April 23, 2008
Last Night's Results from Pennsylvania: The Top Ten List of Undisputed Facts Showing Barack Obama's Weakness in the General Election (Lanny Davis)
Lanny Davis is a supporter, friend and fundraiser for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.). — Ed.
Let's forget about the spin on all sides and not use any adjectives to modify the following 10 facts, which should not be in dispute:
1. Hillary Clinton won by 10 percent, 220,000 votes, despite most of the polls in the last several weeks on RealClearPolitics, including its RCP all-poll average, showing her ahead by single digits and dropping. The exit polls showed her winning by +5. (It's easy to forget that she won if you listen to the Barack Obama spinners last night and today. Believe it or not, Pennsylvania's Rep. Patrick Murphy, D, a freshman congressman who supported Sen. Obama, D-Ill., actually said last night on “Larry King” that Obama did so well in losing to Sen. Clinton yesterday, he has the "wind at his back." I am not kidding.)
2. Sen. Obama tried hard to win the state, campaigned intensely throughout the state for most of the last six weeks — and was trying to win, not just lose by a narrow margin.
3. He spent $11 million on media — about three times more than Sen. Clinton.
4. Most of his ads were personal negative attack ads against Sen. Clinton, meaning attacks on her character and integrity.
5. There were no personal attack ads run by Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania.
6. Barack Obama hasn't won one of the major industrial states that historically constitute the key "battlegrounds” for both parties, i.e., the states in the last three or four presidential elections that have switched back and forth between the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates.
7. The reason that he lost can be found in the demographic data: He lost — and Sen. Clinton won — by substantial margins blue-collar and middle-class white voters earning under $50,000 a year, senior citizens, rural voters, Hispanic voters and female voters — all core constituencies in the Democratic base that must be won if a Democrat is to win the White House. For example, yesterday in Pennsylvania she won Roman Catholics by 32 percent (66-34), union households by 18 percent (59-41), and those most concerned about the economy by 16 points (58-42). Only 60 percent of Democratic Catholic voters said they would vote for Mr. Obama in a general election.
8. Barack Obama has lost these same demographic groups in Massachusetts, Ohio, Texas, California and New Jersey and other major states that Sen. Clinton won. There is a factual pattern of his weakness among these demographic groups in virtually every primary state that cannot be disputed.
9. Barack Obama is in a statistical dead heat with John McCain in Massachusetts. A recent Survey USA poll of registered voters found 48 percent backed Sen. Obama vs. 46 percent for Sen. McCain — within the margin of error. The same poll showed Sen. Clinton with a 15 percent lead over McCain. The last time a Democrat did not win Massachusetts by a substantial margin was 1980, when Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter. Even in the historic landslide election of Richard Nixon in 1972, when he won 49 states, only Massachusetts supported Sen. McGovern. Sen. Obama currently runs considerably behind Sen. McCain in Florida and Ohio, while Sen. Clinton is ahead in both of those key battleground states.
10. Current polls show Sen. Clinton running ahead of or dead even with John McCain nationally — and Sen. Obama runs only dead even. For example, in the most recent USA Today national general election poll, Sen. Clinton leads Sen. McCain by +6; Sen. Obama leads by less than the margin of error, +2.
Those are the facts. To all superdelegates: You decide who is riskier as a general election candidate — the candidate whose negatives, driven by the right-wing hate machine in the 1990s in particular, are all out there and already taken into account, or a candidate who is still virtually unknown to most of the electorate, with Republicans clearly looking forward to filling in the blanks with the facts about his record, of which many general election voters still are not aware.
Permalink TrackBack
Email This Post
Share this post
What's This 79 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Lanny, yes Barack is a loser and a loser that pretends he won. After his anti-American nature and his contempt for the common people have been exposed, the only people that are voting for him are the (mostly) young "hope and change" enthusiasts and blacks. That's not enough to win in the general election.
Comment by Igor R. — April 23, 2008 @ 4:22 pm
As Ed Grimley once said: "Spin, spin, spin!"
Give it up old man, your girl is done.
Comment by PR — April 23, 2008 @ 4:41 pm
Lanny;
Hillary proved that she can go the lowest of the low to win. It may be a good thing in your book but the rest of us are disgusted by her tactics. She used the video of Bin Laden to scare folks and used the race card lie a hammer. She will not win teh nomination but her futur with the party from here on in, is n trouble. She showed us what shrew she is and she will not be forgiven.
Comment by Mike Coleman — April 23, 2008 @ 5:07 pm
PR, not at all. At the next international car show, I know that rather then one of them sexy young things, someone else will be representing the "Yugo" car company, because Hillary, Yu Go, Girl!
Comment by Igor R. — April 23, 2008 @ 5:13 pm
The race is over in two weeks, she will fight on but the SD's will force her out by June.
The only correct assessment is that she held serve last night.
Obama will sweep IND and NC-She will win KY and WV but will lose ID and MT.
He is running against McCain, HRC, Bill, and the conservative media. After being 20 points down in PA, with Bittergate, Ayers, lapel pin, Rev Wright and the ABC hit job, he STILL closed the gap to 9 points!
This has been very good practice for him and the protracted battle has toughen him up for NOV.
Comment by Theard — April 23, 2008 @ 5:43 pm
Lanny Davis fact reporting, Nuber Five:
5. "There were no personal attack ads run by Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania."
You know what Lanny? You win. Alright? I give up. I quit reading your list at #5.
You start your column with the premise that it is without spin, no modifiers, just the facts, ma'am. You proceed to then claim your candidate had not run "personal attack ads in PA." This is so lawyer-ese speak that I looked for the dotted line to sign at the bottom. Come on Lanny, where do I sign?
Unlike the Clinton's and the Terminator ("Clintonator"), I quit and I want to tender my resignation. Because clearly, I'm retarded at worst, impressionable at best. I'm so stupid I believed the Clinton advisory team has ONLY fashioned negative ads. My conclusion was formulated without any qualifiers like "personal" (in your 'personal attack ads') and without geographical limitations, unlike your #5 claim that exempts any negative ad run by Clinton outside PA.
So, "my good friend Jamal," You did it. You beat me. You beat me down. Smack down. You prevailed. Here's the trophy. I cannot muster the energy any longer to engage in your congenital level of denial. Which isn't really denial because you know you are doing it.
Your #5 statement proves only that you learned well your lesson at Yale in bending logic to be correct (as opposed to just) even when you're incorrect. Fitting you met Sen. Clinton at Yale. You guys are going to win the White House.
Comment by Rob — April 23, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
Lanny heres some facts for you:
1. Obama has won more states then Hillary
2. Obama has received more votes then Hillary
3. Obama has raised more money then Hillary
4. Obama has more people contributing to him than Hilary
This is despite Hillary being a lock for the nomination despite having the name recognition.
Do you really expect that a Democrat after Bush would lose New York or California, have you lost your mind? She has no money left, she is in debt.
Face it she has lost and the only reason for her to stay in is stop Obama and help the GOP. People like you who are in the bag for her enable that and if McCain is president come elections then it is partly on your head.
Comment by JenR — April 23, 2008 @ 8:00 pm
Mike, in this case she was more "shrewed" than "shrew". You, on the other hand, with your illiterate post once again demonstrated what kind of human refuse is attracted to Obama.
Comment by Igor R. — April 23, 2008 @ 8:09 pm
Well, Teddy Kennedy did this crap in 1980 and earned the contempt of every true democrat and made Reagan president
Comment by Pghremodeler — April 23, 2008 @ 8:57 pm
"Lanny Davis is a supporter, friend and fundraiser for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.)." — Ed.
That all? Come on, don't be modest. That's not all. Lanny Davis is more than just a friend to Sen. Clinton; he is one helluva friend to Sen. Clinton, having met her as a fellow student at Yale as she was just beginning her thirty-five years of experience.
In the above prologue–listed at the beginning of every Mr. Davis article–the editor of "The Hill" fails to include on the list that Mr. Davis is also the main disinformation fomenter on the airwaves and/or in print today who officially/unofficially speaks for Sen. Clinton.
We know that he does not really speak for her,(in a place called LawyerLand), but we also know that he really does speak for her (in a place called the-rest-of-the-world. Including, ironically, his heart).
It is not that Mr. Davis is a bad man for, oh, shaping events and exaggerating them into not-quite lies and un-truths, to endorse his candidate. Quite simply he cannot help himself. Or he can and cares not to.
We are reminded that the Newsweek and Time poll concluded that Mrs. Clinton's trustworthy rating took a bit hit after fiction met fact on the Tuzla tarmac last month. We know that Mr. Davis characterized Mrs. Clinton's misstatement / misspeak / misrememberance of the Tuzla non-event as "an honest mistake." [That creaking sound you're hearing is Mr. Davis moving the exhausted goal posts (and himself) once again for Clinton, Ltd.]. We know that he doesn't really foment disinformation. He molds disinformation already out there. He speaks with expertise. He speaks with a syntactical mastery that is truly acrobatic, gleened from decades spent in the gray-area mosaic of the legal and academic worlds.
It is no accident Mr. Davis met Ms. Rodham at Yale. They may have seen in each other's eyes that they share a commonality: tone deafness when it comes to ethical issues.
Negative campaigning against your same party opponent is construde as ethical in ClintonWorld and LawyerLand because the Republicans are going to use this tactic anyway whether or not Clinton Ltd uses it. So why not use it first?
All in ClintonWorld and LawyerLand spontaneously rejoiced. It was decried, it was made so: The negative campaign was rendered game or "fair play."
The celestial choir did their thing, and no one at Clinton Command Central could spit out the answer to that damn, nagging question, "So why not use it first?"
Comment by Rob — April 23, 2008 @ 9:50 pm
exactly right, Rob.
To Mr. Davis:Geez, I was so delighted to hear you want us to “forget about the spin and not use any adjectives to modify the following 10 facts….
oops, except you used some adjectives….
1. “its easy to forget”…
2. “campaigned intensely”. Shocking that Senator Obama should be trying.
4. “negative”
6. “historically”
7. “substantial
8. “virtually”
9. “considerably”. “historic”
10. “dead even”
Comment by Doug King — April 23, 2008 @ 10:25 pm
Dear Superdelegates, because you are so ignorant that Lanny Davis needs to educate you
In response to Mr. Davis' arguments:
1. Weeks ago, Senator Obama was 20 points behind Senator Clinton. A 10 point win for Senator Clinton does not represent a “turning of the tide”, and certainly not for Senator Clinton. I think a 10 point swing is pretty (oh sorry, I Used an adjective) impressive turnabout, given the disgusting (oops another adjective) attack from Senator Clinton about such characteristics as Senator Obama’s veracity from a candidate who said on national television “But you know, I'm very sorry that I said it. And I have said that, you know, it just didn't jibe with what I had written about and knew to be the truth”
2. Oh my god, “Sen. Obama tried hard to win the state”. How uppity!
3. “He spent $11 million on media — about three times more than Sen. Clinton.” So his ability to raise money (mostly from small amount donors) is somehow negative (oops, another adjective)?
4. “Most of his ads were personal negative attack ads against Sen. Clinton, meaning attacks on her character and integrity.”
How about if you quote the attacks of both Clinton and Obama?
5. There were no personal attack ads run by Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania.
You must have a different Cable/Satellite provider than I do.
6. For the benefit of the superdelegates, I think it would be important for you to specifically indicate how the ability to win a “battleground” state primary relates to the ability to defeat a candidate of the other party.
I am not a statistical expert, but I have taken 5 statistical courses, how many have you taken that would qualify you to suggest that a candidate winning a primary means that he/she is more likely to beat a candidate in the general election? Lay a “fact” on me, Mr. Davis!
7. My only comment about this statement is that it would be hard to imagine how most catholics would vote for John McCain, assuming they hear the statements from “Rev” Hagee that the Catholic Church is the “Great Whore”
8. The factual pattern of Barack Obama’s performance in Texas is that he won more delegates there.
As you like to say,
That is a fact
9. As my 11 year olds say “whatever”.
10. These comparisons are meaningless
Comment by Doug King — April 23, 2008 @ 11:16 pm
great post, lanny. reminds me of what bill clinton said " if they try to tell you that your votes dont count,they are losing ". rational thinking people know whats going on with this obama thing. if the media had of done their job in the first place and vetted obama, we wouldnt be in this mess now. hillary clinton oozes class, experience and great judgement and is down right tough and we admire her so much. i think the "tide has turned", as she said last night after the penns. primary. when she wins, they cant bring themselves to even acknowledge the win and praise her for winning one hard battle. thanks lanny, hillary supporters love her and we have her back ! go hillgirl 08
Comment by susan — April 23, 2008 @ 11:38 pm
and "rob" is a yale graduate ? i sincerely doubt it. you are out-classed by mr. davis and your ignorance of "freindship" you probably dont have any, so you are clueless about what it really means.
Comment by susan — April 23, 2008 @ 11:45 pm
Lanny: Why is she not beating Obama in delegates? Why is she asking the poor people she empathizes with for money when she could loan her campaign some of her own? Why is she being outspent in media? Why hasn't she been able to compete with him in raising money so far? Incompetent staff or uninterested supporters?
Comment by Linda Bahlman — April 24, 2008 @ 12:34 am
I agree with you Mr. Davis, and you have my respect. You will have respect from many for telling the truth, because at the moment many are not telling the truth. You can read a lot of Obama's web-sites to find proof, and many are sounding desperate and mean.
Hillary has won the big states, she can beat McCain and I know it, the press knows it, that's why all of the polls play the lying tricks they play.
Yes Sir, the Press knows it, and they are more hateful daily because they are scared of her, because she can beat McCain hands down and they all know it, the billionaires that own all big media know it and it has them terrified. They want one of the Good Ole Boy's in there, and that is the truth.
I know one thing for sure, any time you have a candidate that the Billionaires are against than there is your good guy or good girl, and it's Senator Clinton. I know they have their good ole boys clubs and she's not part of it and I would walk through a hell storm in a hurricane to cast my vote for her, and many would at this point, many would who have noticed her strength and intelligence over and over again.
Even the die hard Republicans are taking notice of her strength during the hateful attacks like the Obama supporters keep using, the hateful things the press does daily, many are noticing and taking all of this into account, and it's wonderful to watch the MEDIA LOSE in the big states like Texas, California and Pennsylvania.
I feel when Obama loses, really the MEDIA LOSES! The Media are losing and it has not happened in years. It is wonderful, and everyone should celebrate!
When I read the mean words of his supporters I know they are running scared, and I can also read some hurt in their words and for this I feel sorry for their pain.
Hillary Clinton will win and Senator Obama can not beat McCain, and yes it has everything to do with race, because you just can't have a racist Pastor for 20 years and win the Presidency of the United States of America.
Comment by WE KNOW — April 24, 2008 @ 1:02 am
Spin, spin, spin, Lanny. Better take a little Dramamine.
Calling your "facts" "undisputed" doesn't make it so. I've read legal briefs, specifically summary judgment briefs, and I've seen those "statements of undisputed facts" which, with the slightest scrutiny, turn out to be anything but. Moreover, lies can be told by half-truth. If you don't give ALL the facts, you can paint a picture 180% from the truth, all without *actually* lying. As Clinton's chief counsel, I expect you had lots of practice with this. This list is a classic example.
"1. Hillary Clinton won by 10 percent, 220,000 votes,…."
Fact; As of now, with 99.51% of precincts reporting, Clinton's margin is 9.2%.
Everyone knew that Clinton was going to win PA, a state tailor-made for her. Demographics favored her. She had the backing of an immensely powerful Democratic machine headed up by big-city mayors and Governor Ed Rendell. She had leads approaching and even exceeding 20% in polls conducted within the last 60 days. And we'll never know how much of her victory margin was bought with Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" of enticing listeners to register Democratic and vote for Clinton, as was documented in Texas, just to prolong the fight and sow seeds of discord within the party. With all that going for her, she couldn't break a 10% margin of victory. It was widely accepted that she needed a double-digit win to stay at all competitive. She failed. Despite the Clinton campaign and Lanny Davis's spin, 9.2% is not 10%. And it's not double digits, unless you're counting digits on the *right-hand* side of the decimal point. Now, I'm prepared for Clinton spinmeisters to do that, since they will do anything.
"2. Sen. Obama tried hard to win the state, campaigned intensely throughout the state for most of the last six weeks — and was trying to win, not just lose by a narrow margin."
I noticed you didn't say "expected" to win. That's nice lawyerese, isn't it. OF COURSE he tried his best to win. But he also realized that winning the state, given all the factors I mentioned in response to point (1), was an incredibly long shot. You don't close the kind of a gap that I mentioned, against the odds I described, without trying hard to win. But that doesn't stop the Lanny Davis high-speed spin cycle. Nice try, though.
"3. He spent $11 million on media — about three times more than Sen. Clinton."
He spent more — and why, exactly, was that? Oh yeah — his massive superiority in fundraising, generated predominantly from small donors who haven't yet come close to their $2300 limit, and so can give, again and again, while HIllary maxed out her big donors a long time ago, blew the bank on Super Tuesday, failed to plan for what came after, and ran her campaign into millions of dollars of debt, while failing to keep her bills paid, stiffing small businesses in states where she was campaigning, and not paying her own campaign workers' health insurance premiums (I guess health care is "universal" only if you don't work on the Clinton campaign). These facts, too, are undisputed.
"4. Most of his ads were personal negative attack ads against Sen. Clinton, meaning attacks on her character and integrity."
I do dispute that supposedly-undisputed fact — the burden of proof is on you, and you have offered none, nor any means for anybody to verify the claim. I didn't see any Obama ads in Pennsylvania, and I have absolutely no idea how you will quantify that, but you can go ahead and try. You could, for example, post links to blog posts describing or presenting ads. Maybe they're up on YouTube. That could at least prove a threshold part of your claim — that negative Obama ads *existed in the first place.* You haven't even done that much. After that, you can try to prove that "most" of the Obama ads were negative. Just don't expect us to take your say-so for it, counsel. If you came into federal court with "evidence" like this, you'd be up for a nice round of Rule 11(b)(3) sanctions.
Which brings us to:
"5. There were no personal attack ads run by Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania."
Hmm. Do you count robocalls? Probably not, since in typical Clintonian fashion, you will define what "is" is in such a way that "it's a robocall, not an ad, so it doesn't matter how negative it is, it isn't what I was talking about."
"Hello, this is Hillary Clinton for president calling. Barack Obama is not telling the truth about his past position on the Second Amendment. … This is just another example of Barack Obama saying one thing, and doing another…."
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/harsh_hillary_robocall_accuses.php
Sounds like your definition of "personal attack ad" (in point 4) to me. Oh, right, it's a robocall, not an ad. My bad.
We have the following headline at Talking Points Memo: "Source: Hillary TV Ad Campaign Is Now 100% Negative In Most Pennsylvania Markets"
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/hillary_tv_ad_campaign_is_100.php
Then there's the Hillary "Bin Laden" ad which the Clinton camp was furiously spinning as "not negative" — even though it stoked fear and raised 9/11 imagery — classic Rove/Atwater stuff. Now maybe that doesn't fit your closely-parsed, exquisitely-tailored, hypertechnical, narrow definition of a "personal attack" ad. On the other hand, as Greg Sargent at Talking Points Memo points out, "Dropping a last-minute bomb in order to sow doubts about Obama among the late-breaking undecideds — and doing it in the guise of an ad only mentioning Hillary — worked in Ohio and Texas. Camp Hillary is hoping that the tactic will deliver a second time."
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/hillary_campaign_chief_theres.php
And this might be the best time to recall a statement from Bill Clinton in 2004: "Now one of Clinton's Laws of Politics is this: If one candidate's trying to scare you and the other one's trying to get you to think; if one candidate's appealing to your fears and the other one's appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope. That's the best."
Parse away, Lanny. Just remember to use the same standard on both Clinton and Obama ads. I'm sure you'll find some standard by which Clinton comes out ahead, this week. When she changes tactics, you'll change standards. Everyone else: watch out for the moving goalposts!
I'll stop with the specifics here. Much of the rest of your posts consists of what I described above as lying by half-truth; picking "undisputed" facts which, while technically true, are cherry-picked and tailored to support your client — er, candidate, while ignoring facts that undermine your argument or support the other side.
Opposing counsel would wipe the floor with you, until the judge finally kicked you out of the courtroom in disgust.
Finally, a question for you: How much longer do you think you can get away with insulting the intelligence of your readers and the electorate?
Comment by Jim Martin — April 24, 2008 @ 2:35 am
Mr. Davis:
Two weeks ago you published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, and on this blog, resurrecting the Rev. Wright issue, inexplicably (for a Democrat, anyway) ignoring McCain's Hagee and Parsley "pastor problems", inexplicably (for a Democrat) ignoring the America-hating comments of Pat Robertson, John Hagee and Jerry Falwell in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks and Hurricane Katrina, and subtly questioning the patriotism of both Obama and Wright while insuating that both might be America-haters while denying it at the same time. (Your paraphrase of Antony's "honorable man" speech in Julius Caesar was particularly cute and clever.) Of course you said that you were doing so only as a "private person" rather than as a spokesperson for the Clinton campaign, which indeed was the safe move from the Clintons' perspective (plausible deniability is always a plus).
You continue your mendacious, misleading attacks here — the current post is but the latest example — so this time I'll resurrect the Wright issue.
You have the chutzpah to question Jeremiah Wright's love for this country, his service, and his patriotism, eh?
While Dick Cheney and Bill Clinton collectively were getting 6 deferments between them, while George W. Bush used his daddy's influence to jump the line into a National Guard champagne unit that guaranteed he would never see combat, Jeremiah Wright, as reported by Lawrence Korb (USN, ret., assistant secretary of defense under President Reagan) and Ian Moss (USMC, ret.) in the Chicago Tribune and Daniel Schorr at NPR, gave up his student deferment, enlisted in the Marine Corps, served his two years, then volunteered *again* to become a Navy corpsman, was the valedictorian in corpsman school, then became a cardiopulmonary technician, eventually was assigned to Bethesda Naval Hospital, where he tended to President Johnson following his 1966 surgery. He was awarded three letters of commendation upon his separation from service in 1967.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-oped0404wrightapr03,0,92000.story
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89598542
Meanwhile, according to your Wikipedia bio, "Although the Vietnam War was raging, Davis did not serve in the military." Instead, you pledged the DKE fraternity and had a good ole time being hazed by George W. Bush, while your countrymen were killing and dying in Vietnam. I guess you just had other priorities.
Korb and Moss conclude:
"How many of Wright's detractors, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly to name but a few, volunteered for service, and did so under the often tumultuous circumstances of a newly integrated armed forces and a society in the midst of a civil rights struggle? Not many. While words do count, so do actions. Let us not forget that, for whatever Rev. Wright may have said over the last 30 years, he has demonstrated his patriotism."
Not sure if the same can be said for you.
Comment by Jim Martin — April 24, 2008 @ 3:07 am
The Two-headed Giant that Barack is battling — the Clintons and the Republican Machine are very good, I would say excellent at re-labelling a person and re-characterizing them by use of Media brought and sold by the Republican Party most for the part to shape, mold, distort, lie, carricature a person so the very thing they are not is not seen and what they are not is seen! Barack's achievement in Pa — to close the gap was a success due to the fact that the Clintons' have an army of political hacks that owe them and they call in favors all over the country — Barack does not have that long coatail behind him, but what he does have is political people who are tired of the spin and dishonesty and loyalty to the corporations and who want change so they turn to Obama for that best sense of hope and inpiration which can bring about real change. Obama does not have to tear down his oppnents or speak with a Loud Voice for the masses to hear him. He is up against a Mighty Giant in the Clintons and the Republicans: Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan, Wolf Blitzer, and Fox News TV which berate and belittle Barack daily 24 hours a day and yet he is the one that is still standing and still winning although bloodied and bruised up as Rush Limbaugh asked his loyalists to do.
Comment by Angellight — April 24, 2008 @ 5:17 am
3. He spent $11 million on media — about three times more than Sen. Clinton.
I am not pro Obama but anti
Clinton and you are an illogical liar,
Lanny yet, how redundant of me, you are a lawyer.
Barack Obama had to spend more just to get the recognition your candidate enjoys as the former first lady. do you remember that the anointed one entered the fray with more advantages than anyone in our history? Her inability to manage her campaign, her arrogance, and her lack of a back up plan has her now trailing a tyro.
1. Hillary Clinton won by 10 percent, 220,000 votes, despite most of the polls in the last several weeks on RealClearPolitics, including its RCP all-poll average, showing her ahead by single digits and dropping.
rather selective about which polls you believe are correct. The polls have not been reliable because people get accused of sexism if they won't vote for your girl and racist if they won't support Obama. Yet if MRS Clinton couldn't win PA where she is, again, the home town girl, where can she win?
The only positive note here is that she will destroy the Democrats before this is over and to that end I have a new campaign song for her; Lesly Gore's old hit slightly revised; It's MY party and YOU'LL cry if I don't win.
Comment by james d granata — April 24, 2008 @ 6:04 am
So much bullshit packed into so little space. Drop dead please Lanny.
Comment by Lu — April 24, 2008 @ 6:56 am
How many years has it been since the media lost a Presidency? It is wonderful to watch the media lose. He knows how to make the money look like it comes from somewhere other than the source, we could ask Mrs. Antoin Rezko.
Comment by WE KNOW — April 24, 2008 @ 9:30 am
Hillary has won over most of the Reagan Democrats like me, and she can beat McCain hands down. It's a done deal, the war could be over and our Ladies and Men could come home.
Comment by WE KNOW — April 24, 2008 @ 9:35 am
Yes, Obama is fighting the media, hillary, bill, and mccain. If it takes all of them to beat one man, he sure looks like a winner to me. Lanny you are pathetic. To sell your soul to someone like the clintons who will surely turn around and spit you out.
Comment by Yvonne — April 24, 2008 @ 9:52 am
The numbers prove you and your candidate are still liars.
I never read your comments just the heading to see how far the spin is tortured…,You have got it in the pants again , lanny
Comment by Docb — April 24, 2008 @ 9:59 am
Awwwwww, poor liitle Barry Obama is finding the national political game a bit tougher than the Illinois Senate or running a community center in Chicago. If he thinks things are tough now, wait until he sees how bad things get if he is fortunate enough to win the nomination and the presidency.
Comment by John Simmons — April 24, 2008 @ 11:27 am
Why doesn’t Obama just give up?
He has too many negatives. Maybe he could win the primary, but there is no way that he could win the Presidential election. Obama really should support Hillary.
Hers’ a list of items that he has to fight about with McCain:
1.)Reverend Wright: He still is supporting this man. Obama compares him to an old uncle. Has anyone seen this man’s videos? It is frightening.
2.)Louis Farrakhan: Reverend Wright’s church, Osama’s church, supports Farrakhan. Farrakhan is against the Jewish people and very controversial, to say the least. He is frightening also.
3.)Obama has a Muslim father. Obama might say he is a Christian, but Muslims don’t think so. Are there any radical Muslims anywhere that might just say to other radical leaders that Americans support Muslims? Muslims don’t necessarily hear the news properly. That would be frightening.
5.)Elitist Attitude: McCain has already said that he thinks Obama’s comments were Elitist. That is probably the worst McCain could address. He will attack him for not being like one of the “boys”.
6.)Racist Attitude: McCain has addressed Obama’s comments about being a “typical white person”. He talked about this on a radio station and during his famous race speech.
7.)Unpatriotic: Not a big deal, but it will be when McCain decides to ask him again why he doesn’t wear an American flag pin. What would be the harm if Obama would just wear one to satisfy Americans?
8.)William Ayers, the terrorist that has bombed the pentagon: Obama was on a board “The Woods Foundation” with this man. Would anyone go to a board meeting with a man that doesn’t feel one bit of remorse for bombing US buildings?
9.)Tony Rezko, criminal from Chicago: Obama first said he hardly knew him during a debate. Now Obama has revealed he bought land from him and took money from him for his campaign. Don’t’ think that this won’t be brought up again and again. Obama knew this man for over 17 years.
10.)Barack Hussein Obama: Even his name will become an issue. Democrats will hear the Republicans blast his name everywhere.
It’s not one issue. This is just a sampling of the many issues that Obama would have to address again and again.
Please, wake up America! There is no way Obama can win this general election. Stop thinking he’s the Democratic savior. He should really step aside and let Clinton win this race.
Please think with your brain and not with your heart. Unless you want McCain to win this election, stop supporting Obama and support Senator Clinton.
The media has painted Senator Clinton as unlikable, then why is she winning in big states? They have and Obama has attacked her from the start of this primary. What has she done to hurt America? What has she done not to show support for Americans. She is a Democrat and will win this election. She has been vetted and people have trashed her for years. There is no more they can throw at her. Obama has too many issues and who knows what else will become a problem.
What exactly has Obama done that shows all that he has done for us? Change what? If it’s just being a Democrat, so is Senator Clinton. He has done nothing to prove his big “change”.
Wake up Americans!
Comment by Alecki — April 24, 2008 @ 11:29 am
I have two Republicans telling me today that if Hillary wins the nomination they are voting for her. They are die hard Republicans. I'm so proud of her strength.
Comment by WE KNOW — April 24, 2008 @ 12:05 pm
WE KNOW;
IF this was a GOP primary, she would have won by now. If Hillary wants to become like Joe Liebermann, she has just proved it to a lot of us. In the past, I admired and respected the Clintons but their tactics of late have become sickening. Bin Laden in an ad against a Dem opponent? In the word of the man who blasted Joe McCarthy - Have you no shame Hillary, after long last have you no shame!
Comment by Mike Coleman — April 24, 2008 @ 12:51 pm
1. Aside from Rep. Murphy being a touchstone for all of nation, the rest of this paragraph fails to mention Obama's nationwide lead in delegates, votes, states.
2. The oldest population in the country, hometown advantage, the machine at her beckon call. Also, see #1.
3. See #2.
4. She brought Rev Wright and Ayers to to the table. So, your point?
5. See #4.
6. This is not a barometer of November elections.
7. See #6.
8. She has lost educated whites (typically a Republican constituency) and African Americans. He has won independents by enormous margins.
9. These polls are historically useless. You know this. So, Lanny, if you're citing useless statistics, what does that say about your candidate's real strength?
10. See #9.
Comment by Rowland — April 24, 2008 @ 1:07 pm
Hillary said the super delegates were going to decide this. She nailed her own coffin because the fact that she had only 200 super delegates to begin with should have told her that she wasn't going to get that many. The fact that Obama has picked up almost 90 has moved Hillary to change the rules once again and go for the popular vote, which she has imagined in her mind that she has. She said Michigan's votes wouldn't count and now she wants them. I don't see why the DNC is pacifying her like this. It's only going to make it harder for her to swallow. She is going to need another stiff one followed by a beer.
Comment by Yvonne — April 24, 2008 @ 1:26 pm
The media hasn't painted Hillary in a bad way. They have given her every break imaginable, even helping her!!!! Obama just refuses to sink to her level, and she is portraying herself trash. There is enough dirt on the Clintons to be shown until the end of the campaign, but the media refuses to do it. Obama is showing who really has the class. If she has to do all this to win, she can't win on issues. Oh yeah, Obama got two more endorsements today.
Comment by Yvonne — April 24, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
I do think Sen. Obama is still largely unknown to the electorate (in part due to the swooning MSM).
I would love to see how Obama explains the following two comments:
1) his campaign's (oblique) admission that he was a Muslim
2) Obama's comment regarding the Muslim call to prayer as being "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth."
I've provided the excerpts to the two articles (L.A. Times and N.Y.Times). Please read them for yourself (Karl Rove has already read them).
The L.A.Times article by Paul Watson, March 15th, 2007 - "To be clear, Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ in Chicago," [Robert Gibbs]' Jan. 24 statement said. In a statement to The Times on Wednesday, the campaign offered slightly different wording, saying: "Obama has never been a practicing Muslim."
Also, the New York Times article by Nicholas Kristof, March 6th, 2007: “Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”
Comment by Karen — April 24, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
Karen, between the facts you cited and Mr. Obama's associations with Mr. Rezko, Mr. Auchi, Mr. Khalidi, Mr. Ayers (three personages of Middle Eastern origins, seemingly radical and/or corrupt and a domestic terrorist), as well as the delightful Rev. Wright, maybe guilt by association isn't such a bad thing? Maybe we should just take a chance on Mr. Obama NOT having his finger on the nuclear button?
Comment by Igor R. — April 24, 2008 @ 4:57 pm
Igor, I think Obama still has a lot of explaining to do - and he hasn't been entirely forthright about his associations, nor about his background.
Apparently he thinks these are just disctractions, and feels he isn't answerable to the electorate. However I disagree.
If he can accuse Sen. Clinton of being untrustworthy, then he needs to make sure that he is the opposite - which unfortunately, he isn't.
Comment by Karen — April 24, 2008 @ 5:41 pm
"I have two Republicans telling me today that if Hillary wins the nomination they are voting for her. They are die hard Republicans. I’m so proud of her strength.
Comment by WE KNOW — April 24, 2008 @ 12:05 pm"
And I've had six Republicans tell me that they would consider voting for Obama, but it would be a cold day in hell before they pulled the lever for any Clinton, Hillary included.
So, your point?
Comment by YOU DON'T KNOW S**T — April 24, 2008 @ 6:32 pm
Karen, Obama has turned "distraction" into a campaign art form as this article explains:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/03/obama_its_all_a_distraction.asp
Comment by Igor R. — April 24, 2008 @ 7:21 pm
"I have two Republicans telling me today that if Hillary wins the nomination they are voting for her. They are die hard Republicans. I’m so proud of her strength.
Comment by WE KNOW — April 24, 2008 @ 12:05 pm"
And I have SIX registered Republicans telling me that, while they are *considering* voting for Obama (they're disgusted with Bush), it will be a cold day in hell before they would consider voting for ANY clinton, Hillary included.
So… your point?
Comment by YOU DON'T KNOW S**T — April 24, 2008 @ 10:48 pm
"I have two Republicans telling me today that if Hillary wins the nomination they are voting for her. They are die hard Republicans. I’m so proud of her strength.
Comment by WE KNOW — April 24, 2008 @ 12:05 pm"
And I have SIX registered Republicans telling me that, while they are *considering* voting for Obama (they're disgusted with Bush), it will be a cold day in hell before they would consider voting for ANY clinton, Hillary included.
So… your point?
Comment by Jim Martin — April 24, 2008 @ 10:49 pm
I just love how the armchair warriors and culture warriors can sit comfortably behind their keyboards and denounce as anti-American a man who gave up his student deferment, enlisted in the Marine Corps, served his two years, then volunteered *again* to become a Navy corpsman, was the valedictorian in corpsman school, then became a cardiopulmonary technician, eventually was assigned to Bethesda Naval Hospital, where he tended to President Johnson following his 1966 surgery, and was awarded three letters of commendation upon his separation from service in 1967. All this while Dick Cheney and Bill Clinton collectively were getting 6 deferments between them, while George W. Bush used his daddy's influence to jump the line into a champagne unit that guaranteed he would never see combat. Nice job, armchair patriots.
Comment by Jim Martin — April 24, 2008 @ 10:54 pm
Meanwhile, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell claim that the 9/11 attacks were God's judgment on America; Pastor Rod Parsley — whom McCain campaigned with, called his "spiritual guide", and whose endorsement McCain sought, received, and said he was proud of — claimed that America was founded (in, you know, 1776) to destroy radical Islam, and Pastor John Hagee — whose endorsement John McCain actively sought and enthusiastically embraced — said that (1) the Catholic Church is the "great whore," (2) the Jews deserved anti-Semitism (it was God's punishment on us for our disobedience, it seems); (3) Hitler was sent by God to drive the Jews back to the Promised Land; and (4) Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment on New Orleans because of its "level of sin" (note to Pastor Hagee: Katrina hit other cities too — did they all have the same "level of sin"? Is God such a poor marksGod?) — and NOBODY SAYS A WORD.
Double standards, anyone? Nah.
Comment by Jim Martin — April 24, 2008 @ 11:12 pm
Time to play Guess the Quote, ladies and gentlemen.
Who said this?
"God didn't call America to engage in a senseless, unjust war. And we are criminals in that war. We've committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world, and I'm going to continue to say it."
If you answered the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., you win the grand prize.
About a year before he was assassinated.
Anyone want to sit here and call Dr. King racist and anti-American?
WE KNOW?
Alecki?
Lanny?
Igor? (Actually, Igor probably would. I don't think even Lanny would stoop quite that low.)
Comment by Jim Martin — April 24, 2008 @ 11:19 pm
"I do think Sen. Obama is still largely unknown to the electorate (in part due to the swooning MSM)….
Comment by Karen — April 24, 2008 @ 4:13 pm"
Karen,
I am both a committed Jew and a committed Zionist. I attend synagogue regularly. I lead services regularly. I lived in Israel for more than a year. I spent several weeks in Jerusalem. And I agree with Barack Obama that the call to prayer is among the prettiest sounds on Earth — at sunrise OR sunset.
I also would be most honored to vote for a Muslim for President, if he was someone I would support aside from his religion. Same for a Catholic, Buddhist, Protestant, Evangelical, Baha'i, Hindu, or Jew. I assume you would as well, unless you are some kind of religious bigot. You're not, are you? You seem to have some concerns about Obama possibly having some Islam in his background.
I honor and respect members of ALL religious traditions. And I admire and honor (and even enjoy) the traditions of people who are not like me in all ways (such as Muslims). Don't you?
Comment by Jim Martin — April 24, 2008 @ 11:37 pm
Lanny,
What a wonderful win for Senator Clinton!
Senator Obama can't win, oh he can run in November, but he won't beat McCain. Look Lanny, if Hillary doesn't run I personally am voting for MCCain.
Senator McCain is honorable, a war hero, and please tell me Obama's merits. As far as I can tell there are none, perhaps he's a nice person to his friends and neighbors but I'm looking for a President. He's not it.
Please tell the Democratic Party if Hillary Clinton does not receive the nomination Obama will not win in Nov. because many, many of the voters will not support him.
Comment by diane b — April 24, 2008 @ 11:55 pm
On Obama and Ayers
From Mark Fitzgerald at Editor and Publisher.
Begin quote.
"That's why back in the day when Obama was starting his political career — making a visit to the Ayers home while running for a state Senate seat, and then agreeing to being on panels with him and serve on a foundation board together — it was no big deal, or any deal, to any local political reporters or to the editorial boards of the Sun-Times or Tribune," [Chicago Sun-Times political columnist Lynn] Sweet added.
And it's no big deal still to the Tribune editorial board, which has not endorsed a Democrat for president since 1872.
"Ah, we know Ayers too," a Tribune editorial said last week. "And his wife, Bernardine Dohrn. If you know people in Chicago academic circles, chances are you know Ayers and Dohrn. They have not been repentant about their days in the radical, anti-war movement in the 1960s and their time fleeing federal authorities. They should be. There is still time for them to be. But they have done good work in Chicago–Ayers at the University of Illinois at Chicago, Dohrn at Northwestern University Law School's Children and Family Justice Center."
Ayers also was given the seal of approval by Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, nobody's idea of a radical and someone who doesn't need a weatherman to know which way the political winds are blowing.
The Ayers episode is one reason "that Americans are angry about Washington politics," Daley said.
End quote.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003793937
***
Ayers did his thing when Obama was eight.
BOTH Chicago papers — including the one who hasn't endorsed a Democrat for President since 1872 — are yawning.
Don't you creeps have any better material than this?
Comment by Jim Martin — April 25, 2008 @ 12:40 am
dear toady,
If there were such a thing as an 'undisputed fact', you lawyers would be out of business.
Comment by james d granata — April 25, 2008 @ 5:37 am
To Igor and Karen;
Don't you think with Obama being the front runner, that the press hasn't crawled through his life with a fine tooth comb? Igor, you especially, don't you think that if anyone could have found something to knock him down they wouldn't done it. The thing is that Barack has lived his life like he should and made a life for himself and his family that you envy. He has handle this race with Hillary with class. She has shown herself to be interested in power for the sake of power. Obama has out organized, out worked, out fund raised and he did it fairly. What is wrong with that? Igor, could it be that you are jealous of a black man that is better than you? Don't feel bad, work harder.
Comment by Mike Coleman — April 25, 2008 @ 10:35 am
Mike, He is not black, if I see any color it is the color of green. He is a greenhorn. Mike likes to play the old race game in every post, but it does not look good on his candidates behalf, since the Obama supporters are the only people bringing up any persons race and making it an issue. THEY ALWAYS DO IT and it's tacky, and people are tired of it. They are tired of the goofy spin on your goofy tired old approach.
Comment by WE KNOW — April 25, 2008 @ 11:40 am
Mike, the press HAS found something to knock him down with and they are doing it, although after some initial hesitation and reluctantly.
Mike, I consider myself a good person and I don't envy anyone. I actually enjoy seeing people from humble background succeed. If you examine Obama's politics and associations, why won't you accept the explanation that I simply don't like them, to put it mildly? I think he is a danger to everything I hold dear (and no that doesn't include having only white people at the top) and that's why I don't want him to win.
Comment by Igor R. — April 25, 2008 @ 1:25 pm
Jim, it's good that you raise the issue, and of course this is something that I've spent much time thinking about throughout my life.
I'm a Hindu who has spent most of her life living alongside Muslims in India. And I'll be very honest about the difficult relationship I have with the Muslim religion, or rather with the way the Muslim religion is often interpreted and practiced in today's world.
This isn't meant to be a scholarly debate on Islam - it is a discussion of what my impressions are (you can feel free to attack them in any way you choose - just rest assured that I have spent a lot of time thinking about whether I'm being fair or not). And by the way, we do have a Muslim president in India, together with a Sikh prime minister - and they are both thought very highly of in my entire family.
Jim, I take no issue with moderate Muslims who are ultimately secular minded. My discomfort starts when I witness how Islam is practiced with regard to women and their rights, and how religion seems to trump everything else at times. And yes, I would say this of any other religion as well - I'm not trying to pick on any one religion.
On one hand you have countries such as Saudi Arabia where women aren't even allowed to drive. Then there are countries such as India, where Muslims represent a minority, but where (in family matters), they are not subject to secular laws like the rest of the country, but where they are subject only to Islamic/Sharia law. A law in which men can have upto four wives, where the right to demand divorce is only for men, where it is acceptable to hit women etc. etc. (I think it is possible for a woman to ultimately get a divorce, albeit under tremendously more difficult circumstances).
I am also tired of seeing such extremism in many Muslim traditions such as forcing women to wear the burkha (where women can't even show their faces) - to me that simply flies in the face of basic human rights and is downright oppressive. We can discuss such things ad nauseum on an intellectual level in terms of religious freedom, but I will never agree with it - because irrespective of relgion, there is something called basic human rights. And yes, it is in this light that the Muslim call to prayer - which is a mandatory call to prayer - is not one that I would consider "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth."
I don't understand why we can discuss whether Christianity/the Church needs to evolve with the times in terms of e.g. divorce, abortion rights, women priests, gay rights etc. but we're not allowed to discuss whether certain other religions/practices need to evolve as well in terms of human rights. Why is that not allowed? Isn't that hypocrisy -and doesn't that reinforce the notion that one can't discuss the certain religions rationally - thereby reinforcing the notion of extremism?
In fact, if one even says anything critical of the Muslims one is immediately branded either as a hater or as a bigot. I completely disagree - I think every religion should be open to discourse.
And coming back to my original point about Obama not being forthright about his Muslim background - I feel he should be forthright. If Mitt Romney had to explain his religious background and beliefs, so should Obama. No double standards anymore.
Comment by Karen — April 25, 2008 @ 1:52 pm
WE KNOW — Obama is no greenhorn. This is pure Hillary "facthub" talking point drivel.
I have posted at length about Obama's record of accomplishemnt in this thread:
http://pundits.thehill.com/2008/04/24/dream-team-is-hillary-john-mccains-vice-president/
Anyone with a Web browser, a fifth-grade knowledge of how to use a search engine, and a mind that isn't completely closed to reality can quickly find out about Obama's legislative record, to say nothing of his prior experience as a community organizer in Chicago.
A couple articles to get you started:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/271/
You've self-identified as a Reagan Democrat, so maybe you don't like the fact that Obama began his career helping poor people and people of color organize to better their own lot instead of taking a cushy corporate law firm job. Maybe you don't like the fact that Obama reached across the aisle, bringing together death penalty abolitionists, Republican legislators, and police groups to pass a bill that required all interrogations and confessions to be videotaped (a bill that passed the Illinois State Senate UNANIMOUSLY). Maybe you don't like the fact that he got an expansion to Illinois's health insurance program passed, bringing health insurance to 150,000 Illinois citizens, including 70,000 children. Maybe you don't like the fact that he brokered a compromise between police groups and the ACLU to get a bill passed that helped collect data on racial profiling.
Maybe you don't like the fact that he co-authored the US Senate's lobbying reform law. Maybe you don't like the fact that he helped enact a law creating a single, searchable database of all federal contracts, grants and loans, working with Republican Senator Tom Coburn to do so.
Maybe you don't like any of this. That's your right.
But you can't call him a greenhorn.
And if you do, you're a liar.
Comment by Jim Martin — April 25, 2008 @ 2:09 pm
Karen, your last post was one of the most intelligent I have ever seen here. An honest examination of a historically militant religion practiced by almost a quarter of humanity is certainly in order. It is however the sheer numbers of the practitioners along with their militancy, as well as the concentration of oil and oil wealth in the lands of the practitioners, that make it difficult. The western world, in it's totality, especially if you examine Western Europe is surrendering to the well known tactics of the militant practitioners. The Bush administration for reasons very few can understand, earlier this week launched a wide-spread effort to purge the word "jihadist" from being used by multiple agencies, including the State Department.
It is in this atmosphere that is particularly important to examine Obama's connections to Islam without the false modesty of political correctness.
Comment by Igor R. — April 25, 2008 @ 3:21 pm
Karen, I think you are wonderful. I sincerely loved your post and you articulated beautifully and your feelings are felt by many of us.
Comment by WE KNOW — April 25, 2008 @ 4:31 pm
Yes he is Mike, compared to Hillary, Obama is a GREENHORN. What should be done to a greenhorn? You take them under your arm and show them how things are done, now this takes awhile, it takes a few years.
You can't just jump into the arena and rope a calf without practice, and he needs more practice. I see a GREENHORN when I look at him on television.
Comment by WE KNOW — April 25, 2008 @ 4:38 pm
Even in the historic landslide election of Richard Nixon in 1972, when he won 49 states, only Massachusetts supported Sen. McGovern. Sen.'
excuse me, Mr Davis, but did you read the above or just cut and paste? Do you actually believe that MA will go for McCain? I live in the land of the liberals and believe me no Republican will beat any democrat in this election. Spin away. I live near Northampton and the anti war rallies and the Obama for president are gaining ground but of course, should MRS Clinton convince the super delegates of her viability she will win the state handily. I remember when I moved here in the early eighties after wearing a 'Ted Kennedy for Lifeguard' button in the 1980s primary was struck by the reverence the Kennedy's commanded.
Comment by james d granata — April 26, 2008 @ 6:26 am
Igor, you mention "the false modesty of political correctness." I completely agree. I actually think that political correctness has become a form of censorship - and in a really hypocritical way.
Anybody who stifles open and honest discourse on legitimate matters is not the change I seek. And I'm really tired of these tactics.
Comment by Karen — April 26, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
Karen-
I am unsure how your most recent (post 50) relates to Obama. Perhaps you are making a Manchurian candidate reference?
Regarding your point that "political correctness” is being used for censorship, no one is saying that we cannot hold an intelligent discourse on race and politics–to a certain extent, Igor and I have done just that. The problem is when race and religion are being used as fringe issues discredit a particular candidate with whom you happen to disagree. The fact is no response about Wright, Ayers and Islam will satisfy some of his hardcore critics, including you I fear.
If you disagree with his stance on the economy or social issue that is fine, but to engage in this sort of character assassination where loose associations are being used to derail his candidacy is hypocritical especially when you choose to remain silent or explain away the similar associations of Republican candidates.
Hagee, Parseley, Faldwell and Robertson have all made some outlandish statements and continue to do so, but are never taken to task for them.
It is a tad bit disingenuous don’t u think?
Comment by Theard — April 26, 2008 @ 3:38 pm
Theard,
I’m not making a Manchurian candidate reference and neither am I performing “character assassination” – I’m trying to form an impression regarding Obama’s beliefs, judgment and values. These factors, together with policy issues, determine whether someone gets my vote – and one would be deluded to think these factors didn’t play a role in elections.
And I am not “using race and religion as fringe issues to discredit Obama” as you say. I am voicing my concern that I don’t know enough about him, and I feel that he hasn’t been forthright about his background and his associations.
I for one, wasn’t entirely convinced by his “historic” speech on race and Rev. Wright – I didn’t think the whole episode displayed superior judgment on his part (as he has so often claimed to have). And I also don’t think that it is improper, bigotry, or character assassination to wonder about his honesty when he can’t even be straightforward about his religious background.
If one makes such grand claims about oneself as Obama has, i.e. he will reform Washington with a new/better kind of politics, he is a uniter, he has superior judgment – then he needs to be able to back it up somehow. Just saying one is honest and has superior judgment, and then repeating it ad nauseam, really doesn’t make it so (Aldous Huxley would agree with me here).
Lastly, I have never tried to “explain away the similar associations of Republican candidates” – I am a staunch Democrat and am really really not interested in/nor have I ever defended the likes of Hagee, Parseley, Faldwell and Robertson. So I’m rather amazed at how you came to that conclusion. Or is it that anyone who is critical of Obama is automatically a Republican? You'd be surprised, but there are a lot of Democrats who aren't convinced….and that's not because they are racist, bitter, or cynical. Go figure.
Comment by Karen — April 27, 2008 @ 2:32 pm
Theard, political correctness isn't used as real censorship. It IS used however, as a form of self-censorship by many entities from President Bush to the most liberal newspaper in the country. Some things that can be said here cannot be said by a major public figure or a commentator at an MSM newspaper or TV show.
Comment by Igor R. — April 27, 2008 @ 3:25 pm
My point remains. There exits a hypocritical double standard.
After long narrative about the mistreatment of women, human rights and Muslim extremism, you did, however say:
"coming back to my original point about Obama not being forthright about his Muslim background - I feel he should be forthright. If Mitt Romney had to explain his religious background and beliefs, so should Obama. No double standards anymore."
Followed by Igor"
"It is in this atmosphere that is particularly important to examine Obama’s connections to Islam without the false modesty of political correctness"
Obama has repeatedly said that he is not nor has ever been a practicing Muslim, so this ridiculous attempt to link him to radical Islam is more about fear mongering–though a bit more intellectual here -I admit, nonetheless, will be challenged all the same by others who can actually read between the lines.
For those who missed it..this is your premise:
Radical Islam is dangerous and you should fear it. Obama is possibly a Muslim, we don’t know for sure but he needs to explain his background! Hence the Manchurian Candidate reference. Therefore, you should conclude that Obama is (could be) a secret Muslim radical and if elected, will unite with the Islamic extremists and take over America so be very scared. The women will be forced to wear burkhas and the US will become a theocracy.
Comment by Theard — April 28, 2008 @ 11:13 am
Theard,
Please read my original post (post #33). Actually, let me just repeat what I said in it:
I do think Sen. Obama is still largely unknown to the electorate (in part due to the swooning MSM).
I would love to see how Obama explains the following two comments:
1) his campaign’s (oblique) admission that he was a Muslim
2) Obama’s comment regarding the Muslim call to prayer as being “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth.”
I’ve provided the excerpts to the two articles (L.A. Times and N.Y.Times). Please read them for yourself (Karl Rove has already read them).
The L.A.Times article by Paul Watson, March 15th, 2007 - “To be clear, Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ in Chicago,” [Robert Gibbs]’ Jan. 24 statement said. In a statement to The Times on Wednesday, the campaign offered slightly different wording, saying: “Obama has never been a practicing Muslim.”
Also, the New York Times article by Nicholas Kristof, March 6th, 2007: “Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”
Theard, even if Obama repeatedly says he has not been a practicing Muslim, I would like to have these two comments elaborated on - especially the last one.
Do you really think this won't be brought up during the general election?
I really would like to know more about his relationship to Islam - and I am not trying to engage in fear mongering. I think it is justified in wanting to know more, considering practically his entire family (father's side - as well as his mother converting to Islam) were Muslims. I'm not saying there were radical Muslims - I am saying I would like to know more. Since when is that a crime? Why can't he just talk about his relationship to Islam in a sincere way. If he has no relationship to Islam, then elaborate on the comments - especially the second one about the Muslim call to prayer being "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth."
(Please also read my post # 50 regarding why I personally wouldn't go so far as to say the Muslim call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth.")
And Theard, I never said he was a Manchurian candidate nor have I ever said he is a radical Muslim (please look through all my posts - you can easily verify this).
I have always said I want to know more about him and his beliefs. I would say the same of anyone I don't know much about. Why am I suddenly not allowed to say that of Obama?
You know, it's ironic because originally I really wanted to like him and give him my vote. But I simply can't at this point, because I don't know that much about him, and everytime I ask what I think are sincere questions - I am attacked for being some pretty horrible things. This tactic might work during the primary, but it really won't during the general election.
If I'm asking these questions about Obama, then so are others. Why can't you accept that - and try to talk to me rationally so that these doubts can subside. Instead you just attack the questions.
What sort of strategy is that?
Comment by Karen — April 28, 2008 @ 3:02 pm
Karen –
This is pathetic–you accuse me of not reading your posts, I have, and found them objectionable.
Where are you getting your facts?
Are you referring to THIS article published on 3/6/2008 titled: "Obama and the Bigots" where Kristoff argues the opposite point you attribute to him? Don’t you realize that these false claims can easily be verified and do you assume that we are all idiots?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/opinion/09kristof.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
I could care less whether you are for or against Obama, Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal. I am only challenging your erroneous assertions and seemingly scurrilous attacks disguised in an intellectual plea for rational discourse.
I will not even address your other comments until you address the first quote from which the entire premise of your argument is based.
This is the beauty of the blogosphere, unlike radio and cable, you can and will be challenged.
Comment by Theard — April 28, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
Theard, I had actually included the source, author, dates and all. But ok, for your convenience…….
1) Regarding the first reference – latimes.com March 15th 2007 article by Paul Watson. The abstract is available for free, but there’s a charge for the full text (I’m sure you can afford it). The abstract contains the quote I refer to. (Long link – or you could simply go to the L.A.Times website and look it up in their archives.)
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/1233104901.html?dids=1233104901:1233104901&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Mar+15%2C+2007&author=Paul+Watson&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&edition=&startpage=A.1&desc=As+a+child%2C+Obama+crossed+a+cultural+divide+in+Indonesia
Comment by Karen — April 28, 2008 @ 6:44 pm
2) The second reference – N.Y.Times 6th March 2007 article by Nicholas Kristof.
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/opinion/06kristof.html?scp=2&sq=nicholas+kristof++man+of+the+world&st=nyt
By the way, both articles describe Obama as being “worldly” due to his background. So there’s no need for you to be so enraged at me wanting him to elaborate on his background & beliefs (and why he hasn't been straightforward about them).
I also read the other article by Kristof you mention – and I don’t think the word Muslim is a slur. That’s why I’m completely ok with having a Muslim president in India.
However, I am not ok with the more extreme Muslim beliefs, just as I’m not ok with the more extreme Mormon, Catholic, Hindu etc. beliefs. Hence I would like to know more about Obama’s Muslim background (no, once again I’m not saying he’s a Manchurian candidate….but feel free to interpret it as such, since it seems to make you happy.)
P.S. Theard, this is getting tiresome.
Comment by Karen — April 28, 2008 @ 6:52 pm
Ok so you got me..
Did u also read this article?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/24kristof.html?scp=2&sq=nicholas+kristof&st=nyt
Where he clearly states:
"Senator Obama’s father, who apparently converted to Catholicism while attending a Catholic school, was also polygamous in keeping with local custom, taking an informal Kenyan wife who preceded Mr. Obama’s mother but remained a consort, according to accounts by local people and the senator himself."
and later
"Senator Obama barely knew his father and does not know his Kenyan relatives well. He has visited Kenya three times, most recently very briefly in 2006."
So can we agree that he did not convert to Islam in Kenya?==so the only other possible place is Indonesia–where he is being accused of attending a Madrassa(sp?)…
Proof?
Comment by Theard — April 28, 2008 @ 8:10 pm
"Obama has never been a practicing Muslim"
I guess you were referring to his enrollment in a Catholic school where he had to list his religious affiliation?
Please read This:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/24/AR2007012400371_pf.html
Comment by Theard — April 28, 2008 @ 8:21 pm
Theard,
I am not referring to anything aside from the two comments I originally listed. I certainly never said anything like he attended a Madrassa etc…I am not in the habit of saying things I can't back up with facts/proof. You should know that by now.
I am referring solely to the two statements:
1) FACT: Obama has consistently and vehemently denied ever being a Muslim….until his campaign's (oblique) admission that he was a Muslim (albeit they claim a "non-practicing" one). Then why couldn't they say this from the start? Why not be straightforward about it? Does he think this flip-flopping won't be held against him?
2) FACT: Obama recited the Muslim call to prayer, then proceeded to call it "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth" in March 2007. I would really like to hear more about his relationship to Islam in light of this comment.
3) (newly added) FACT: Karl Rove said in an interview a few weeks ago that Obama had visited Pakistan during college. I am NOT saying this is true (I have no knowledge of the facts here). I AM saying that Karl Rove said this was true. Now, Karl Rove is a very determined and detail oriented man (you can read his article "How to Win a Knife Fight" - very interesting since he's talking about the elections). I doubt he would be caught on tape accusing Obama of something that can be verified that easily. So when Karl says something like this, he has a larger point in mind. And I think we all know what that is (in light of facts 1 & 2 that I have listed - which trust me, Karl Rove is very aware of - aside from Arugula).
All in all, I think that it's better to be aware and prepared that this will become an issue in the general election. And that doesn't exactly bode well for the Democrats in November.
Theard, I enjoyed our exchanges and you made some good points. Cheers.
Comment by Karen — April 29, 2008 @ 12:40 pm
Regarding my last post, point #3:
On second thought, Karl Rove said that "he went to Pakistan during college" in an interview regarding Obama and Rev. Wright. Hmmm….I need to doublecheck who Rove meant by "he"….Obama or Wright. I apologize for that. I'll try to dig up the interview.
Comment by Karen — April 29, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
He meant Obama-
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aOOwMgWY_VIA&refer=home
Here is another link:
http://www.dailyindia.com/show/230606.php/Obama-visited-Pakistan-as-a-college-student-
Not sure why this is news.
Comment by Theard — April 29, 2008 @ 5:10 pm
Ok, I was right. Karl Rove did state that Obama traveled to Pakistan in college (not your typical college student's destination).
Here's the snippet from the transcript:
ROVE: "[Obama] says foreign policy's the area where I am most confident that I know and understand the world better than Senator Clinton and Senator McCain, and goes on to cite as evidence the fact that he lived in Indonesia for four years as a pre-teen, that he studied international affairs at Columbia, that he traveled to Pakistan in college, and that he has family that he said is impoverished, living in small villages in Africa, as if these four things were enough to say that I know and understand the world more and better than Senator Clinton and Senator McCain."
Here's the link:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351331,00.html
Comment by Karen — April 29, 2008 @ 5:13 pm
(Actually, Hillary did not make doouble digit in PA. It was 9.2%.)
But what is appalling is Lanny's repeated smearing of Barack with Rev. Wright's outrageous statements even when Barack has repudiated them, as for example on CNN tonight on Larry King. Shame on you!
Comment by Ronald Friend — April 29, 2008 @ 11:06 pm
From the link above….
"In 1981, Obama visited his mother and sister Maya in Indonesia and then travelled to Pakistan with a friend from college whose family was from there.
According to Obama's campaign, he was in Karachi for about three weeks and then visited Hyderabad in India."
Comment by Theard — April 30, 2008 @ 9:19 am
ACTUAL FACTS:
Obama has racked up a huge lead in pledged delegates based on (1) his dominance of the caucus system through superior organization and the enthusiasim of new voters, (2) his 10-in-a-row streak, and (3) 19 HUGE victories of more than 20 (not 9.2) points in states all over the Country including Virginia, Maryland, Mississippi, DC, Georgia, Vermont, Wyoming, Colorado, Dems Abroad, Nebraska, the Virgin Islands, Idaho and North Dakota (to name a few).
If you think HRC is going to covince a Super Majority of the remaining Super Delegates to ignore these facts and be swayed with arguments based on polls and speculation - you got another thing coming.
Comment by warren — April 30, 2008 @ 11:33 am
Theard, that might be right about Obama's trip to Indonesia, Pakistan, then India……but you'll notice how Karl Rove positioned it in his statement.
There was no mention of Hyderabad, India - only Pakistan (and also no mention of visiting a college friend's family there).
Trust me, it is an indication of things to come during the general election.
Comment by Karen — April 30, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
Any questions of Obama's relationship to Islam are legitimate.
We were attacked and are engaged in a war with radical Islam. He has made a centerpiece of his campiegn a retreat from a central battlefield in that war. Let's just get the truth.
Comment by A — April 30, 2008 @ 7:24 pm
I don't think people were ever concerned with radical islam until we went to war in Iraq and needed an excuse to stay there.
Comment by Yvonne — May 2, 2008 @ 3:36 pm
Would someone please send me Lanny Davis's email address?
I would love to give him a piece of my mind. He's a dangerous man.
J.f. Brown
Comment by j.f. brown — May 4, 2008 @ 12:24 am
go hillary , we love you lanny , you know that hillary will win , thank you for you support
i dont know what happened to michael barone
Comment by mario — May 16, 2008 @ 9:10 pm
michael barone is alive and in form , Barack Hussein Obama can not win , do you want another atack from alqaida , unfotunately it will happen if that man is nominee, they are crazy people and they can do anything , america deserve president who is ready on day one , president bill clinton was good in preventing terorist atacks and obama dont know how many states USA have , he thinks 57 ?!?!? WHAT KIND OF PRESIDENT IS THAT , DONT BE FULIH IN FRONT OF WHOLE WORLD , AND THAT SEGOLENE ROYAL WHO IS SUPPORTING OBAMA , SHE MUST SUPORT HIM IN SOME OTHER PLACE RATHER THAN POLITICS
Comment by mario — May 17, 2008 @ 5:00 am