Are the Obama people really that dumb? They were "surprised," "caught off guard" by the massive dirtstorm unleashed on healthcare reform?

These are the geniuses of 11-dimensional chess? Puhleeze. I think they've started to believe their own press. Obama the Healer, Obama the Post-Racial Lincoln. What a bunch of damned dopes.

Dick Polman, the Philadelphia Inquirer political reporter, is also astounded at just how unprepared Team Obama was for the attacks on healthcare reform:

During the 1993-4 health care reform battle, the Clinton White House was outmaneuvered by the Republican right and their corporate allies, who swayed the electorate with all kinds of devious hyperbole. And, more recently, in the 2004 presidential race, John Kerry and his advisers sat back and did nothing for three crucial summer weeks, absolutely convinced that voters would never believe the Swift Boat attacks on his Vietnam record. That strategy worked out pretty well.

And now we have the Obama people, waking up to the idea that maybe it's not politically wise to sit mute and allow themselves to be tarred as fascists who would euthanize granny, ration health care, and slash Medicare benefits. (It's priceless to hear the Republicans portraying themselves as the defenders of Medicare, given the fact that, if they had been in charge back in 1965, they never would have enacted Medicare in the first place. But I digress.)

The Republican right understands the power of the visceral; it knows how to stoke emotions at the expense of civility. This is not exactly a fresh observation, yet it's amazing how flat-footed Democrats seem always to discover it anew. They seem forever convinced that the power of high ideals should be sufficient for victory - that, in the present case, Americans should simply be convinced, on the merits, that health care reform is preferable to the dysfunctional status quo. As Howard Paster, Clinton's health care guy in 1993, told The Times this morning, "The expectation (among the Obama people) was that things have gotten so bad in the last 16 years that there would be a consensus on the need to act this time."

But that's not how the other team plays the game. Indeed, numerous Democratic strategists and commentators have been trying to make this point for a long time. A couple years ago, for instance, radio host and ex-California Democratic chairman Bill Press offered this advise to his brethren: "In politics, if somebody slaps you on the cheek, you punch him in the nose. Then you punch him in the gut. Then you kick him in the groin. Then you crack a chair over his head. Then, just to make sure, you jump up and down on top of him with both feet...The only way to win is to fight back. Hard and tough. If they don't, they don't deserve to win."

Press was characteristically a tad over the top, but his basic point was that Democrats should stop being surprised to learn that politics ain't beanbag. This is not to suggest that Obama should retaliate by retailing lies equal in virulence to those being spewed by his opponents; if he was to conduct himself as his opponents are doing, he would be promptly attacked for failing to change the tone in Washington.

His best option is to do what he probably should have done months ago: find an attractively repeatable health reform pitch that can fit on a bumper sticker, something that can appeal to positive emotions. (Perhaps if Obama had done that during the spring, he could have at least partially preempted the nabobs of negativity.) Indeed, there are reports today that Obama will now pitch his plan as a vehicle for ending unfair insurance practices, for protecting the millions of Americans who have pre-existing health conditions.

Maybe a positive emotional pitch can still work - unless it is too little, too late, and insufficient weaponry for an alley fight.

FOX News star Fred Barnes called Nancy Pelosi a liar over the issue of what she knew or didn't know about waterboarding. The CIA has not been persuasive with their smears of Pelosi because they haven't released the facts, just innuendo, to muddy up the water regarding torture. If they have the goods, well, then release it and we can talk about Nancy.

Barnes launches on a psycho-babble rant that is nonsensical and outright repulsive. He puts forth evidence of the success of torture when there isn't any, and describes Pelosi's motives like she wrote them in an op-ed. Maybe she talked to him off the record like all the Democratic sources Robert Novak always claimed to have. And let's not forget. Nancy Pelosi was not part of the torture discussion that the Bush Administration had when they decided torturing people was fine for America to be involved with. They implemented it before she was ever supposedly briefed about it. They committed crimes without her knowledge. It's all a smoke screen to take the heat of of them.
Shame on Barnes.

Glenn Greenwald wrote this a few days ago:

I'm truly amazed to watch the eruption of "controversy" today over the fact that Nancy Pelosi was briefed in 2002 on various aspects of the CIA's interrogation program, as though (a) this is some sort of new revelation and (b) it has any bearing on whether there should be investigations and prosecutions into Bush crimes. As many of us have long pointed out, the extent to which Democratic leaders in Congress were complicit in Bush lawbreaking -- including torture -- is a major issue that needs resolution, and is almost certainly a key reason why there have been no investigations thus far. There are real disputes still about what these Democrats were and were not told -- how complete the briefings were, the extent to which they obfuscated rather than illuminated what the CIA was doing -- though they were obviously told enough to have warranted further action on their part, to say the least.

But what's the point of all of this? Secretly telling Nancy Pelosi that you're committing crimes doesn't mean that you have the right to do so. And the profound failures of the other institutions that are supposed to check executive lawbreaking during the Bush era -- principally Congress and the "opposition party" -- is a vital issue that demands serious examination. This dispute over what Pelosi (and Jay Rockefeller and others) knew highlights, rather than negates, the need for a meaningful investigation into what took place.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1921)

PLAYS: (6701)

If the Republican Party wants to go on a listening tour to figure out what they need to do, they may start turning off their radios and televisions too. Every day we post about the absurdity that is the Republican Party and every day a completely new mind-numbing smear comes out.

I understand what they are doing. They feel if they keep chipping away at President Obama with nonsensical complaints, it will slowly erode his popularity. The problem they face is that they look like loons doing it, and all the polls point to the same conclusion. It's good for ratings on FOX, because those uber-loons are watching the little horde of Republican lunatics in action with a fervent glee, but mainstream America is laughing at them.

The new one is that Obama had the nerve, the nerve I tell you! of ordering Dijon mustard with his overcooked burger, and the media is covering up that fact.

As usual, Sean Hannity and the right wingnutosphere are all over it like Dijon on fries.

Following President Obama's May 5 visit to Ray's Hell Burger in Arlington, Virginia, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and Rush Limbaugh Show guest host Mark Steyn criticized Obama as an elitist because he ordered a burger with "spicy mustard" or "Dijon mustard." Hannity claimed that Obama ordered a "fancy burger" with a "very special condiment," while Steyn asserted Obama is trying "to enlighten us" through his order. Ingraham asked of Obama: "What kind of man orders a cheeseburger without ketchup but Dijon mustard? ... The guy orders a cheeseburger without ketchup? What is that?" In their discussions of Obama's burger order, Hannity, Ingraham, and Steyn all referenced a Grey Poupon commercial featuring actors portraying wealthy British men expressing desire for the mustard.

I happen to like the spicy taste of Dijon too. Hey. I noticed there's a Hate Hannity Hotline. I hope I make it there sometimes. He's too cowardly to have me on his show, so I'd really like to make the Hotline.

TIME magazine rips the Republican Party apart as Rep. Patrick McHenry says that Reaganism is dead.

Continue reading »

It didn't take long for The New Republic's Jeffrey Rosen to attack Sonia Sotomayor by using anonymous sources throughout his piece. And don't you just love how the whole tone of the piece is about what a crazy, hot-tempered Latina she is? Nothing like trading in racial stereotypes to smear someone. (That's the subtext of the Morning Joe segment above, too.)

Of course, it's not just Rosen: Think Progress reports it's coming from all the good Villagers.

Glenn Greenwald does a thorough debunking of the smears and also includes his own personal experiences with Sonia to add some real context to the type of person she is.

Jeffrey Rosen's New Republic smear of Sonia Sotomayor's intellect and character -- based almost exclusively on anonymous, gossiping "sources" -- is such a model of shoddy, irresponsible, and (ironically enough) intellectually shallow "journalism" that it ought to be studied carefully. Standing alone, it reveals quite a bit about anonymity-dependent "reporting" generally, The New Republic specifically, and how much of our political discourse is conducted. Most of the gaping flaws in Rosen's piece have been fully highlighted by others.

While most of those criticisms have focused on Rosen's horrendous use of anonymous sources -- one of the most apt reactions to Rosen's piece comes, appropriately enough, in the form of well-earned derision from Wonkette -- I highly recommend this post from Law Professor Darren Hutchinson...

read on...

It's really quite sad when Rosen ends his own piece like this:

I haven’t read enough of Sotomayor’s opinions to have a confident sense of them, nor have I talked to enough of Sotomayor’s detractors and supporters, to get a fully balanced picture of her strengths. It’s possible that the former clerks and former prosecutors I talked to have an incomplete picture of her abilities.

Why didn't he just start his piece with this part and then say he'd get back to us? You know, it would be helpful if he was going to preview Sonya Sotomayor to have a more "complete picture," don't you think? Yeah, it's so much easier to smear her character by hanging out at the water cooler than actually do some research.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1554)

PLAYS: (1859)

Dick Cheney joined Sean Hannity last night on FOX in one of his "exclusive" interviews with FOX and claimed that President Obama's hand shake with Hugo Chavez along with his other trips out of the country are making him appear like a "weak" President which will lead the world to take advantage of him. Have you ever seen an ex-VP, who was basically booed out of the White House come out so fast and so vicious in the usual "politics of personal destruction?" It truly is embarrassing. Hannity as usual clipped Obama's statements and did his usual character assassinations in keeping with the hackery that he's known for.

Hannity: We have a President who's critical of our economic system, he's apologizing seemingly for our super power status around the world. Apologizing for America in general. It's been described as going on an "apologizing tour" and doesn't seem to like to tell the good story of America...

I guess I've been concerned the way we have been presented overseas..

Former Vice President Dick Cheney told Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity that President Obama’s handshake with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez “was not helpful” and could lead “foes” of the U.S. to “think they’re dealing with a weak president.”

Cheney: I find disturbing is the extent to which he has gone to Europe, for example, and seemed to apologize profusely in Europe, and then to Mexico, and apologize there, and so forth,” “And I think you have to be very careful. The world outside there, both our friends and our foes, will be quick to take advantage of a situation if they think they’re dealing with a weak president or one who is not going to stand up and aggressively defend America’s interests.

This was a very touching moment for the VICE, him being all worried for President Obama and all.

Digby has been following the Conservative Illuminati as they do their best to try and smear Obama with Blagojevich.

Today on MSNBC, Shuster had on Pat Buchanan who said that Obama reacted "abnormally" to the Blagojevich news and failed to disclose which of his aides may have spoken to the Governor about his seat. Harold Ford very ineffectually defended Obama.

Buchanan replied:

Let me tell you, the problem is not that Rahm Emmanuel or Axelrod are involved in some deal.It is that they may be "tainted" by the fact that they talked to a Governor who is trolling and selling his Senate seat. They may have talked to him and if they did, they are supposed to report that to the US Attorney. Let me tell you Harold, a lot of my friends in the Nixon white house didn't do a thing when some guy came running in saying our guys just got caught breaking in and they didn't do anything with it.

{snip}

It's politics as scandal theatre, where Obama is judged by his performance on opening night. You can see by the energy and excitement among the gasbags that they want nothing more than to wallow in this thing as long as they can.

The Media are doing their very best to smear Obama and make ridiculous accusations and conclusions when Fitzgerald did not.

The Politico's awkward attemp to hype the Blago/Obama drama

AP's Sidoti smears Obama

The WSJ's awkward attempt to hype the Blago/Obama "ties"

Bob Cesca has found the word of the day.

Obama Unfairly Tainted by Crimes He Didn't Commit

Murray Waas is reporting:

So who put together that last minute national television buy of those advertisements featuring the Rev. Jeremiah Wright?

As it turns out, Scott Wheeler, the executive director of the National Republican Trust PAC, the group which paid for and produced the ad buy– worked on the infamous Clinton Chronicles– the discredited documentary that accused Bill Clinton of murdering his political opponents, engaging in drug running, and all kinds of other nefarious things that were largely either imaginary or fabricated. For those who don’t recall, or are too young to know, with the backing of the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, more than 400,000 copies of the video were distributed and although the film’s allegations were rightfully marginalized in the mainstream, the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page amplified– sometimes as legitimate– many of the film’s most lurid allegations.

Here is an article I did way back in 1998 about how the Falwell backed Citizens for Honest Government often paid “witnesses” who had lurid stories to tell about Clinton to compensate them for appearing in the Clinton Chronicles and other conspiratorial films about Clinton which they produced. Many of the false allegations made by the “witnesses”– sometimes influenced by payments arranged by the group– were repeated as gospel on the Wall Street Journal editorial page, on the pages of the American Spectator, and on talk radio...read on

Murray has the Rev. Wright ad up on his blog. This is pretty despicable stuff, but McCain has sold his soul for a chance at the White House. You have to believe that Rick Davis and McCain knew this was coming.

The wingnut website run by Charles Johnson, who attacked kidnapped journalist Jill Carroll when she was first released channels the ghost of Lee Atwater and says: America is close to electing a President who compares his own country to Nazi Germany.

Oliver Willis explains:

To Attack Obama, Little Green Footballs Defends Segregation

With a week to go it's only going to get worse. I'm waiting for the headline on FOX News that says:

Obama is an Alien, but the MSM doesn't want you to know!

Do everything you can to Get Out The Vote. Our country can't stand four more years of this garbage.

I've been trying to ignore this jerk lately, (it seems McCain has kept him off of the TV screen. Probably bad internal polling numbers) but it's time I did a little update because one of the benefits that we'll all receive if Obama wins the election will be to see Joe Lieberman get his reward for betraying Obama and becoming McCain's side kick just to save a dying political career. Maybe he'll even get a job as a FOX News analyst. He does join the FOX News, right wing chorus when he says:

NAPOLITANO: Hey Sen. Lieberman, you know Barack Obama, is he a Marxist as Bill Kristol says might be the case in today’s New York Times? Is he an elitist like your colleague Hillary Clinton says he is?

LIEBERMAN: Well, you know, I must say that’s a good question. I know him now for a little more than three years since he came into the Senate and he’s obviously very smart and he’s a good guy. I will tell ya that during this campaign, I’ve learned some things about him, about the kind of environment from which he came ideologically. And I wouldn’t…I’d hesitate to say he’s a Marxist, but he’s got some positions that are far to the left of me and I think mainstream America.

He knows full well Obama is not a Marxist.

And Digby has more.

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, one of John McCain’s closest political allies, said Friday he does not believe that Barack Obama is unprepared to be president.

“I’m saying he is less prepared than McCain,” Lieberman said.

But what about Sarah Palin?

Is she ready?

“If, God forbid, an accident occurs or something of that kind?” Lieberman said. “Um, she’ll be ready. You know, she’s had executive experience. She’s smart and she will have had on-the-job training.”…

“[McCain] is ready to be our president at this very difficult time,” Lieberman said. “And Sen. Obama is not as ready. It’s as direct as that.”

And you thought this type of hatred was just regional.

Sacramento County Republican leaders Tuesday took down
offensive material on their official party Web site that sought to link Sen. Barack Obama to Osama bin Laden and encouraged people to "Waterboard Barack Obama" – material that offended even state GOP leaders.

Taking credit for the site (sacramentorepublicans.org) and its content was county party chairman Craig MacGlashan – husband of Sacramento County Supervisor Roberta MacGlashan.

The Bee asked MacGlashan about the content after seeking his reaction to hate-filled graffiti that was spray-painted over an Obama display on a fence at Fair Oaks Boulevard and Garfield Avenue.

In recent weeks, MacGlashan, an attorney, joined local Democratic party officials in condemning vandalism to political displays.

The vandalism to the Obama display appeared to have been done overnight Monday. A racial epithet, profanity, "KKK" and the words "white power" were clearly visible from the roadway. Six of the nine fence panels were defaced.

"What you are describing to me is not free speech, it's vandalism. We don't condone it," MacGlashan said.

But he defended his Web site. "I'm aware of the content," he said. "Some people find it offensive, others do not. I cannot comment on how people interpret things."

Move over Rush Limbaugh, you have some company. I've talked about the far reaching tentacles right wing hate talk radio have sunk deep into our society, well obviously it's even in CA. I'm sure Bill O'Reilly will do a segment on this, right?

UPDATE: More GOP racism directed at Obama.

- A San Bernardino County Republican group has distributed a newsletter picturing Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on a $10 bill adorned with a watermelon, ribs and a bucket of fried chicken.

Pam sez: How about some Obama ribs 'n chicken...plus a nice slice of watermelon for the darkie?....what's with the bucket of KFC?

Back in August, Republican presidential candidate John McCain stunned the audience at Pastor Rick Warren's Saddleback Forum by citing Democratic Congressman and civil rights icon John Lewis as one of the "wisest people that you know that you would rely on heavily in an administration." On Saturday, Lewis offered McCain some sage advice - and a stern warning - about the disgusting turn his increasingly ugly campaign had taken. Unsurprisingly, the supposed maverick shunned his supposed adviser's wisdom that the McCain campaign and its Republican allies were "playing with fire" by "sowing the seeds of hatred and division."

At Warren's Saddleback event with Barack Obama this summer, McCain surprised many by adding Lewis to a troika of trusted advisers featuring the usual suspects General David Petraeus and former Bay CEO Meg Whitman:

WARREN: This first question deals with leadership and the personal life of leadership. First question, who were the three wisest people that you know that you would rely on heavily in an administration?

MCCAIN: [...] I think John Lewis. John Lewis was at the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Had his skull fractured. Continues to serve. Continues to have the most optimistic outlook about America. He can teach us all a lot about the meaning of courage and commitment to causes greater than ourself...

Afterwards, Congressman Lewis responded to the news of his previously unknown role as a Republican presidential adviser by noting:

Continue reading »

Andrea Mitchell hit Tucker Bounds hard over the Ayers attacks by John McCain and Sarah Palin. (rough transcript)

Mitchell: There's been no question that there's been an exaggeration in a lot of the things Sarah Palin has said about the relationship. Why do that? What are you trying to suggest? Are you trying to make Barack Obama seem to be some sort of terrorist himself? This man has been running for President for the last two years and has been vetted through twenty two primary debates. Already two debates in the general election. Um, What's your point?

Bounds: Well I think most Americans who are sitting at home watching television sets know that they don't have any friends that they've gone to their living rooms and helped with their career that are also...

Mitchell: Even calling him a friend Tucker, I mean, even calling him a friend is an overstatement according to all the fact checking that we've been able to do.
{}

Mitchell: That was the board of Walter Annenberg, a stalwart Republican who created an education foundation in Chicago.

Bounds: I'm not indicting the board. I don't think there's a problem with the board. I think there's a problem with having an unrepentant terrorist who's your friend and then going before the American people and them misrepresenting

It's not a problem that Walter Annenberg's money was used apparently for the Republicans.
Bounds sounds just like Sean Hannity. Shameful.

Joe Klein is very, very shrill and I have to say I agree with him.
Embarracuda

I'm of two minds about how to deal with the McCain campaign's further descent into ugliness. Their strategy is simple: you throw crap against a wall and then giggle as the media try to analyze the putresence in a way that conveys a sense of balance: "Well, it is bull-pucky, but the splatter pattern is interesting..." which, of course, only serves to get your perverse message out. I really don't want to be a part of that. But...every so often, we journalists have a duty to remind readers just how dingy the McCain campaign, and its right-wing acolytes in the media (I'm looking at you, Sean Hannity) have become--especially in their efforts to divert public attention from the economic crisis we're facing. And so inept at it: other campaigns have decided that their only shot is going negative, but usually they don't announce it, as several McCain aides have in recent days--there's no way we can win on the economy, so we're going to go sludge-diving.

But since we are dealing with manure here, I'll put the rest of this post below the fold...read on

McCain's camp will keep spinning this over and over again. Even O'Reilly scolded McCain for using this.

  Download | play   Download | play (h/t BillW)

Nancy, I know you're better than that.

Apparently she's not, David.

Shuster does a good job at debunking the lipstick/pig idiocy that Pfotenhauer tries to peddle, but it's still another day that this story dominates the airwaves and it's another day McCain wins in the media wars.

Never let it be said that Republicans and their counterparts in the conservative blogosphere (yes, Ann "I Like To Drink Wine and Blog About American Idol" Althouse, I'm looking right at you) can't attempt to manufacture a scandal out of thin air that shows just how stupid they are. 

The impetus of this scandal is this article from Reuters, which breathlessly described the set for the upcoming speech by Barack Obama at Invesco Stadium as looking like an ancient Greek temple since there will be a series of columns behind from which Obama will appear and then walk onto a raised stage.

So Ann "Liberal Boobies Enrage Me" Althouse whips herself up into a righteous indignation, which is promptly echoed throughout the other sites.  (I won't dignify her with a link, look it up) How dare Obama?  Is he trying to suggest that he's a God or something???  The presumption! Do you see how messianic he is? His supporters are like a cult! (imagine her furious fingers typing away)

But see, here's the problem, Ann.  You clearly haven't traveled.  If you had actually ever gone to the seat of our federal government, Washington DC, guess what you'd see?  Columns!  Know why?  Because most of our federal buildings were designed in an architectural style called...wait for it...Greek Revival.  Which means, you know, lots of columns.  Like the ones in the front and back of the White House--where Obama will reside in January, by the way.  And the ones in front of the Lincoln Memorial, where exactly 45 years ago today, Martin Luther King gave a speech in which he said these words:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

So today, Ann "I'm a law professor, but I don't know how to correctly interpret judges' rulings" Althouse, Barack Obama will take the stage, designed symbolically to be reminiscent of the city from where he will be leading this country, and the site of one of the most stirring orations in our history (is this too nuanced for your conservative brain?), and accept the nomination of the Democratic Party for the Presidency of the United States, having earned that nomination not because of the color of his skin, but because of the content of his character.  It is the fulfillment of that dream  Martin Luther King espoused 45 years ago.  A dream that your conservative compatriots have worked endlessly to suppress.

Doesn't that make your righteous indignation over Greek temples and Greek gods seem just so pathetically ignorant?  By the way, do you have any memory of the stage from which George Bush accepted his nomination? Don't look now, but there were columns!  *gasp!* 

UPDATE:  That presumptuous John McCain! Is he trying to insinuate he's some sort of Greek God? (h/t Aimee)