Obama, Cheney, Romney, and Rove

Since Im too busy to write today, I offer again the clear headed thinking of the wise women at

hillaryis44.com

and to the angry boys at this website....youre right - these gals live in their Mom's basement too!

Someday, there will heroic songs written about these women and statues put up in public squares for their brave and important work in telling the real truth, against the wishes and slanders of the haters and the media horde, and helping in their own devastating and funny way, to save our nation from disaster..

-------------

Obama, Cheney, Romney, and Rove

---

Maybe we misjudged the quality of Tim Russert's questions.

At the time of the Halloween debate, we appropriately criticized Russert for leading the assault on Hillary, with wedge issue questions, while asking Obama little of substance.

Russert questioned Obama as to his choice of Halloween costume. We mocked Russert's question. Now as we recall that Obama answered he would wear a Mitt Romney mask, perhaps we were wrong. It turns out Obama decided to adopt Romney not just as a mask but as a role model too.

Recently the Obama campaign was in full drama mode over a Ripublican Bob Novak column. Mitt Romney too was in full drama mode. There were similarities to both dramas:

   Former Bay State Gov. Mitt Romney's presidential campaign furiously denied rumors yesterday that his own supporters were involved in calls placed to voters in Iowa and New Hampshire that spread anti-Romney smears under the guise of conducting a poll.

   Political strategists and bloggers slung accusations at Romney's camp yesterday after a scathing article appeared in the National Review titled "Did Mitt Romney Push Poll Himself?" which identified several Romney supporters at Western Wats, a Utah-based firm believed to have made the calls. The practice of using phony polls to plant a negative message is commonly known as push-polling. [snip]

   Among the questions asked during the 20-minute calls placed last week were whether the person polled knew Romney received Vietnam-era military deferments while serving in the Mormon missionary in France, that none of his sons served in the military and that the Mormon religion didn't accept blacks as bishops until the 1970s. [snip]

   The National Review article cited sources who speculated Romney's camp put the hit out on itself "because his campaign wanted polling data regarding the negative perception of his Mormon faith for internal use." But others speculated a motivation to pre-empt attacks on Romney's faith.

As the Romney push polling story developed, it turned out the few people who received the alleged phone calls were Romney employees.

   Deepening the mystery surrounding the anti-Mormon polling calls, the Romney campaign is confirming that it referred reporters to two recipients of the calls without disclosing that the two were also on the Romney campaign payroll, TPM Election Central has learned.

   In response to questions from TPM Election Central, Romney spokesman Kevin Madden confirmed that the campaign had failed to disclose this info to reporters. Madden suggested that the campaign had identified them as "supporters," which is a far cry from being directly paid by the campaign, as the two call recipients were.

   The revelation could add grist to the theory -- now spreading on conservative blogs and even getting coverage by news organizations -- that the Romney campaign itself is behind the calls. Some have speculated that the calls -- which attack Romney and refer to his Mormon faith while saying positive things about McCain -- are an effort by the campaign to test negative messages about itself while getting McCain blamed for the calls.

   The new revelation could give more ammo to those who question whether the firm making the calls -- which is already reported to have on staff several people who have donated to the Romney campaign -- knowingly called Romney supporters because they could be counted on to tell the press about the calls and to suggest to reporters that Romney rival John McCain was behind them.

   It also raises the question of whether the Romney campaign referred reporters to the callers -- without disclosing their relationship with the campaign -- for the same purpose.

The Obama drama moment:

   Over the weekend, Robert Novak printed what used to be called a "blind item" but now is called "daily journalism."

   Novak wrote: "Agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton are spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information about her principal opponent for the party's presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, but has decided not to use it. The nature of the alleged scandal was not disclosed."

   The item probably would have died a quiet death -- there have been a number of presidential candidate scandal rumors percolating on the Web that have not gotten much attention -- when Obama assured that it would reach critical mass.

   Obama issued a vigorous and lengthy statement saying the Novak item was "devoid of facts" and was "Swift Boat politics."

   But the guilty party, Obama made clear, was not Novak; it was Clinton.

   "If the purpose of this shameless item was to daunt or discourage me or supporters of our campaign from challenging and changing the politics of Washington, it will fail," Obama said in language that neatly fit into his campaign theme. "In fact, it will only serve to steel our resolve."

   And he issued a challenge: "In the interest of our party, and her own reputation, Sen. Clinton should make either public any and all information referred to in the item, or concede the truth: that there is none."

   Obama also whacked Clinton for hypocrisy, because she had stated during last Thursday's debate in Las Vegas that she did not like the politics of "throwing mud" but was now engaging in it herself.

Politico listed several reasons for the Obama reaction, two of which we find interesting: "it served as inoculation so that if more stories surface, Obama can claim they are just more Clinton-inspired dirty tricks" and "it shifted press attention away from Obama's poor debate performance in Las Vegas and onto Hillary's allegedly poor behavior in leaking scurrilous information."

Obama does not want to answer questions about Rezko or about his previous non-public life. Any question about Obama's ethics and associations and finances is blasted as being "old", "answered", or "swiftboating". But all the questions about Rezko are recent, open and relevant.

In the recent series of campaign statements Obama was imitating Romney but in bed with Karl Rove.

   If Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that Hillary Clinton's campaign told him that they had some dirt on Obama, would Obama's staff react as they did to the Robert Novak column of November 17? And yes, I am putting Novak in the same category as the crazy Iranian leader. Novak has damaged U.S. national security as much as Ahmadinejad with his exposure of Valerie Plame and the subsequent destruction of her clandestine intelligence network.

   Why has Senator Barack Obama kept the Novak story alive through repeated statements for days? Is he just naïve or is he misinformed? Is he really so unfamiliar with the journalistic incest of Washington and Novak's status as a Republican hit man? Why would Obama focus his campaign on unfounded "smears" circulated by Novak? Why would Obama, the candidate of "hope," pump up the claims of Novak, "the prince of darkness"?

Larry Johnson, author of Why is Obama in Bed with Karl Rove? needs to read this site more often. For Obama smears is normal operating procedure:

   The Republican smear masters had already tipped their hand for dealing with Hillary Clinton. Look at Karl Rove's debut column in Newsweek, where he lays out the strategy that Obama appears to be parroting:

   "And so the question to John McCain from a woman at a town hall in South Carolina last Monday was tasteless, but key: `How do we beat the [rhymes with witch]?' Right now, Republicans are focusing much of their fire on Senator Clinton. Criticizing her unites the party, stirs up the unsettled feelings many swing voters have toward her and allows each candidate to say why he is best able to beat her."

   With Rove's instructions to Republicans in mind, take a new look at Obama's reaction to Novak. Is Obama wearing a wrist bracelet that says, "what would Karl Rove do"?

   Robert Novak is a seasoned conservative columnist with a long history of publishing falsehoods, distortions and gossip. And he has been in bed with Karl Rove in running "information ops" against democrats. For decades he has been renowned for inflating shreds of tidbits of rumors into major stories to support various Republican efforts. In 1992, Karl Rove, one of Novak's regular sources, was fired from the campaign of President George H.W. Bush for leaking derogatory information to Novak about Bush's campaign manager and friend, Robert Mosbacher. In 2003, Rove again served as a source to Novak, leaking the identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson. Even though the CIA warned Novak not to disclose her CIA identity in the interests of national security, he did so, insuring that Rove got a copy of the column before it was published. In 2004, Novak promoted the smear campaign of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against Senator John Kerry's heroic Vietnam War record. When it was revealed that Novak's son was the marketing director for the right-wing publisher of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth tract defaming Kerry, Novak expressed disdain about the conflict-of-interest: "I don't think it's relevant."

   By his own admission Novak's latest hyped controversy has no basis in fact. On November 17, he wrote, "Agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton are spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information about her principal opponent for the party's presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, but has decided not to use it." His sourcing consisted of "word of mouth" and unnamed "experienced Democratic operatives." Two days later, on Fox News, where Novak is a commentator, he confessed that he had heard a rumor from someone who had heard a rumor from someone. In short, he had no facts, perhaps explaining why Novak has been dubbed "No Facts" for years.

   Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson's categorical statement would seem to have put an end to this pseudo-event: "The Clinton campaign has nothing to do with this item." But it did not end. Instead, it is being kept artificially alive.

   As soon as Novak published his rumor, Obama elevated and dignified it as though it had credibility. "But in the interest of our party, and her own reputation, Senator Clinton should either make public any and all information referred to in the item, or concede the truth: that there is none," he declared. Obama turned the alleged smear upside down. Rather than acknowledge that the predictable right-wing smear artist Novak was responsible for the innuendo, Obama accused Senator Clinton of being ultimately to blame. With this extraordinary statement, Obama lashed himself to Novak's credibility as a reliable source on a story that transparently lacked any true source.

Larry, Larry, Larry -- we deal with Obama's smears every day - Obama knows exactly what he is doing.

   Even when the Clinton campaign forthrightly again denied the item was false and that no one involved in the campaign had anything to do with it, Obama's campaign refused to let the matter die. Obama campaign manager David Plouffe once again accused Senator Clinton and her campaign of doing what Novak claimed: "Are `agents' of their campaign spreading these rumors? And do they have `scandalous' information that they are not releasing?"

   Once again, the Clinton campaign openly stated it had nothing to do with the story at all. Then, Plouffe made another statement that suggested Obama had somehow wrung a confession out of the Clinton campaign and still implied that it was behind Novak's lie: "The Clinton campaign has admitted that they do not possess the `scandalous information' in question and we take them at their word. But what we don't accept is their assertion that this is somehow falling for Republican tricks."

   The following day, November 19, Obama began a new line of attack, picking up a discredited story circulated months ago. "I'm not in this race to fulfill some long-held plan or because it was owed to me," Obama said. An Obama spokesperson reinforced the point: "Barack Obama has not been mapping out his run for president from Washington for the last 20 years like some of his opponents."

Wow, Larry Johnson does get it.

   But where did this new attack originate? Just as he had used Novak's false story for the previous two days, now he tried to damage Senator Clinton's reputation by using another patently false story. Months ago, Jeff Gerth, the reporter who spent years hyping the Whitewater fables as real, and his co-author Dale Van Natta, attempted to promote their anti-Hillary screed, "Her Way," with the supposedly startling revelation that Hillary and planned to run for president 20 years ago. But Gerth and Van Natta had no actual source. And the one source to whom they did attribute the story, Pulitzer Prize winning historian Taylor Branch, was someone they never interviewed and who told the Washington Post, "The story is preposterous. I never heard either Clinton talk about a `plan' for them both to become president."

   Despite this story's exposure as false for months, Obama eagerly exploited it to try to portray Senator Clinton as Lady Macbeth. First using Novak and then Gerth for his materials, he painted her as a dirty trickster, dishonest and recklessly ambitious.

   But why does Obama do this? Once Novak's story was exposed as a smear itself, why didn't he stop? Why did he keep it going? And why did he revive the Gerth falsehood to tarnish Senator Clinton's character?

   Obama's tactics appear in sync with Rove's script. His feigned victimhood is a negative attack on Senator Clinton's character to drive the numbers, which in turn Obama hopes will determine the nomination. While posing above the fray, but executing Rove's strategy and exploiting Novak's innuendo, Obama has embraced the audacity of hype.

"Audacity of hype" is a weak description of what Obama is doing. A correspondent sent us this:

   "all his moves and attacks are in this manner, being dirty, and stupid (i guess his stupidity and the willingness of the press to play along is really what bothers me) and then hiding behind high-minded rhetoric is the CLASSIC bush move - and it IS NOT that the deomcrats went along, as obama says and dirties the well for his own party. it's the media that really fell for it, and created a political climate in which it was very hard to oppose bush, because doing so would get you hammered in the press. If the democrats were tougher from the begining, yes they might have been able to stop that, but you need massive organizational, coordinated strenght like the republicans have wielded in the past 20 years to push things in the other direction. And when Obama comes out and attacks the democrats it's just a form of sabotage - shows that this guy cares nothing but for himself - ofcourse he actually believes progressive ideas, but when you are so self-obsessed with yourself, and dastardly as he is, the actual result is counterproductive to the overall progressive effort. He has gotten so caught up in his own abilities, that he is sacrificing everything he thinks he believes in. That's the other reason Im pissed- it's hubris in the most classical greek sense, his story really is the backbone of greek tragedy, because everything he does is self-inflicted. Anyway, just a real lowlife all around, not taking a shot at the media, because as we discussed he really craves these peoples respect, not realizing they deserve nothing but contempt"

Sounds about right to us. Obama's models appear to be his cousin Cheney, Romney and Rove.

Tags: and Rove hillary clinton, cheney, obama, Romney (all tags)

Comments

63 Comments

Re: Obama, Cheney, Romney, and Rove

If I wanted to read that site, I'd go to it.

by JWR 2007-11-23 12:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama, Cheney, Romney, and Rove

then dont

by holden caulfield 2007-11-23 01:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama, Cheney, Romney, and Rove

Given you plagarized the site, he has a valid criticism.  What you did is not only a copyright violation but is also against MyDD's TOS... You don't copy and paste the entire article on here.  The fact the article is poorly written drivel with no redeeeming value is beside the point.  

by yitbos96bb 2007-11-23 02:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama, Cheney, Romney, and Rove

The article is great.  And they don't seem to mind if HC reprints it here.

by MollieBradford 2007-11-23 03:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama, Cheney, Romney, and Rove

And they don't seem to mind if HC reprints it here.

i didn't make that association before. holden so admires hillary, that's he picked a name that adapted to her initials. now that's strong kool aid.

by jello 2007-11-23 07:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama, Cheney, Romney, and Rove

you should read something besides Harry Potter.  You might understand the significance of his name if you did.

by MollieBradford 2007-11-24 04:54AM | 0 recs
re

sayta has a refresher on the implication of this book's character:

[...] By the way, I think Holden's choice for user name goes deeper than even he/she suspects.

The character Holden Caulfield told his story from a mental hospital and I'll let Wikipedia fill in the rest:

One of Holden's most striking and quintessential qualities is his powerful revulsion for "phony" human qualities. Qualities such as narcissism, hypocrisy, and superficiality embody Holden's concept of phoniness and Holden is adept at realizing these qualities in other people, whom he nicknames "phonies". This serves to bolster Holden's cynicism and consequently contributes to his mistrust of other people. Interestingly, despite Holden's strong disdain for phony qualities, he exhibits some of the qualities that he abhors, thereby making him a somewhat tragic character. Holden is very much a character of contradiction, he is tall for his age and already has grey hair and yet he himself admits he acts more like a 12 year old than a budding adult. He shows intelligence and yet continually fails classes.

by Satya on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 10:00:55 PM EST
[ Parent | Reply to This  

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2007/11/22/ 23397/491/91#91

by jello 2007-11-25 10:50PM | 0 recs
you are such a faker

and these women could out-think and out-write you in  if they were a-sleep, drunk, in a coma and or if they had to write upside down  - hung by their ankles - underwater in a shark tank...

false whiner...

what are you gonna be like on feb 6 i wonder?

postal?

by holden caulfield 2007-11-23 03:27PM | 0 recs
Here we go again

by Korha 2007-11-23 12:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Here we go again

everday - from here to feb 5

ad BEYOND...

by holden caulfield 2007-11-23 01:00PM | 0 recs
No need to read, no need to comment

by Piuma 2007-11-23 12:49PM | 0 recs
Re: No need to read, no need to comment

but you just couldnt HELP YOURSELF

now could ya?

by holden caulfield 2007-11-23 01:01PM | 0 recs
Re: No need to read, no need to comment

Are you this big of a douche in real life?

by yitbos96bb 2007-11-23 02:20PM | 0 recs
thankfully...

this - you'll never get to know...

but Ill think of you when im cheering on hillary in Denver in August.

by holden caulfield 2007-11-23 03:29PM | 0 recs
Re: No need to read, no need to comment

and yet you did.  

But don't feel bad, I think in addition to this particularly slimy incident from Obama, Edwards also hired his own push poll to ask his supporters about his wife's heath and his lack of money. They took gratuitous hits at Clinton too and no doubt hoped it would be blamed on Obama.
So both Obama and Edwards are acting rather scummy.  Obama is not alone.

by MollieBradford 2007-11-23 03:13PM | 0 recs
Re: No need to read, no need to comment

I think in addition to this particularly slimy incident from Obama, Edwards also hired his own push poll to ask his supporters about his wife's heath and his lack of money.

there is evidence for that?

by jello 2007-11-23 07:40PM | 0 recs
Re: No need to read, no need to comment

if there isn't any evidence for that allegation, how do you feel comfortable making that charge?

by jello 2007-11-23 07:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama, Cheney, Romney, and Rove

Advice for Hillary

A fairly prominent Clinton supporter in New Hampshire, state Rep. Jim Splaine, addresses an unusual public blog entry to Hillary, imploring her to ignore her pollsters and get past the "experience" argument:

I'll say it this way: Hillary, your "EXPERIENCE" slogan won't work. It won't get you elected. In Iowa and New Hampshire, it won't put it away for you. We're looking for more than that in our next president. We look at the candidates eye to eye, face to face. We listen carefully to your answers to our questions. That's OUR experience.

Saying you're more "experienced" than Barack Obama or John Edwards or other candidates isn't going to get people to vote for you, because in Politics 21st Century, ideas count more than ever. Ideas will get us out of Iraq, sooner than later. Ideas will get us heath care -- real, not imagined. Ideas will create an educational system that will prepare our kids for the 22nd century that many of them will touch, and in which their own children will compete.

by ReggieH 2007-11-23 12:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama, Cheney, Romney, and Rove

Oh thanks for the compliment with your TAG!

SO MY TIME ISNT WASTED HERE AFTER ALL!!

Its good to know Im having the effect I was trying for!!

but one never knows does one?

but with your shy hint...i see that...Im gettin' through to ya...

and think...I was pondering whether to just drop off of here until after feb 5 and hill locks down the nod...

but since you insist...

by holden caulfield 2007-11-23 02:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama, Cheney, Romney, and Rove

The effect you were trying to have is to get all but a small minority pissed off and flaming you?  You're really that much of a jackass to make that your stated goal.  Please... go play in traffic.

by yitbos96bb 2007-11-23 02:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama, Cheney, Romney, and Rove

naah....I want to give good bits and ammo for Hill fans to use at their respective water coolers...

pissing off you hillary hating nittwitts is just gravy!

by holden caulfield 2007-11-23 03:32PM | 0 recs
who is this dweeb?

Ideas count, but people care more about experience. So both matter and she seems to have plenty of both. Thank goodness she isn't just throwing out a lot of new ideas for the sake of it.  That doesn't work and the more other candidates do it the more I think they need to go back and bake a while longer.

by MollieBradford 2007-11-23 03:19PM | 0 recs
haha

That "Dweeb" is a very prominent Hillary supporter.  Did you even read what I posted?

by ReggieH 2007-11-23 09:04PM | 0 recs
Re: who is this dweeb?

the more she emphasizes experience, the more people are reading her as "status quo." people are weighing between change vs experience and she's put her self on the wrong end of the see-saw.

by jello 2007-11-23 09:28PM | 0 recs
Re: who is this dweeb?

Superficial, gut voting people perhaps are seeing voting for Hillary Clinton as "status quo"  Anyone with a brain and who reads more than blogs and doesn't get tehier news from Fox or MSNBC would have some perspective.  There is no comparison on experience or competence.  Obama was a part time state senator until 2 1/2 years ago. As he says "perhaps my greatest international experience is that I lived in a foreign country as a child" Give me a break- ideology over reality.  Let's try to take off the filters and the spin and do our children a favor by voting with a brain and some objectivity.  If you buy the talking points, vote for the political operative not the candidates.  David Axelrod for President- WaHoo!

by ExperienceCounts 2007-11-24 05:56AM | 0 recs
Re: who is this dweeb?

Anyone with a brain and who reads more than blogs and doesn't get tehier news from Fox or MSNBC would have some perspective.

ironic, considering your candidate, hillary, was endorsed by mr. fox news, rupert murdoch.

by jello 2007-11-25 11:08PM | 0 recs
Re: who is this dweeb?

As he says "perhaps my greatest international experience is that I lived in a foreign country as a child"

ever heard of "taking a quote out of context" ?

you missed what obama said before that soundbite was selectively cut:

obama: "I sit on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  So I have frequent interaction with world leaders who come to visit here, and I take trips on various fact-finding missions, whether it's Iraq or Russia or Africa.  But, you know, probably, the strongest experience I have in foreign relations is the fact that I spent four years living overseas when I was a child in Southeast Asia."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21963747/pag e/2/

obama has more experience than his critics are letting on.

by jello 2007-11-25 11:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama, Cheney, Romney, and Rove

Was it when you were at college playing football that you got into the habit of having other people write your assignments for you?

by Shaun Appleby 2007-11-23 12:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama, Cheney, Romney, and Rove

actually - at light blue - we were only graded for papers and one final -

I would do my papers in a buzzy flash of a couple days -

and other peoples for beer and illegal stuff..

but I do swoon for these gals...

theyre better than anybody else out there...

by holden caulfield 2007-11-23 01:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama, Cheney, Romney, and Rove

Yes, well, there's no stopping you.  By the way, keep your fingers crossed Labor wins by a landslide here today.  The locals are voting at the local primary school down in the village as I write.  I love elections...

by Shaun Appleby 2007-11-23 01:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama, Cheney, Romney, and Rove

some press here that howards campaign is faltering...and that Rudd is very clinton like in his proposals..

LETS HOPE SO!

by holden caulfield 2007-11-23 02:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama, Cheney, Romney, and Rove

Clinton-like?  Not exactly.  In fact Rudd is charting new territory here and winning a populist victory during a time of unprecedented prosperity which has marginalised the middle-class.  It's all about the disparity between not being able to afford a first home on a typical wage when the wealthy are living extravagantly.  Sound familiar?  It's a core labour value and the centrepiece of Rudd's campaign.  He's gone Bill and Blair one better.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-11-23 03:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama, Cheney, Romney, and Rove

Mr Rudd has trimmed the tax cuts to $31 billion, deferring cuts to the top rate, and pledged to increase the childcare rebate from 30 per cent to 50per cent. He has offered similar tax incentives to Mr Howard for education and first-home ownership. To boost his credentials as a candidate for the future, Mr Rudd has made building a high-speed broadband network and the provision of a computer to all senior high school students a centrepiece of his campaign. On climate change, Mr Rudd has promised the largely symbolic gesture of ratifying the Kyoto protocol but mirrored the Government's core position that any post-Kyoto agreement must include China and India. He has promised a carrot-and-stick approach to forcing state governments to improve health services or lose responsibility for them and a razor gang to cut the fat from what he says is a bloated public service.

Mr Rudd claims his background as a senior public servant with the Goss government in Queensland and the network of state Labor administrations will be an advantage to his reform plans. Mr Howard is keen to portray wall-to-wall Labor as a great threat.

right outta of our playbook...

by holden caulfield 2007-11-23 03:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama, Cheney, Romney, and Rove

You're missing the message in the confetti.  It's a single issue campaign, labour/employer relations.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-11-23 03:54PM | 0 recs
3.6million unionists support clintton

obama has...hundreds...

by holden caulfield 2007-11-25 05:02PM | 0 recs
Re: 3.6million unionists support clintton

they're idiots then, because nafta and china trade deal the clintons endorsed - killed unions.

by jello 2007-11-25 09:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama, Cheney, Romney, and Rove

Obama is definitely playing a filthy form of politics.  Don't worry.  It will backfire.

by Regan 2007-11-23 01:02PM | 0 recs
bigtime

in a couple of years, after being cut off by the new power democratic structure for his dirty deeds, he will be back in IL, running for Governor....and dreaming that someday, somehow, like he has dreamed since he was a kid...he will get to hear "hail to the...""

but THAT will never ever happen...

by the way...wheres Bill Bradley these days......?

by holden caulfield 2007-11-23 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama, Cheney, Romney, and Rove

Once again, Holden Caufield has been "the catcher in the rye," and has caught the essence of Senator Obama's campaign.

Like GWB, the least qualified and most incompetent of all United States presidents, whom Obama exemplifies, and would like to follow, his mantra has ever been that one shouldn't consider the fact that two years of experience on the national stage doesn't make one ready for the United States presidency.

He has been sold, from the outset, by the MSM and their coterie, including Oprah Winfrey, as the pill to divorce the nation from Bushes and Clintons.

Truth be told, GWB could not have a better imitator than Obama, both in his Rovian tactics and in his woeful inadequacy for the Executive Office.

His performance in the Las Vegas debate, the most watched of all Democratic candidates debates all year, was so obviously dismal, it should have all but eliminated him from contention.

The national Rasmussen poll revealed this very fact--Senator Clinton in the 40s and Senator Obama down to a lethal 17 percent, as of this past Wednesday.

But that, alas, is not what Rove (by way of his recent marriage with Newsweek and company; thus Russert, Matthews and Williams and the remaining anti-Clinton crew) and his MSM had in mind.

Senator Clinton was supposed to have been falling by way of the previous Philadelphia debate.  Instead, her national poll numbers remained very strong.

Her knock-out performance in Las Vegas should have obliterated her principal rivals Senator Obama and former Senator Edwards.

But again, that is not the narrative Rove and the MSM had in mind.

Thus the concoction of the story by way of Novak, through Obama, and by the Rovian playbook.  Thus the playing up of an Iowa poll and a bizarre Zogby survey (the least professional and the most consistently wrong in the past two election cycles).

We Clinton fans are veterans of the smear campaigns going back some fifteen years.

It is why we are always amused by poll numbers showing Senator Clinton has "high negatives."  

Yet, astonishingly--not by those who know her best, be it New York, New Jersey, or Arkansas.  There she renains strong and her many and politically diverse fans admire her steadfastly.

Whereas those who know the MSM honey best, Rudy Giuliani, want nothing whatever to do with him.

But, now, how to elect the Roger Ailes/Karl Rove honey for 2008 (following the tradition of getting elected transmogrified film star Ronnie Reagan, lisping hasn't-got-a-clue George Bush I and wholly incompetent George Bush II)--well, next year, that can only be achieved by having MSM honey Senator Obama and bitter trial lawyer former Senator Edwards serve also on the daily Hillary Clinton firing squad.

Of course, much of the blogosophere lives to hate her as well, but, aside from her vote on the Iraqi war, never can account for why.

They, like the millions of other MSM pushed detractors, only know that they hate the Clintons because they hate the Clintons.

The fact that they presided over peace and prosperity, with a highly polished group of officials at their side--from Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore to ambassador now Governor Bill Richardson--matters not.

And the fact that the administration that followed the Clintons has left the country in shambles, matters not.

Nor does it even matter that a veritable gangster named Rudy Giuliani, created in the Rovian false imagery of 9/11 and who worships at the altar of GWB, would follow the ruins that is now the United States, with more ruins so that the nation resemble a stone-age environment.

"They" who are the MSM/Rove/Ailes/Obama/Edwards/talking heads Russert, Williams, Matthews/the frenetic blogosophere/ only know that they hate the Clintons.

But this time, America is at the very bottom.  It is either the choice of maturity, seasoned political comprehension, and full competence in 2008--and only Senator Clinton fits that bill this time--or, like the USSR some two decades earlier, the United States had better ready itself for an implosion.

The MSM and their cronies can only mythologize for so long before the inevitable collapse.

by lambros 2007-11-23 01:11PM | 0 recs
boy - do you have it dead right...

but i didnt write this one - this came from mi amigas at hillaryis44.com

I think its important to share their work on this blog.

and not just because it makes some of the hillary haters foam at the mouth...

though that is a bonus!

by holden caulfield 2007-11-23 01:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama, Cheney, Romney, and Rove

I love that anytime Senator Clinton is challenged it has to be because her opponents are slandering her and they are under some type of right-wing spell.  Get a grip its politics.

by Jim Engler 2007-11-23 01:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama, Cheney, Romney, and Rove

read something besides that what agrees with your pov jimbo...it would do you good...

by holden caulfield 2007-11-23 02:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama, Cheney, Romney, and Rove

i've been reading your diaries lately haven't I????

by Jim Engler 2007-11-24 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama, Cheney, Romney, and Rove

good point!

by holden caulfield 2007-11-25 05:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama, Cheney, Romney, and Rove

Which is ironic, since She is BY FAR the most right wing of any of the Democratic Candidates.  

by yitbos96bb 2007-11-23 02:23PM | 0 recs
DEEP!

by holden caulfield 2007-11-23 03:42PM | 0 recs
ROFL

not even close, but keep drinking that sugary colored water.

by MollieBradford 2007-11-23 04:43PM | 0 recs
I know it hurts that Obama nipped it in the bud


the clinton oppo research team was nipped in the bud with its wispering campaign. it hurts so bad that they can't stop talking about it.

People don't trust bill clinton and his wife, Senator Clinton nor Mark Penn and his right wing operatives. When you smell anything fishy from them, you must respond loudly and quickly.

When only a quarter of dems think you're honest, you have a problem.

When Mark Penn stops swimming with lobbyists and right wing operatives people will give the clinton machine the benefit of the doubt.

by pmb 2007-11-23 02:34PM | 0 recs
nice try, but Obama

has been playing dirty for months.  If he should win the nomination because of his behavior that will be too bad.... not just because this kind of behavior shouldn't pay off, but because he will be a very inexperienced President with nothing to offer but too much ambition.

by MollieBradford 2007-11-23 04:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama, Cheney, Romney, and Rove

In general, you are really doing a disservice to our cause when you smear Obama and Edwards. Lets not stoop to the level of rssrai, Vox Populi, TomP, Derek Larrson or ReggieH.

Post something that highlights Clinton's record and expresses her favorably.

by RJEvans 2007-11-23 03:25PM | 0 recs
Ive done that too

note my piece on hillary veteran support and her support from native americans...

but you dot brig a pea shooter to a gu fight..

and I dont care a those people -

Im mad at gibbs and obama -

and i want their falseness and their use of right wing and media attacks exposed to "thinking" dems.

sorry...but ...until Obama and gibbs stop with their smears - Ill continue to respond.

Dont worry, itll all be over in just over a month...

by holden caulfield 2007-11-23 03:48PM | 0 recs
Ooh, I made your short list.

How exciting!

Let's get our causal relations straight here, though.  Folks like HC here are the reason why many of those on your short list have found it necessary to "stoop" as you so aptly put it.

Regardless, I strongly appreciate the sentiment of your post in which you try to persuade Holden to post something that highlights Clinton's record and expresses her favorably rather than something that smears Edwards or Obama.  This is a step in the right direction.

by ReggieH 2007-11-23 09:08PM | 0 recs
Hillary, Bush, Iraq and War

This is fun ...

by JoeCoaster 2007-11-23 05:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama, Cheney, Romney, and Rove

I thought it made Obama look bad by going after Hillary instead of Novak- granted, the general public most likely did not pay much attention to any of it and dismissed it but for hardcore democrats, there has to be a bit of concern that Obama is too inexperienced to wage an effective General Election campaign when he keeps falling into these Republican traps so easily without properly weighing the effects of his answers.

by reasonwarrior 2007-11-23 07:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama, Cheney, Romney, and Rove

obama gave the hillary campaign multiple chances to disavow the charges. they dragged their foot doing so. why the reticence?

by jello 2007-11-23 07:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama, Cheney, Romney, and Rove

I thought he was naive, and he is, but his campaign staff is not and they knew exactly what they were doing blaming Clinton for something they knew she didn't do.  Obama is just one more scummy politician.  Do we need another naive inexperienced  president easily lead around by his sleazy staff?

by MollieBradford 2007-11-24 05:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama, Cheney, Romney, and Rove

when you can't refute an argument, mollie, do a drive-by troll rating.

by jello 2007-11-24 08:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama, Cheney, Romney, and Rove

Obama does not want to answer questions about Rezko or about his previous non-public life.

i, too, seek answers. such as why did arab sheiks help fund clinton's library? think hillary will tell us why?

by jello 2007-11-23 07:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama, Cheney, Romney, and Rove

do you have to take up the whole front page? why can't you put the bulk of the piece after the fold, like other posters have the curtesy of doing.

by jello 2007-11-23 08:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama, Cheney, Romney, and Rove

Bunch of spin. Nothing more.

by dmc2 2007-11-24 03:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Nasty post, nasty poster

I feel like I need a bath after reading this disgusting piece of filth.  Your thought process escapes me, do you actually think this stuff is going to have any impact on anyone who does not already share your warped perspective?

There seems to be a certain aggressive, mean-spiritedness to a certain sub-set of HRC supporters.  It does not reflect well on her.

Exchanging ideas, even arguing forcefully for our preferred candidate, is great, but trying to destroy, degrade, or ridicule fellow Dems does not seem the least bit constructive.  After all we are going to need to coalesce around a nominee in a few short months. Didn't your momma teach you any manners?

by upper left 2007-11-24 08:27AM | 0 recs
duh...no!

it is to give hillary supporters here ammo to use against hillary haters in their offics etc...

by holden caulfield 2007-11-25 05:06PM | 0 recs
Re: duh...no!

I don't hate Hillary, I do strongly dislike the way that the Clinton's practice politics:  spinning the media, planting oppo pieces, pandering to any and all, and sucking up to corporate interests.

I do dispise your smug, smirky, self-satisfied tone.  What if your candidate looses?  Do you feel any responsibility for damaging other Dem candidates.  A little strategic thinking on your part wouldn't hurt.

Bottom line, I think HRC has a huge "authenticity" problem that would make her the most vulnerable nominee Dems could put forward.  If she wins, I will support her inspite of my doubts.  Will you do the same if Obama manages to win the nomination?

by upper left 2007-11-26 07:24PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads