obama Narrative (none / 0)

It's silly that Fox News is focusing so much on this honest, though politically incorrect, slip. I think most Americans understand what he meant.

It's does raise a point though about his readiness to handle the scrutiny of this campaign. There will be a lot of camera watching his every move hoping that he will make a news-worthy mistake.


by PhillyGuy on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 01:21:01 AM EST

Re: The Anti-Obama Narrative (3.00 / 0)

Sorry, I don't get it. What is the slip? I've watched the clip four times now.


by kvenlander on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 01:42:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Anti-Obama Narrative (3.00 / 1)

The 'wasted' lives.  It's a no-no.


by Shaun Appleby on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 01:44:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Anti-Obama Narrative (3.00 / 1)

It's obvious I'll never make it as a politician.


by kvenlander on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:01:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not in the dem primary... (3.00 / 2)

Come on, this kind of thing won't hurt him in the primary. Plus, the lives were wasted. I think most people understand that.


by delmoi on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:05:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not in the dem primary... (none / 0)

no life, given for our country - is wasted. to borrow from baseball - when the team wins, the player wins. when the team loses, the coache loses - as my husband often says (he is banned from mydd for posting against gay marriage).

what i offer is something more simple than your view - the lives were spent, to be sure - but those lives underscored in a way no amount of mark to market or enron accounting scandal could show - the utter criminality of the current administration. many people will glaze over their vision when you talk about billions of dollars wasted... but a single human life can be a rallying cry.

i regret to say it but this president simply must be impeached.


.. and when I win the lottery, gonna donate half my money to the city so they have to name a school or a park after me - camper van beethoven
by heyAnita on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 07:52:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

no life, given for our country - is wasted (none / 0)

Which is the point.

These weren't. the war in Iraq was not waged "for our country". It was waged to gratify the fantasies of the PNAC Vulcans. The soldiers who were sent time and again "Over the Top" in WWI into fruitless attempts to accomplish something, anything in the stagnant trench warfare that was WWI until Black Jack Pershing arrived and decided that maybe winning the war was a better strategy than just continuing to feed boys into the meat grinder, well those boys can't be faulted for following orders, any more than the best and the brightest of their day couldn't be faulted for being junior officers and following their orders to take their troops slow marching into machine gun fire. Soldiers take orders from officers, junior officers take orders from senior officers. That is a feature and not a bug of the military.

But anyone that can take a look at how World War I was actually conducted between say 1915 and 1917 and NOT conclude that millions of soldiers lives were wasted is just not paying attention.

I think the Europeans get that. The British and French generals were not prepared to change strategies, they saw Americans as fresh meat for the grinder, after all nothing was really changing for them back at Headquarters in the Chateau.

Ask any junior officer if losing men from your unit is not "a waste", in particular if you are not achieving your objective,

There is a sickness hidden in "Support the troops, no matter how many get killed" which only gets intensified when translatted into "Support the troops, because of how many have gotten killed".

There is a mentality that believes "He died for King and Country" trumps everything. Then there are those who support the ideas behind the American Revolution.

Look when you launch a war of choice - and lose, you lost. Then pretty much every life lost has been wasted. Which takes not a job away from the value of those lives. Plenty of people who were pretty good with "servants of civil masters" and "they enlisted didn't they" are now getting indignant with "wasted".

"Bush lied, GIs died" is not an indictment of the troops. Quite the opposite.


by Bruce Webb on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:59:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no life, given for our country - is wasted (none / 0)



"First do what is necessary, then do what is possible, and suddenly you will be doing the impossible" - St. Francis of Asissi

There is no sickness behind supporting the troops, if you consider your support - to be, simply to keep them out of harms way needlessly. If you speak truth to power, and oppose those that put them in harms way you are working for them. I do not need to ask a junior officer if losing men from their unit would be considered by one little catchphrase word, or another.

I simply state the obvious, that these fellows died in no more way pointless than if they were on patrol and the enemy tracer bullets hit them - even then, a patrol gives away the position of the enemy.


.. and when I win the lottery, gonna donate half my money to the city so they have to name a school or a park after me - camper van beethoven
by heyAnita on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 01:57:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not in the dem primary... (none / 0)

Yeah I agree but the low info voters take it literally vs us who see the allegory in it.  We know he meant that these soldiers who could have been doctors, lawyers, even presidents will never get the chance too and that is why it was wasted.  The low info voters might see it as saying the sacrifice was a waste and pointless.


by yitbos96bb on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 12:01:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Anti-Obama Narrative (3.00 / 1)

Frankly, it was a mistake.  But in some ways he has articulated something in the hearts of many Americans which I believe speaks to an elemental truth.  Do you think the lives of these brave soldiers have been wasted?  It is certainly starting to appear that way.

He has recanted, of course, and said they 'have not been honored' by an adequate policy but I think his point is understood by everyone.  In some ways I am glad to have this doubt mentioned rather then lurk in the national psyche.  I have heard him criticised but so far no eloquent words to prove him wrong.

It will hurt the Senator, no doubt, and I regret that, too.  But it does nothing to lessen him in my esteem.


by Shaun Appleby on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 01:43:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Anti-Obama Narrative (none / 0)

Why was it a mistake?

I don't get it.  Hasn't the entire war been an ill-conceived enterprise?  Hasn't all the money been wasted on a purpose that was never made clear to the country?  

What is offensive about saying that the lives were wasted?


by RickD on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:33:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Really? (none / 0)

Probably the only mistake is that he backed off and apologized.

Now he's in retreat mode and makes an easy target.


by Silent sound on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 03:19:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Anti-Obama Narrative (none / 0)

To the nation, nothing.  To the relatives of the deceased it was the kind of thing you would prefer to avoid saying isn't it?  He made a simple mistake and gave a sincere and directed apology.  I admire the Senator for his sensitivity to realise this and his grace in making an immediate and unconditional apology.  Let it go.


by Shaun Appleby on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 06:17:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Anti-Obama Narrative (none / 0)

I don't think it will hurt him that much right now.  He took action immediately and will be fine.


by yitbos96bb on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 12:04:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Anti-Obama Narrative (3.00 / 1)

He said that the lives of those soliders were wasted. True, but not PC.


by PhillyGuy on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 01:43:19 AM EST

Re: The Anti-Obama Narrative (none / 0)

Sigh.


by kvenlander on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 01:59:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

OMG!!! My Friend is In Frame at 0:15!!!! (none / 0)

Haha, My friend Dagmar is in the frame, on the very left side of the group of people behind Obama! We were at the rally, and had gotten there early. I could have gone up on stage too, but I didn't want to watch the back of his head :P   I'll upload some higher quality pics in a bit.


by delmoi on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:04:35 AM EST

Re: OMG!!! My Friend is In Frame at 0:15!!!! (none / 0)

Here's a better pic of her:
IMG_5670
by delmoi on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 11:11:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Front row or second row or what? NT (none / 0)

NT


by Eric Jaffa on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 12:25:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Fox News can't do much damage (3.00 / 3)

Fox News caters to wingnuts in the first place. There were practically zero votes for Obama among the Fox audience to begin with.

Fox pulled out all the stops months before the election last year, and it did nothing to boost Bush's ratings or sink any particular Democrat. After all these years the Conventional Wisdom finally recognizes Fox as the right-wing network, and news viewers are aware of their intentions. Their value to the VRWC is in keeping the base frothing and providing the appropriate spin for anti-Democrat smears.


by OfficeOfLife on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:05:51 AM EST

Re: Fox News can't do much damage (3.00 / 1)

they have lost 20% of the younger quartile of viewers and will continue to lose market share; to advertise on this station is to hitch your wagon to a falling star.

meanwhile, placement ads in video games will continue to rise. maybe there will be a fun game out there where the characters of these news entertainment shows can be parodied, without paying fox royalty -

but in the end, will youtube pull the parodies off the net because someone asked them?

we have to get free speech straight - certainly representing that one is an authority on objective reporting crosses the line, as does copyright infringement - but so much gray area requires the disintermediational nudge of a true leader like barack. i was frankly amazed at some of his insights - he is a strong candidate.


.. and when I win the lottery, gonna donate half my money to the city so they have to name a school or a park after me - camper van beethoven
by heyAnita on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 07:56:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fox News can't do much damage (none / 0)

Well ... not really true. They definitely have less ability now than they did a few years ago, but they still have a lot of power to push a narrative into the mainstream. Without Fox, this one word ("wasted") would never, ever have made it as a "controversy" into the Washington Post. The power of Fox News comes not in what they can tell its viewers, but in how it can define the debate and push narratives over time.

From pushing the "madrassa" BS into the mainstream (where it was debunked) and then moving on to this pseudo-controversy and the "he goes to a Black Power Church," they are trying to create a character of "Barack Obama" that will be defined by them. My guess is that it will have two threads: he'll say anything to further his massive ambition, and his smooth-talkin' rhetoric hides a radical, "Malcolm X" agitator who hates America. Those narratives both play into some racist stereotyping in our culture, which is a prerequisite for any right-wing meme.

And Democrats should take this kind of thing very, very seriously. The full weight of the guns of the right-wing definitely take a toll over time, and Obama doesn't have a really long history in the public eye or a clear record to cement a strong picture of who he is. However, he does have some almost unique rhetorical gifts and personal appeal, so he's not defenseless in the fight.


by BriVT on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:11:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fox News can't do much damage (none / 0)

Interesting thing is that their racist slander of Obama might help him rally black voters.


The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.
by Populism2008 on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 10:17:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fox News can't do much damage (none / 0)

True, but I don't think they care about that. African-American voters are so unlikely to rally to their side, I don't think they enter into the calculations of the GOP. I've always thought that the "outreach" to African-Americans was more to soften the image of the GOP to suburbanites than it was to actually gain any support among African-Americans.

Which does point to the danger here for the GOP ... with their inevitable anti-Hispanic fervor for this cycle, if they layer on some coded anti-African-American messaging, they'll create that nasty, intolerant image that really does hurt them.

They've got some tactical power and weapons to hurt individual candidates, but they're really on the defensive strategically.


by BriVT on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 11:19:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fox News can't do much damage (none / 0)

 Think about this, though.  The reich-wing media is attacking Obama and Edwards (while leaving Hillary alone) BEFORE THE PRIMARIES. If they really thought Obama was such a vulnerable pushover, they'd lay off of him, let him win the Democratic nomination, and THEN rev up the smears for the general. In other words, what the reich-wing media is doing with Hillary.

 But that's not what they're doing, now. They don't want Obama (or Edwards) to get the nomination. They have no corresponding anxieties about Hillary.

 Remember 2003, when Rove famously declared that he's love to face Dean in the general? But funny how the Dean takedown happened before the primary, not the general. Actions speak louder than words.

 So if employing race-based attacks against Obama does wind up firming up Barack's support among African-Americans, that would IMPROVE his chances of getting the nomination. And that's not what they want, obviously. So I wonder how well they've thought this through...
 


by Master Jack on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 01:13:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fox News can't do much damage (none / 0)

I agree, Hillary is the Republican candidate of choice by a big margin.  Obama terrifies them, Edwards makes them squirmy.


by Shaun Appleby on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 05:11:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fox News can't do much damage (none / 0)

I caution against thinking that way. It's a hall of mirrors ... and you can never be sure if you're right.

Frankly, I think they aren't attacking Hillary as much right now because they have been for years, and they need to make up for lost time with Obama and Edwards. And I say that as someone who has Hillary at the bottom of my preference list.

Forget the right-wing. They attack everyone. It's what they do. It's all they do.


by BriVT on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 06:51:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Anti-Obama Narrative (3.00 / 1)

He haqd me at  Yeeeaaarrgghh.


by gogol on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:28:02 AM EST

Re: The Anti-Obama Narrative (none / 0)

Trick, as with Edwards and the right wing Catholic group, is to turn it back on them vs. apologizing for speaking the truth.

That the president and vice-president have betrayed the sacred trust our men and women in the military who have a right to expect that their sacrifice will not be wasted on a war that was lost before it began, a war based on lies and incompetence, a war in which more US lives are going to be sacrificed to cover up the misdeeds of those in command.  It was and is a criminal waste of our best and brightest for which this administration must be called to account.

Something like that...Obama can articulate it better but the idea is refocus on the the evil doers, Bush Jr and Cheney.


by BrionLutz on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:28:12 AM EST

Bob Corker Redux (none / 0)

It'll all be variations of the Corker theme:

"He's just not right (white)."


by Steve in Sacto on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 03:31:47 AM EST

Faux Propaganda "News" is poison (none / 0)

Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine now!!


The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.
by Populism2008 on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 04:29:22 AM EST

Re: The Anti-Obama Narrative (3.00 / 1)

This latest smear, like the Madrassah one, isn't going to stick. Obama isn't Kerry (circa 2004, not 1972). He slammed down Howard within hours, froze out Fox, and has been firing shots across Hillary's bow for some time now. This guy fights, and voters like that. If he wanted to, he could have Hannity in tears within 5 minutes. Attacking him for being too liberal or un-American won't work because he's proud of being liberal and rejects the idea that it makes one un-American.

But they'll keep coming at him until something does stick. Who cares. It'll inevitably be the sort of crap that retarded and hate-filled right-wing bigots go for, and they weren't ever going to vote for him anyway. His concern is holding onto and expanding his support in the left and middle, and the way to do that is to keep on doing what he has been doing, and not show any weakness, hesitation or doubt.

I like this guy. I may not agree with everything he says and supports, and still wish he had a few more years of national experience. But right now I don't see anyone approaching him in terms of his stands on the issues and how he's going about trying to push them along--along with political smarts and a fearsome self-assurance. Name one serious Dem candidate for '08 who has called for us to be out of Iraq within a year? I didn't think so.

He scares the shit out of the right because they know he can beat anyone they put up against him. And, barring catastrophe, I believe that he will.


by kovie on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 04:38:39 AM EST

True, and as an Edwards guy, I'm annoyed. (none / 0)

All the right-wing attacks on Obama only help him in the primary, where democrats are sick of getting attacked and want someone who fights back.

But you can't fight back if you're not attacked.

HEY RIGHT WING: ATTACK EDWARDS SOME MORE.  No fair that Obama is getting all the love, come on.  Of course, Obama has been able to hit back much better then any of the candidates so far.


by delmoi on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 11:16:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: True, and as an Edwards guy, I'm annoyed. (none / 0)

Think of it as Obama running interference for your guy right now. Eventually, they'll get to him and he can return the favor. And in doing so both can marginalize Hillary, since she doesn't appear willing or able to fight back without sounding angry and weak.

Trust me, though, they'll get to Edwards, attacking him for being an "ambulance chaser" and responsible for higher insurance premiums for pursuing multimillion-dollar "frivolous lawsuits" and a "tax and spend liberal". Obama's just got the spotlight on him right now so he's their main target.

Remember, they don't attack on merit, but only those whom they fear. Mother Teresa could run and they'd find something to smear her with if she was a serious contender. Tell your guy to make himself more feared if he wants to win. Make them crap their pants and run to Drudge whenever they hear his name.


by kovie on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 04:56:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wasted (none / 0)

Barack Obama won't be using that word again with regards to the troops.


by Stewieeeee on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 05:21:39 AM EST

I agree with him, based on simple logic! (none / 0)

Logically, if this use of the soldiers' lives wasn't a waste, then it was WORTHWHILE.  If it was worthwhile yesterday, then it must still be worthwhile today, since the war effort continues as it always has.  

If it is worthwhile today, then why are we opposing the war effort instead of supporting it?  If the soldiers died in a way that was worthwhile, then why, logically, do we oppose more soldiers dying in the same way?  

If the war is a waste, then the soldiers lives were wasted at war.  It is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn.  You can't have worthwhile deaths in a worthless war!

Either the lives were wasted and this war is wrong or the lives were spent in a worthwhile way and the anti-war effort is wrong.  Take your pick!  

Its time we dispensed with the social custom of never admitting when lives are wasted at war.  The social custom perpetuates the waste of those lives.  We must value the lives more than we value this social custom.  

These lives were wasted on a policy that was pointless and that could never have succeeded.  Brilliant lives have been cast into the toilet of a useless, counter-productive war.  That's a waste and I'm glad Barack Obama has said so.  

This opens the Overton Window to include the truth of this war, even if it comes at a price to Barack Obama.


by francislholland on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:20:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree with him, based on simple logic! (none / 0)

Campaign speaches aren't based on logic.


by Stewieeeee on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 03:20:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree with him, based on simple logic! (none / 0)

And "Dulce et Decoriam Est Pro Patria Mori" isn't any truer now than it was ninety years ago. It may be honourable to die for your country, but it's ridiculous to claim that it isn't a waste for 3000 young men and women to have died in the service of, well, what exactly?


Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog
by Englishlefty on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 07:44:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree with him, based on simple logic! (none / 0)

I've already conceded it's not logical.


by Stewieeeee on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 11:16:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If the truth hurts then it must be attacked (none / 0)

If the war was unecessary then of course the soldiers lives were wasted.


by Jose on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 06:35:57 AM EST

The Waster (none / 0)

Exactly, and Bush is the waster in chief.  That's the framing solution to this kerfuffle.


by Hellmut on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:19:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Anti-Obama Narrative (none / 0)

Why are you even posting the clip?.......You are just spreading FOXNEWS propaganda


by vamonticello on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 06:50:25 AM EST

Agree (none / 0)

I know that Stoller has good intentions but it is unnecessary. This non-story is already dead.


The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.
by Populism2008 on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 10:19:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Anti-Obama Narrative (none / 0)

There's a desperate quality in the alternate universe that wingnuts call home. The usual broth of fears, smears, and queers, with a jigger of racism, just isn't palatable to most Americans.

The modern conservative movement is based on being outsiders, running against communism, liberalism in the media, in big government, a battle against some vague, amorphous, yet ultimately insidious force that is corrupting America.

Now they have Bush's record of failure, incompetence, and corruption to defend, and they still think they are going to use the same playbook, while the majority of the American people want them to accept responsibility.

They are truly fucked, because they only have one playbook.


by Aeolus on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 07:38:44 AM EST

Re: The Anti-Obama Narrative (none / 0)

Fox Chicago ran a poll Sunday night to see if people agreed with Obama postion on leaving Iraq. Sad to say Fox viewers were 55% stay and fight 45% believed in Obama. This tells me that Fox has the "28%" of the country watching them all the time. We have a saying here in Northern Illinois about a local newspaper that they do not report the news they write the news Fox also does this watch and listen one time and you will agree.


by KevinB on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 07:55:20 AM EST

He's right! What's the problem? (none / 0)

I think most Americans have come to the same conclusion.  I'll tell you straight out!  If people who oppose the war don't support a candidate when he tells the truth, then how are we ever going to stop the war?

Death is unalloyed and the truth about death needs to be unalloyed as well.


by francislholland on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:09:00 AM EST

Join to debate THIS POINT (none / 0)

I have lurked on this board for awhile, but I have to join after reading this hit piece on Senator Obama.  I am going to do this as respectfully as I can, the author of this dairy obviously is loyal to another Democrat in the race.  I think it's really wrong to continue to use the right-wing tactics to try and bring this man down, because you won't do it, it won't happen.  Now, I'm a follower of Christ, I believe in my heart that God has put Senator Obama here for this time in history.  I'm a supporter of Sentor Obama and I believe he will win the nomination and win the Presidency.  This is my prayer.

The great thing about the Democratic Party is that we are a rainbow of beautiful colors, attitudes and gifts.  I don't think it is wise for us to use what other use against us just to make a point.  


by Lorraine on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 10:08:45 AM EST

Re: Join to debate THIS POINT (none / 0)

Huh? He's defending Obama against Fox.


by bruh21 on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 10:13:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Join to debate THIS POINT (none / 0)

Huh? He's defending Obama against Fox
---------------------

Okay, give this newbie a "little" break.  :)
I'm apologizing to Matt.  I guess I'm super-sensitive about this upcoming race for the Presidency.  I just believe that God is giving us this chance to get a great gift in Senator Obama.  I'm old but not old enough to remember President Kennedy or his brother Bobby.  But I did see the movie, BOBBY (should have receive Oscar nod) just those few hours gave me a little glimpse into the greatest of the Kennedys.  Senator Obama reminds me so much of Senator Bobby Kennedy.  God is so good, He is giving us a chance to get it right the second time around.

The only person who would make me re-think my steadfast support of Senator Obama is Vice (President) Al Gore, I thought I would throw that it. :)

Forgive me Matt, thank bruh21 for setting me straight.


by Lorraine on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 10:53:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Join to debate THIS POINT (none / 0)

Don't worry Lorraine, your point is well taken in any case.  I think Obama is like Bobby, too.  And don't be afraid of being wrong either, it doesn't seem to be an impediment to lots of us here.


by Shaun Appleby on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 05:27:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Join to debate THIS POINT (none / 0)

Welcome!

I am a long time lurker/contributor and I think Matt is leaning toward Obama.  Not to speak for him, but the point of this post is to show what 'swiftboat' attacks from the right we should prepare for.

Our job this election cycle is to counter the simplistic right wing inflamatory attacks that have the potential to take on a life of their own and develop a negative characterization of our candidates.  

This time a round, we need to be much more effective in our counter-attacks.


by aiko on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 10:19:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Join to debate THIS POINT (none / 0)

aiko, thank you to for setting me straight.  For fear of boring you, if you would please refer to my comments above.

I think we as Dems have to be ready to fight against the lies of the right-wing anti-Christ nuts.  


by Lorraine on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 10:56:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"Die for their country" (3.00 / 1)

But they didn't "die for their country". They died following orders, which is what soldiers do, but you are conflating "Duty" and "Worth".

Junior officers are taught from day one that their job is to accomplish the mission and bring their men back with an emphasis on both.

Dial it back a notch and put it into monetary terms. What would you say about the junior executive who said: "The Miller contract was a mistake and is now a mistake, but millions of dollars sacrificed for their corporation are never a waste."

The fact that those dollars were just following orders, and gallently marched into the Valley of Miller, doesn't mean they were not wasted. To maintain that soldiers lost in an impossible mission were not 'wasted' is to treat them like kleenex: useful to manufacturers of ribbon magnets, but oh so disposable.


by Bruce Webb on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 10:16:18 AM EST

It has been a tragic waste (none / 0)

   Obama's right about the waste and the more Fox goes after him, the more I want to support him.


by MarvToler on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 10:19:46 AM EST

Re: The Anti-Obama Narrative--Hard Core Numbers (3.00 / 1)

We need to take a breath and avoid obsessing about the Foxist Noise Channel and its viewers. Matt's approach is a good one: monitor Fox only to highlight its most outrageous, irrational agitprop for well-deserved derision by the reality-based community. There is no point in wasting any energy trying to bring reason to the True Believers in the Rove/Cheney/Bush/Fox alternative universe.

As approval ratings for The Decider tumble to the low to mid-thirties (a CBS poll on Jan. 22, 2007 even dropped his approval rating down to 28 percent), is there really any reason to think that they can drop much further, into the low twenties or even down to the teens?

Probably not.

Even if The Decider were to sprout horns, fangs, and a forked tail, his True Believers would remain convinced that he is the Chosen One.

The absolute floor for his support is approximately 30 percent, the carefully assembled Rovian Hard Core. Here is why:

--35 percent of Americans (and 67 percent of Republicans) still think that invading and occupying Iraq was a good idea

--35 percent approve of the use of torture against insurgent or terrorist suspects

--67 percent (or even 74 percent, depending on the poll) of Republicans think that Bush's troop "surge" to escalate the war in Iraq is a good idea

--30 percent of Americans think that Big Business has the right amount of influence (22 percent) or too little influence (8 percent) on the Bush Administration

--29 percent disapprove of interracial marriage

--32 percent consider themselves to be "born-again" Christians

--25 percent think that the Rapture/Second Coming will occur in 2007

--24 percent think that automatic assault weapons should continue to be sold to the public

--20 percent (and 81 percent of evangelical fundamentalists) believe the creationists' literalist dogma that God created the entire cosmos 6,000 years ago

--37 percent think that the teaching of creationism (or the latest version, Intelligent Design) should replace the teaching of evolution

--17 percent think that abortion should be illegal even in cases of rape or incest

--39 percent admit to harboring prejudice against Muslims

--27 percent of Illinois voters cast ballots for the certifiably extremist Alan Keyes rather than for Barack Obama in 2004

--74 percent (yes--three-fourths!) of Republican voters and an astonishing 84 percent of Republican members of Congress deny that human release of greenhouse gases causes global warming

These polls reflect what Karl Rove has spent his life creating:  a rock-solid base of credulous gun-totin', SUV-drivin', Bible-thumpin', Rapture-awaitin', ignorance-embracin', global-warming-denyin', evolution-dismissin', science-rejectin', contraception-and-abortion-rights-opposi n', tolerance-refusin', gay-bashin', Constitution-shreddin', civil rights-denyin', Bill-of-Rights-ignorin', anti-race-mixin', Confederate-flag-displayin', Fox-News-believin', Rush-Limbaugh-admirin', foreigner-despisin', Muslim-demonizin', militia-joinin', perpetual-war-lovin', torture-approvin', war-and-oil-profit-cheerin', robber-baron-servin', Fuehrer-enablin' social conservatives.

These poll numbers largely, though not perfectly, overlap. Some abortion foes will feel even more strongly about the loss of life resulting from the unnecessary invasion and occupation of Iraq. Some gun enthusiasts will feel strongly about protecting the environment and curbing global warming. Some viewers of the Foxist Noise Channel will have doubts about skewing economic and tax policies primarily for the benefit of big business and the wealthiest one percent.

All the same, no matter what blunders he makes, The Decider will still have an unshakeable Rovian Base approving of his actions. It is clearly possible for Rove and the Foxist Noise machine to fool 30 percent of the people 100 percent of the time. They can also fool an additional 5 percent of the voting public almost all of the time.

They have faith, you see, in the righteousness of The Decider's cause.

However, Rove's effort to apply his Texas-based political formula of divide-and-rule to the whole country has left fully 65 percent of the population within the reality-based universe.

The 18th century Enlightenment philosopher and deist Voltaire once wrote in a letter:
"I always made one prayer to God, which is extremely short. Here it is: 'O my God, make our enemies quite ridiculous!' God granted it."

Thanks to Karl Rove, the same prayer seems to have been answered today for the pragmatists and progressives in the reality-based community.

Of course, in some areas the unreachable Rovian Hard Core will amount to more than a majority. But even in the Deep South, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Utah, and Idaho there will be the odd Congressional seat or local urban election that can be competitive for a Democratic pragmatist or even a progressive. Consider, for example, Rocky Anderson, the progressive mayor of Salt Lake City. And in the rest of the country there are increasingly bright prospects for Democratic sweeps.

Karl Rove has ensured that the Republican Party has adopted the values and antebellum outlook of the Deep South, thereby turning it into more of a regional party than a national one. Rove has handed pragmatists and progressives a historic opportunity elsewhere.

Can they seize it?  Can they organize the reality-based community--fully 65 percent of the voting public? Can Senator Barack Obama serve as their catalyst and inspiration?


by FMArouet on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 10:22:30 AM EST

Same with Kerry being a "secret Jew" (none / 0)

It'll be interesting to see if they can mash this with the 'is he black or white he can't even decide!' theme

Ann Coulter pulled the trigger on that one three years ago.  Remember?  

The standards narrative is:  

1. The Democrat doesn't really know who he is, he's wishy-washy.  

2. The Republican may not be the smartest guy in the  room, and he may be a little volatile, but hey!  isn't that the kind of guy you want on your side in a dangerous world?  

Every.  Fucking.  Election.  Is.  The.  Same.  
.


by Grand Moff Texan on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 11:28:24 AM EST

/Fuck obams and all who support him (none / 0)

I am a cavalry scout in the united stated army. This anti war shit really pisses me off. We are over in theatre fighting while you peaple are home safe with your familys. We get no support from the american peaple and that really hurts. It hurts our moral when we see the news and hear all this anti war talk. We are the ones here fighting it. Not YOU! This war would be over by now if ther wasnt so many fucking laws on how we have to fight it. It would be over if peaple wernt such fucking pussys. Wars need to fought like they have been in the past. Ther is no place for media on the battle field.This is a political war and thats why it is so fucked up. I beleve in what im fighting for. I love to see how happy children are to see us and all the things we give them. Things would be much worse in iraq if we wernt patroling everyday. Terrorist attcks would triple. Civilian cassualties would be high. I am proud to fight in the united states army and i will gladly give my life for my country. Kiss my fucking ass Obama and all that support you.


by cavscout11 on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 12:46:36 PM EST

Re: The Anti-Obama Narrative (none / 0)

Cavscout, you need to understand a few things, firstly no disrespect but you have just declaired yourself as a stereotype. If you had bothered to read everyone's post you would get that everyone here KNOWS its a political war and that it is F'd up.

Next  you do get support from the american people, nearly everyone is supporting you and believes you have done a good job and done your best. We are not here debating that. What are debating is how little value the people in charge feel your sacrafices are worth. And in addition how they are willing to continue to have you make those sacrafices without giving us and you a reasonable explanation.

You and your commrades (sp?) are not really in a position to ask questions, demand the truth, or hold your leaders accountable, you have a job to do. But the rest of us can speak up for you, and can demand to know if it is really worth your sacrafice, we can make them tell us why, we have a duty to do so as much as you have a duty to serve as best you can.

We are trying to be responsible and just trusting our leaders without caution, reservation or questioning would be irrisponsible of us. But it is completely different for you, you have an obligation to trust that you are being told the truth and to act accordingly, no one is giving you shit for that.

But the rest of us have another duty and responsibility, and that is to hold the president and the rest of capitol hill accountable for their actions. In the constitution of our great nation it outlines the idea that they answer to us. You might answer to them while in uniform but one day that have to answer to you too. And you might not like the answers they give you, and will be in a position to tell them they were wrong.

Further more, there is no conclusive evidence that terrorist attacks would triple. Strategically speaking, without an enemy in front of them the terrorist would be vying for control and would probably be detered from any unfied front because of internal politics on thier own end.  But putting that aside let us consider this...

Our greatest moral imperitive is not to be responsible for the welfare of the people of Iraq, but the people of the United States. In all honesty I think alot of us would feel better and safe if majority of you were able to come home and provide us personally with the security and safety of your presence that the Iraqi people have had all this time. I would feel alot safer personally against potential threats from internal and external forces knowing, that our military was here guarding the home front instead of spread thin. ( Recalling the fall of the roman empire at this point.)

Further more, wouldn't you Cavscout personal feel better if the money that has gone to the war all this time "could" have been spent in some portion in your community, your home town, to make things better?

We are not criticizing soldiers here, we are asking "is there some better way that this could've went?" "Were we lied to" "maybe we could have resolved this sooner at the expense of less lives" "do our troops deserve the burden of liberating people who have nothing better to do that kill each other over religion?"
"Who decided this was thier responsibility?"

These are fair questions and we are asking them with YOU and others like you in mind.

I'm glad you are proud to serve, but it is people like us that will help insure that you can continue to do so with a clear conscience, and hopefully without coming to harm.

I hope you can understand where I'm coming from with this. God Bless.


Sometimes its more important to be kind, than to be right, and sometimes its not important to be right at all...
by Outlawrave on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 10:25:31 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.