Posts with the tag smear

Former (London) Times Editor Harold Evans Smears the US Media in an Article in the UK Guardian

mathpol — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 22:22:33 EST

“Mad about The One. The US media have been captivated by Obama, at the expense of their curiosity and scepticism.”

This is the title of an article by Harold Evans in The Guardian on November 1, 2008. He resorts to the bias he decries in his one-sided column. I have reproduced it below in its entirety, along with my annotations {…} . Phrases that I comment upon are in boldface.

It's fitting that the cynicism "vote early and vote often" is commonly attributed to Chicago's Democratic boss, mayor Richard Daley, who famously voted the graveyards in 1960 to help put John Kennedy in the White House. In this 2008 race, it's the American media that have voted very early and often. They long ago elected the star graduate of Chicago's Democratic machine, Barack Obama. {Obama is a hardly a “graduate“ of the machine. What about Harvard Law, Columbia, etc.?}

I am not talking of editorials in newspapers, though Obama has the preponderance of the endorsements over John McCain. Obama certainly deserves the credit for recruiting impressive advisers and running a more efficient campaign machine than any one in the US's political history.

What's troubling to anyone old-fashioned enough to care about standards in journalism is the news coverage in mainstream media. Forget the old notions of objectivity, fairness, thoroughness, and so on. The nastiest rumours on both sides haven't been published, but the coverage has been slavishly on the side of "the one". {“Slavish”? Evans’s description.}

Republican Election-Winning Strategy

Eric — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 09:33:34 EDT

Republican Model for Winning Elections:
1) Demonize the media.
2) Attack the character of your opponent.
3) Talk about things that have nothing to do with the election.
4) Lie to people about things your opponent has done via email, your very own news channel (Fox News), AM radio hosts, push polls, flyers on windshields at select radical churches, Project for a New American Century bake sales.
5) Spread rumors that your opponent is gay, has met someone who is gay, is secretly married to another man, is supported by an organization whose members are gay, has taken a campaign donation from someone that is gay, or is so straight they must be gay.
6) Appeal to ideographs such as family values, patriotism, democracy, and freedom in an effort to cast anyone that disagrees with you as undeserving to live in the country, despite the fact that in a democracy, everyone has the freedom to express their opinion, and are a patriot for doing so even if it is different from yours. That, and family values is a marketing strategy that doesn't actually mean anything.
7) Demonize the media some more, despite the fact that for the last 8 years it has been in your pocket because the five major companies that own a majority of the media outlets in the country are too afraid to air any criticism of your own president's policies, even the illegal ones (torture, "regime change," wire tapping without warrants, Guantanamo Bay, the PATRIOT Act, etc). That, and due to its corporate ownership, is not looking to draw unfavorable attention to itself (stock prices could dip) and therefore is in service to upholding the status quo. Given that a Republican president and, for a while, a majority in the House and Senate was the status quo, I think it is more accurate to see the media as having been in your favor the whole time.
8) Remind people of the party's former glory under Reagan, and include the slogans that you used from that time which no longer apply: "tax and spend liberal," fiscal conservative, well, that's all I know, I was born the year Reagan was re-elected.
9) Suggest that every problem the country is facing right now is entirely your opponent's fault--gas prices, the tanking economy, deregulation (which is perennially a Republican rallying point--Holy crap, things got out of control, let's see if the public will buy that it was the Democrat's idea).
10) Lie about your opponent's plans for his presidency.
11) Lie some more about your opponent's voting record.
12) Bring up the fact that he served on an education policy reform board in the 1990's with a guy that was, thirty years earlier, active with the Weathermen in the 60's but was never convicted. Fail to mention that the guy had changed since the 60's, as if he still hated the country, why would he join a board that is trying to improve it, and that said board had lawyers and bankers on it also. Imply that he knew the person in the 60's, despite the fact that your opponent was EIGHT YEARS OLD and would never have met him for any reason at that time.
13) Lie to people about your opponent's religion, saying that he is secretly a Muslim. Honestly, this is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Heck, if the Democrats wanted to, they could say that McCain is a Martian, it would make the same amount of sense.
14) Appeal to people's fear and hatred to generate support.
15) Cast any dissent from your stance on the war as being unpatriotic. Never mind that a) the war has been mishandled from the day our soldiers set the first foot in Iraq, b) the war was not supposed to take resources from Afghanistan, c) Iraq will probably descend into civil war as soon as we leave, no matter when we leave, d) if democracy is of the people and by the people, how can it be forced upon someone, and e) we should never have gone in in the first place. And, because your position is ignorant of these facts, your position is flawed, and a different position that is better informed and is the harder choice to make is the correct one. Honestly, it is easy to carry forward the policies of the guy before you. But to see what must be done, even though it will not be easy, and to do it anyway shows true leadership.
--On this last note, of leadership, look at McCain's policies, they are all the same sort of pass the buck, bandaid solutions that he is saying he will act against: oil dependence--drill for more oil in places that were off-limits because of the damage to the environment and coastal tourism economies, though it will do nothing to free us of oil dependence, high gas prices--suspend the federal gas tax rather than address the real reason prices are high-lack of refining capacity, speculation, and plain old dependence on something we need not be dependent on; and, of course, the war in Iraq.
All of this, and the question that comes to mind is, if you are willing to resort to all this in order to win, do you deserve to win?

John McCain is Dishonest

Ivan Richmond — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 15:23:49 EDT

John McCain has been running a character assassination campaign against Barack Obama. He's been playing a con game to try to shift around Bill Ayers and Barack Obama to try to somehow associate Obama with Ayer's militant anti-war activities during the Vietnam War (which happened when Obama was a kid), just because Obama, along with countless respectable citizens, both Democrats and Republicans, served on the board of directors of a non-profit organization that Ayers, now a respected Professor of Education, happened also to be on.

John McCain has been playing a shell and pea game trying to make people associate Obama with certain bad apples in an organization called ACORN who were trying to make false voter registrations. The truth is that ACORN is a bipartisan get-out-the-vote organization and they were the ones who blew the whistle on their these bad apples as soon as they found out they were doing it. What that means is that all they want to do is just register as many people to vote as they can, but they leave the decisions up to those people. The problem is that some of the people they hired to get the vote out (and, as you can imagine they hire thousands of people), want to cheat to make money, so they'd fill out phony voter registration forms. This goes totally against what ACORN is trying to do. This link explains it:

http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=17855

It's true that the Obama supports ACORN, because, as a good, honest, upstanding citizen who supports Democracy, he wants everyone who's eligible to vote to be registered and vote, regarldess of whether they vote for him, for McCain, for Ralph Nader, or for someone else. That's Democracy at it's finest. He and ACORN are both blameless in this regretable act by a few bad apples.

But, McCain didn't stop his smear games there. He's authorized robocalls and mailings to people all over America saying nasty, hateful things about Barack Obama. These robocalls and mailings try to make him out to be a terrorist or claim that he's a Muslim. The truth is that Obama's a Christian. The truth is that Barack Obama's an upstanding citizen who cares about protecting America from terrorists.

What you can do.

Contact eveyone you know and tell them this. Stop dishonest character assassination attempts this elections season. Write letters to the editors of your local newspapers (you may even be able to do this online, just go to google.com, search for your newspaper's name and you may be surprised to find that they're online and you can send a letter to the editor over the internet right now). Do whatever you can to get the word out about this dishonesty from the McCain camp.

One reason I'm voting for Obama is because I think he's simply more honest than McCain. McCain just seems like an oily con artist to me.

If you'd like to donate to my grassroots campaign for Barack Obama, click the link below:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/ivanrichmond

Credit Card Smears

SpottedDog — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 02:53:44 EDT

Hi, everyone!

Just a short notice: I am a German citizen (as I have said quite often) and I have tried several times to donate to the Barack Obama campaign. It is not possible to do that with a German credit card! It just isn't possible.

So, everyone who states that there were donations from foreign credit cards - not true!

Much less would I believe that a card from an "Adolf Hitler" was accepted. This last claim is final proof to me that the accusations are completely baseless!

That's all for now

Bye

Know The Opposition - Carl Rove's Advice to McCain

Ivan Richmond — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:17:22 EDT

Want to know what Carl 'Saruman' Rove of Many Colors, Bush's former campaign advisor and propaganda sorceror is advising McCain to do? Read his article here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122471862591760559.html

We've got to know what the opposition is planning. Sounds like Rove's advice is more smears and more reframing of Obama's tax plan from a conservative perspective.

Fortunately, our language framing wizard, George 'Gandalf' Lakoff the White has an outline for strategy for the Obama campaign. It's a bit old (just before the elections), but still looks good. View it here:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/10/01-0

If you'd like to donate to my grassroots campaign for Obama, click on the link below. This is a real close race and we need all the help we can get. You can make a difference. Even $5 will help.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/ivanrichmond

Gail Collins hits, and also misses, the mark

mathpol — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:25:41 EDT

“Confessions of a Phone Solicitor” is the title of Gail Collins’ column in today’s New York Times. Here are some excerpts.

[A] telemarketer named Ted Zoromski quit his job this week over John McCain’s message. Zoromski was prepared to interrupt people during their dinner hours to encourage them to vote Republican. But when he got the script saying “you need to know that Barack Obama has worked closely with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, whose organization bombed the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, a judge’s home and killed Americans,” he packed it in.“Even though I was paid to do it, I didn’t feel comfortable,” Zoromski told WKOW-TV.

This story … struck me because I once worked as a telemarketer, and it is an occupation so soul-numbing that it is hard to imagine that anything could make it worse. I woke up people on the overnight shift who had just managed to fall asleep for the first time in six days. Sometimes, when there was clearly nobody at home, I would just let the phone ring and ring in order to avoid having to call anybody else. …

So truly, if you can come up with something that would send a telemarketer over the edge, you have really overachieved on the offensiveness front.

She then goes on to give a vivid description of all the vile mud-slinging being done by McCain, Palin, et al. My issue is with the first part of the article. Here is the comment I posted.

Once again Collins has missed the mark. Telemarketers make nuisance calls. That's what advertising is all about. It is not unethical for them to do their work. No one told Collins to let the phone keep ringing when she was a phone solicitor. Ted Zoromski quit his job because he was asked to deliver a dishonest and hateful message. Now that Collins is a Times columnist, after having been a Times editor, she feels free to trash those in her earlier line of work. This is true elitism.

Collins plays fast and loose with the facts and often fails to reason properly. This is a lot more harmful than disturbing people at dinner. The Times has a Doctor Jekyll-Mr. Hyde combo (Dowd-Collins). Maureen's brilliance is matched by Gail's dalliance. Too bad more of your readers don't catch on to this. Perhaps it is because Collins’ column causes so much ringing in their ears.

Getting back to the main point of her article, here is the front page and an inside page of a recent RNC mailer.

Framing Progressive Taxation George Lakoff Style

Ivan Richmond — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:18:11 EDT

I found a great article about the Progressive view on taxation and how best to frame that view to the public:

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/lakoff/progressive-taxation-some-hidden-truths.html

We may want to use these ideas in counteracting McCain's smears, like calling Obama's tax plan "socialist" or "welfare".

Reframing "Socialist"

Ivan Richmond — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 16:41:04 EDT

McCain is now saying that Obama's tax policy is "Socialist". Of course, we know that's poppy cock, but the problem is it's a frame and should not be underestimated. To understand how frame's work, read UC Berkeley linguist George Lakoff's article here:

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/lakoff/howtorespond.html

The idea behind describing Obama's tax policy this way, I think, is that conservatives place strong importance on discpline. If someone succeeds, they think it's because they were disciplined. Disciplined, and therefore successful people, they think, deserve to be rewarded. They think of people who are struggling to make it as lazy and undisciplined. To describe Obama's tax plan as McCain does makes it sound like a free gift to the undisciplined. We need to fight this frame by reframing it. Here are my suggestions.

Smearbusters. org needs you to defend Obama on internet

Food Fascist — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:40:03 EDT

Smearbusters. org spreads counter-responses to smears against Obama. We use a search engine to find sites, mostly blogs, that have posted smear messages. For each one, you just have to figure out how to post a response and then post our suggested response text (or tailor it to the particular site if you think that will be more effective). We have 200+ instances of smears waiting for responses, and we're finding 'em faster than our volunteers are fixing 'em, so we need more help. If you feel like fixing a few, check out http://smearbusters.org, and please pass the request on to anyone who you think might want to help out in this way.

McCain's heroes - George Bush and Karl Rove

Joe Bell — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:15:58 EDT

Charles Keating, Morris Udall, Scoop Jackson, Barry Goldwater, Billy Mitchell, Emiliano Zapata and Teddy Roosevelt. Maybe, probably, there are more. These are the ones that I remember from his speeches and his second book. It is a pretty contrived public relations list. He says he admires people that he thinks are like what he would like for us to believe he is like. Morris Udall and Teddy Roosevelt were both men who loved the out doors and made real efforts to preserve them for the future. What had Senator McCain done on that score? Nothing. Udall also worked hard to improve the standard of living, health and education of the American Indians. What has Senator McCain done on that score? Nothing, but he has arranged for the American Indians to become the new center for the gambling business in the United States. Scoop Jackson, Barry Goldwater and Billy Mitchell are champions of the air force and extremely committed to war, no matter where, no matter when. And Barry Goldwater wanted to nuke everyone preemptively. So Senator McCain could have been telling the truth here. He liked Charles Keating well enough to take a lot of money from him, but that is not really heroic, especially when the money was stolen from the people who deposited it in his bank. Emiliano Zapata is a really weird choice on this list because he was a champion of the native people's right to own land. Senator McCain is a champion of the native people's right to own casinos, but that is not really the same thing. However, the main point of this for me is to show that Senator McCain doesn't say that his hero list includes George Bush and Karl Rove. And Senator McCain has been demonstrating that he likes these guys best.

Senator McCain is running an extremely negative, fear mongering campaign, just like George Bush and Karl Rove. This sort of talk tends to distort the polling information because people are ashamed to say that they believe what is obviously a smear. So we have to keep working to both counter the negative stuff, and get people out to vote. McCain supporters are already illegally purging voters from the rolls in some states and whipping up hysteria over ACORN. These are standards of the Bush Rove campaign to keep people from voting. Here in Texas they are circulating misleading flyers about the voting process. Their aim is to suppress voter turnout, so we have to keep working to help people go vote. McCain smears are targeted to dominate the real news for a week or two. The press keeps repeating the smear and then adds some small disclaimer at the end to say that it is not true. So we have to keep working to talk directly to the people to counteract the false information and get the people to go vote. We know from the history of this McCain-Bush campaigning style that the popular vote shifts radically in the final days of the race. People get disgusted with the negativity and decide they don't want anything to do with politics. Some people get angry. Some people get scared. So we have to keep working to spread the positive messages we have been delivering the whole time, and get the people to go vote. If we do all this, keep working and get the people to go vote, we can get the kind of landslide that will give us a huge mandate. But, we have to keep on working. It is not long, compared to how long we have been out here already, and it is easier now that we can see that the Obama positive idea actually does counter the McCain-Bush negativity. Yes We Can.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdNgMKPV9xQ

Video smear watch site

Brian from Oviedo, FL — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 14:30:18 EDT

I have augmented my web site regarding GOP smear tactics, voter fraud and caging with a related youtube report. The name of the report is SmearWatch.

The place to go on smearwatch is the playlist:

<A href="http://www.youtube.com/profile_play_list?user=SmearWatch">SmearWatch Playlists.</A>

McCain's thinks we're donating too much!

Ivan Richmond — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 16:26:22 EDT

Have you heard the latest smear? Now, McCain's criticizing us for having raised "too much" money. See here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081019/ap_on_el_pr/mccain

Can you believe that guy? I mean, in the past few elections, it's always been the Republicans who have raised way more money. I seem to recall that Bush raised $300,000 in 2000, 3 times what Gore raised, all because he had some of the wealthiest voters imaginable. Now, we have this grassroots effort to raise money. If you're like me you've been donating $20, maybe as little as $5 at a time, when you can afford it, and it's not been easy in this economy. But, I for one keep donating because I really care about these elections. I'm really tired of seeing Bush tear down this country, rip up our Constitution and attempt rape on Lady Liberty. I'm livid! I want a president who will respect our Constitutionand actually do what's best for the people for once. What does McCain think we should do, just not donate? I'm sure he'd like that.

But, what's going on here is framing at it's nastiest. Most Americans vote based on character, rather than on policies. McCain's frame is that Obama is dishonest. We need to reframe this. For more on framing, see framing guru and UC Berkeley linguist George Lakoff's article here:

Fight the Smears

Ivan Richmond — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 22:49:56 EDT

We're really close and we can win this. But, we have to fight the smears. Palin has been running around to swing states talking about this whole ACORN smear. The fact of the matter is that ACORN itself is a legitimate voter registration organization and it's only certain members of it who are under investigation for false voter registration. This isn't actually voter fraud. In order to commit voter fraud, one has to actually cast a vote more than once. Of course Obama and our campaign support voter registration. So, naturally this Obama campaign gave money to ACORN, thinking that money would go to legitimate voter registration. But, Obama and our campaign are totally unconnected to the falsified voter registration of ACORN. The whole thing's a dirty smear and we have to fight it.

In order to do this, I think we need to come up with some sort of short, to the pont phrase that makes these facts clear. I'm not sure how to do that, but I'm not a speach writer. If I think of something, I'll let you all know. %-)

McCain keeps hammering away at all their poppy cock about Ayers. Ayers did some fairly nasty stuff, it's true, but Obama's only connection to him is that he served on the same board with him, as well as with plenty of pillars of the community: Republicans, Democrats, executives and university heads. It's guilt by association and we have to stand up to the smear.

Again, I don't know what words we'd use exactly, but as I've said, I'm not an ad author.

Smear Mail appears in SCC Mailboxes

bpalmer28 - President, St. Charles Democratic Alliance — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 15:15:27 EDT

Karl Rove's legacy is alive and well at the Missouri Republican Committee. I received a slick and glossy brochure in my mail today from the MO Republican Committee. The piece is solely focused on William Ayers. No mention of the economy, healthcare, or education. A "be scared of the boogey man" just in time for Halloween. Call your friends, neighbors and write your fellow bloggers and fight the smears with the facts.

Republican Lies Should Be Taken Seriously

Jim — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 17:32:37 EDT

McCain, Palin and their foul surrogates are on TV spouting lies and distortions that are beyond the pale. I just heard on Hard Ball some far right congressperson, Bockman, from Minnesota spout the most nasty rhetoric I've heard about Obama and Democrats, in the same vein as Palin and McCain do in their stump speeches.

It's time that Obama'a campaign start to put out the names of the people that McCain associated with over the past 100 years. The junkets McCain has been on, not only the Keating Five, Palin's corrupt behavior in Alaska and her total lack of ethics. There's a lot more about both of these people that has not been looked at and needs to be aired!

Exclusive use of the high road got Democrats like Kerry no where. There has to be some return fire to counter the Ultra Negative Blitz that Karl Rove and his proteges have launched.

This whole smear campaign is geared to sew doubt in people's minds, so that once in the voting booth they will once again settle for the devil they know. The Republicans and McCain are out there trying, and in some cases succeeding, in deceiving middle and working class Americans in to thinking that the Republican Party somehow represents their concerns.

The Republicans and McCain/Palin will say and do anything so that they and their neocon friends can continue to rape this country and turn it into some notion they have of what this country should be, a place ruled by the few.

Nyah nyah nyah, you Ayers-loving terrorist!

Llysse Smith Wylle — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:09:08 EDT

"It seemed manifestly unfair to tar him with this association," explained William C. Ibershof to the LA Times. "Sen. Obama had known Ayers during a period he was named Citizen of the Year in Chicago, not when he was committing those terrorist acts."

Ibershof is certainly qualified to speak on the subject: he's the lawyer who prosecuted Ayers in the 70s.

I have to admit that if I had been introduced to a Citizen of the Year who was a professor at an important university, my first thought would not be to hire a private investigator--or even to do a Google Search--to find out if he'd had radical views or performed criminal activities 40 years before. I have to say that I've never done any background checks on any of my former college professors, although I believe one to be a rather good amateur bluegrass musician.

Politifact further tears the Obama-Ayers association apart. Politifact's "truth-o-meter" system has several ratings, including true, mostly true, half true, mostly false, false--and pants-on-fire. The claim that Senator Obama and Ayers ran a radical education association together gets their worst, pants-on-fire rating.

Not only were Ayers and Obama not particularly close, they did not "run" the association, and it was not "radical" in the sense of using extreme (violent!) measures to accomplish its goals... but only radical in the sense that it departed from traditional educational methods. As Politifact rightly points out, there are different definitions for the word radical. I attended Sarah Lawrence College, and it uses radical!, non-traditional educational methods. I daresay it is not considered a "radical" organization, however. For that matter, home schooling might well be considered in the "non-traditional education" category. Returning to college as an adult is also "non-traditional."

Here's an excerpt of Politifact's analysis:

But Ayers' views on education, though certainly reform-oriented and left-of-center, are not considered anywhere near as radical as his Vietnam-era views on war. And even if they were, there was a long list of individuals involved with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge whose positions provided them far more authority over its direction than Ayers' advisory role gave him.

Let's look at a few, starting with the funder. Annenberg was a lifelong Republican and former ambassador to the United Kingdom under President Richard Nixon. His widow, Leonore, has endorsed McCain. Kurtz might just as plausibly have accused Obama and the foundation of "translating Annenberg's conservatism into practice."

Among the other board members who served with Obama were: Stanley Ikenberry, former president of the University of Illinois; Arnold Weber, former president of Northwestern University and assistant secretary of labor in the Nixon administration; Scott Smith, then publisher of the Chicago Tribune; venture capitalist Edward Bottum; John McCarter, president of the Field Museum; Patricia Albjerg Graham, former dean of the Harvard University Graduate School of Journalism, and a host of other mainstream folks.

They conclude:

In short, this was a mainstream foundation funded by a mainstream, Republican business leader and led by an overwhelmingly mainstream, civic-minded group of individuals. Ayers' involvement in its inception and on an advisory committee do not make it radical – nor does the funding of programs involving the United Nations and African-American studies.

This attack is false, but it's more than that – it's malicious. It unfairly tars not just Obama, but all the other prominent, well-respected Chicagoans who also volunteered their time to the foundation. They came from all walks of life and all political backgrounds, and there's ample evidence their mission was nothing more than improving ailing public schools in Chicago. Yet in the heat of a political campaign they have been accused of financing radicalism. That's Pants on Fire wrong.

Just because McCain and Palin are liar-liars-with-their-pants-on-fire, don't expect the extreme right wing campaign rhetoric to change in any way, however. Why should it?

For one thing, as I pointed out in previous posts, the last attempt by McCain to tone things down netted him boos from his own supporters. (One suspects they are not actually supporting McCain specifically, any way, but that their underlying prejudices have merely been given voice by the dirty campaign he has run.)

Secondly, just look at the kind of loyalty this campaign has inspired in its followers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKUovpF9LWU

It's just heartwarming.

Our Future...

Mickiboop (P.O.B.) Be the Change — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 11:36:31 EDT

Every day I watch and compare the differences between the campaigns of my candidate of choice, Barack Obama and John McCain. Every day I find the McCain campaign more distasteful, negative, ugly and full of lies and misrepresentations than it was on the day before. With all that is going on in America and in the world, and knowing that our country needs to pull together in order to solve some of the challenges we are facing, I find it hard to believe that anyone would vote for the McCain/Palin ticket. There are stark differences between the two campaigns regarding honesty, substance, organization and long-term plans for the future of our country. The McCain/Palin ticket is asking us to believe that they would bring change to America out of one side of their mouths, while they play the same old dirty games republicans use each election out of the other side.

With all that we are facing as a country, does McCain really believe that ANYONE will want to work with or for him or his people to solve the challenges in America after he has created and deepened such ugly divisions between the American people by using such negative and divisive language and tactics? Do McCain and Palin really believe that they will gain the cooperation of the democrats after slinging so much mud and cow patties? Will they recognize the vile and totally split country they will have created with their negative crap if they succeed in scaring Americans into voting for them over voting for real hope and change?

Imagine our country under a McCain/Palin presidency. The McCain/Palin ticket is uninspiring, presents no hope for the future and offers Americans nothing towards working together to form a more perfect union. If they win this election, we will be so torn apart, disillusioned, mistrustful of our elected leaders and determined not to cooperate, that our country will continue to loose its values and importance in the eyes of the people at home and in the world. I pray that the people of America will reject the McCain/Palin politics of fear and smear, and will choose hope in order to build real change for America’s future with fresh ideas and determination coming from the bottom up! This is our time – it is our moment to make America a better country!

McCain in Love

Julia — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:50:58 EDT

Hi Everyone!

Check out this absolutely hilarious "smear campaign" video spoof about John McCain.

It has a very different tone but it speaks its own truth. Please send it especially to women who are undecided, but feel free to send to anyone. PASS IT ON!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Go4ENRKY6fw

Defending Barack's Good Name

Elisabeth from Silver Spring, MD — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 12:41:12 EDT

David Scheim wrote an article in the Washington Post (August 28) exploring the origins of Obama's first name and making use of linguisitic, historical, and archeological evidence. it should prove of interest to anyone trying to combat the smears that often start by impugning his name. It also shows that Barack comes from Baruch (meaning "blessed" in Hebrew) rather than Barak (which means lightning in the same language). its url is:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2008/08/barack_thy_name_is_biblical.html

or:

http://tinyurl.com/5q2zm5

It's well researched, with enough facts about Obama's name to impress scholars, scpetics, and those of many faiths and pilitical persuasions!

Baruch traslated, of course, means "Benedict." Barack, in becoming president would be following in the footsteps of other presdents with biblical names: Zachary Taylor, Benjamin Harrison, and Abrahan Lincoln.

Cindy McCain Welcomes You To "The Twilight Zone"!

August — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 18:47:27 EDT

Prior to last night's debates in which Barack Obama was the clear victor, Cindy told reporters earlier that day that Obama has "waged the dirtiest campaign in American history". This coming at the onset of McCain's new strategy to stop talking about the issues, and focus on Swift Boat-style tactics to defame Obama and try to make him seem like some kind of un-American radical. Cindy is giving a response founded on emotion, not logic. She's upset that Obama is pulling away in the polls and on the Electoral map. Obama is widely considered the "nice guy" that wants to be above the bipartisan smear tactics and fear-mongering that Republicans seem to own a patent on. But, he has learned from the Kerry campaign that we should strike back when they strike at us. Calling Obama "dirty" is a stretch, but calling it the "dirtiest" in "American history" is an illogical form of desperation, and just more smearing from the McCains to say the least.

Welcome to The Twilight Zone folks. Where all forms of reality & logic has been suspended in this political parrallel universe, brought to you by the Republican Party.

Obama's "The Subject" ad (in response to John McCain's smear tactics)

McCain campaign tactics In a single word: Contrafalsy

Tammy — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 21:18:02 EDT

Contrafalsy: a false controversy created to distract people from the more important issues at hand.

With the smears being laid thicker than usual by the McCain/Palin campaign in recent days, I had to coin a new term for them. And it's something that sadly, the McCain campaign might even proud of... Their VP candidate has become an expert at contrafalsy in record time.

Palin: Obama a terrorist at 8! We reply: How stupid do you think we are?

Ruth — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 20:29:08 EDT

Come on, seriously, she expects people to believe Obama is related to terrorism at the age of EIGHT? Guess Palin got no other options besides spreading obvious lies about Obama as a last desperate attempt to drag him down.

See full report here: http://kronomy.com/event/iTmUDKoPnk/

Palin: Obama a terrorist at 8! We reply: How stupid do you think we are?

Ruth — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 20:28:01 EDT

See full report here: http://kronomy.com/event/iTmUDKoPnk/

Palin: Obama a terrorist at 8! We reply: How stupid do you think we are?

Ruth — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 20:27:13 EDT

See full report here: http://kronomy.com/event/iTmUDKoPnk/

Palin: Obama a terrorist at 8! We reply: How stupid do you think we are?

Ruth — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 20:21:49 EDT

See full report here: http://kronomy.com/event/iTmUDKoPnk/

Palin: Obama a terrorist at 8! We reply: How stupid do you think we are?

Ruth — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 20:20:14 EDT

See full report here: http://kronomy.com/event/iTmUDKoPnk/

Palin: Obama a terrorist at 8! We reply: How stupid do you think we are?

Ruth — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 20:19:23 EDT

See full report here: http://kronomy.com/event/iTmUDKoPnk/

It pains me....

AJ from Walpole, MA — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 15:39:23 EDT

I heard someone the other day claim that, "Republicans play politics so much better than do Democrats." I was floored. Do I want my leader to be good at playing politics? Manipulating whatever they can sink their teeth into in order to sway some votes or gain some rapore? This is something that people not only condone, but in the case of the man I heard this from, enjoy. And all the while I have to grapple with the fact that yes, Republicans are better at 'playing politics', reason #1 why I'm a Democrat.

To extend that sentiment, and add another, I not only find the institution of playing politics to be vile, and many times slanderous, but the fact that millions of viewers can hear someone (say Gov. Palin), tout blatent lies about the other side, only to be retracted the next day and dropped off the map, not even the slightest bit of remorse over the filthy smear they just laid down. Nobody is angry? Nobody is outraged? The next day she wakes up knowing she can let it roll off the shoulder because that's politics.

They smear, and they fear their points about Obama into the news; then the next day remark about Obama not reaching accross the partisan wall to help them. Strike a man down, and have the gaul to ask him why he isn't fighting? I'm proud to be a Democrat, because of the nature of politics I've seen this last year. Most of all I am proud of Barrack. He has shown me the face of politics that exude strength, wisdome, and most importantly a lack of the seemingly always present hypocracy.

So yeah they are better at playing politics. The only thing that concerns me, is this isn't a game of monopoly, I'm not looking for a player (though the monopoly metaphor would be ripe for an economy comparison), I'm looking for a man. A man who trusts that if he lets the American people decide whats best for them by providing them with the truth, and lets them know that we truly have the power to change whatever ails us, he becomes the true pilar of strength. I will let a man stand on my shoulders to get the pot of gold first if I know that he will share it with me. It is in this way that I trust Mr. Obama...... and reason #2 I'm a Democrat.

VOICE YOURSELF,

AJ HACKER, 20 (D)-WA

Obama the epicenter of the mortgage meltdown? Please.

grahambot — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 20:59:06 EDT

A family member emailed me a link to the YouTube video below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU6fuFrdCJY

Here's my response:

What we're all about to witness over the next 31 days is a systematic dismantling of a campaign through rumor, slander, and gross exaggeration.

I have to respect the central premise of this video of "bad social engineering." Though the video even states that it wasn't a bad idea...just that it created the conditions in which banks and speculators ran amok.

So, then, if we were to try again at affordable mortgages, would a new effort be more regulated so that predatory lenders (who Obama spoke out EARLY and often against) would not be legitimized?

It is a stretch of logic to blame the whole crisis on the idea that mortgages should be available to more people. In reality, it wasn't the idea, but the execution, abuse and speculation that created the bubble. Yes Barney Frank and Chris Dodd had a role in that, but those two also stepped up and provided solid leadership during the crisis the last couple of weeks. Good politicians. Bad politics.

It is an even further stretch to try and pin this all on Obama. What a ridiculous screed. I sat through all ten minutes of that video. Here's Obama on the Fannie/Freddie smear:
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/21/fannierumor

What we'll see in the next 31 days is the McCain campaign releasing a series of attacks trying to discredit Obama through his associations. We'll learn all about Ayers, Rezko, Wright and others. What we won't hear about in this flurry of venom, is that McCain has JUST as many if not more associations that Obama could leverage for similar purposes.

Here's one: McCain's chief advisor, Charlie Black. Do as the video says, but this time Google Charlie Black. Holy cow, there's hardly a dictator that Black hasn't represented as a lobbyist! If Obama needed to, he could really press that point home. But instead, over the last couple of weeks, his advertisements have become increasingly positive, while McCain's advertisements this week are coming in 100% negative. 100% attack ads by John McCain.

The truth is, McCain has lost the battle of ideas and policies with Obama. The American people have increasingly been coming over to Obama's camp on most of the major issues affecting us. Health care, the economy, climate change, even the war in Iraq...McCain has lost the battle of ideas.

The only thing McCain has left is to go negative and hope that it turns the tide in battleground states. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/03/AR2008100303738.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR

Here's what role McCain's senior advisor had with Fannie/Freddie:
http://www.freddiemac.com/news/features/stories/20051114_homeownership.html
That's a press release from...you guessed it...2005!

And the trail of collusion goes WAY back in BOTH PARTIES.

What's the truth? A good idea (giving more people the ability to own their own home), combined with a greedy corporate culture (duh), combined with regulation and oversight that was not applied evenly (thank congress) due to the influence of lobbyists and corruption (both parties, but the GOP has redefined corruption after controlling all aspects of government) led to people like me (and many in worse standing) stretching to get loans in an unaffordable market.

There are many, many reasons for the bubble itself collapsing that go far beyond Fannie and Freddie not being able to back up their mortgage assets. How about the falling dollar - which led to the huge spike in oil prices? How about the Bush tax-cuts...the first time a president as ever pushed tax cuts in a time of war? How about the Iraq war sucking our resources dry and crippling our ability to respond or have a credible seat at the negotiating table with our allies? How about the fact that all our bad debt has been sold to China, the Saudis, and the Emirates?

Really...if all the money was changing hands inside the US, we could regain control through oversight and regulation. But, sadly...when debt crept all the way up the ladder to the US Treasury, they sold more bonds to China. THAT is the Bush legacy. He has accrued more national debt than the 42 presidents before him, combined. We are running budget deficits of close to half a trillion dollars a year.

I'd rather have a "tax and spend" democrat than a "don't tax and spend more than anyone ever has" Neoconservative. By the way, have you reviewed the candidates' tax proposals? 80% of Americans and 95% of American families would not see ANY tax increase with Obama, and anyone making less than $200K a year will have a lower tax bill with Obama than McCain.

P.S....all those donations from "Fannie and Freddie" that have gone to Obama....those were from individual employees, NOT corporate donations.

Here are some other categories where Obama FAR outraises McCain:

US Troops stationed overseas (6 to 1)
People with incomes lower than $200,000
People giving $200 or less
Women (2 to 1)

Who is the only candidate to refuse donations from registered federal lobbyists? Barack Obama.

Who is the only candidate to make his party change its rules and stop accepting donations from lobbyists? Barack Obama

Who is the candidate who has been attacked for having very loose and brief associations with Fannie/Freddie execs? Obama

Who is the candidate who keeps in his inner circle of advisors 6 top Washington lobbyists? John McCain

Which advisor was getting paid $15,000 a month by Fannie for "providing access" to his boss (even as late as June this year)? Rick Davis, McCain's #2 advisor.
http://federalism.typepad.com/crime_federalism/2008/09/rick-davis-fann.html

Which candidate has taken tangible steps toward introducing a change in the lobbyist culture in Washington during this campaign? Barack Obama.

Which candidate is exploiting and even violating his own campaign finance reform laws in order to stay competitive? John McCain.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021503639_pf.html

Who didn't copy and paste this response, but actually watched that video and wrote a thoughtful rebuttal? Your relative, <grahambot>.

<grahambot> '32!

P.P.S. Here's where people are putting their money on the coming election:
http://www.intrade.com

We're approaching landslide territory.

Vote Obama in '08!

It'll Be A Battle In The Trenches

Paul Lai — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 18:53:57 EDT

The official numbers in Seminole are: 104K The Bad Guys vs. 84K of The Good Guys.

Sounds a bit lopsided?

Not so close?

Not so fast.

I'll tell you why...

Tax smears - spread the truth

North Carolina from Raleigh, NC — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:49:55 EDT

Dear Friends,

The economy is the number one issue on voters’ minds. Barack Obama laid out a plan this week to address this crisis and offered strong, practical solutions for American families.

But while Barack offered solutions, John McCain went before the nation to continue lying about Barack and to offer more of the same disastrous George Bush policies that got us here. The Washington Post even said, “On Economy, Obama Offers Ideas, McCain Blames Rival.”

Smear emails lying about Barack Obama’s positions on taxes and the economy have been circulating widely. The most common tax smear email has been debunked by the independent and non-partisan group FactCheck.org, which calls its claims “made up.” They continue, “This widely distributed message is so full of misinformation that we find it impossible to believe that it is the result of simple ignorance or carelessness on the part of the writer. Almost nothing it says about Obama's tax proposals is true. We conclude that this deception is deliberate.”

Do not let these lies go unanswered. Every time you receive the smear email lying about Obama’s plan on taxes and the economy, please respond with this email and these key elements of Barack's plan:

Families making less than $250,000 a year will get a tax cut three times larger than under John McCain's plan and will face absolutely no tax increases.
A $1,000 emergency energy rebate for families with high fuel costs right now while putting $50 billion into job creation to get our economy back on track.
While John McCain has voted against raising the minimum wage 19 times, Barack would raise the minimum wage and set it to rise automatically with inflation. Invest $15 billion a year in green energy research to reduce our economy's dependence on foreign oil and create 5 million American jobs a year.

Here are some more resources that you can pass on to others.

See the point-by-point refutation of the tax smear email from FactCheck.org.
Read Senator Obama’s plan to cut taxes for over 95% of all American families.
Watch a video contrasting the McCain campaign’s smears with reality.

Learn about this and other smears directly from the Obama campaign. This page includes a feature that allows you to spread the facts by forwarding it to your friends and anyone from your contact list you choose.

Please pass this information on to your friends and family. Spread the truth. Thank you for your vigilance.

Sincerely,

North Carolina Action Wire @ North Carolina Campaign for Change HQ

http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/NorthCarolinaActionWire

Election Year Hypocrisy

Tough Democrat — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:10:46 EDT

Election years typically bring out the hypocrits in all of us. Friends and colleagues we normally get along with day in and day out suddenly become "those damn right wing neo-cons hypocrits" and we become "those soft big government liberals".

Just this summer I was amazed when a neighbor called the police to report that I was violating City Ordinances because I had a pile of brush in my backyard. The police showed up to report the complaint and when we walked around to the backyard to observe the brush pile, I noticed that the guy who called the cops on me was watering his lawn against the city watering ban. I didn't get annoyed or anything but it did cross my mind that he was kind of being a hypocrit thinking it wasn't ok if I broke the law making my yard look ugly by being lazy but it was okay for him to brake the law to make his yard look green.

So maybe this election year I'm a little more sensitive to hypocrisy and it's just me, but the stuff I've been seeing from the McCain and other GOP campaigns is getting down right ridiculous.

How on earth can they attack Obama for being a "Community Organizer" and then try to praise community organizers in that forum on service? And how can they possibly call Obama an elitist when Cindy McCain wears a $300,000 outfit to the RNC? And how can they possibly claim Obama isn't willing to work across isles when he wrote a book about the inefficiencies of polarizing politics? And how can they possibly propose a tax plan the gives the largest tax breaks to richest Americans and then claim a greedy few at the top are responsible for the current economic climate?

Republicans fault both campaigns for negative ads, By HOPE YEN Associated Press Writer

Change O'8 — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 19:54:03 EDT

This article is a publicity stunt, by Karl Rove, to accomplish at least three things:

1. Make it look like the GOP really is at odds with McCain, and therefore McCain really will bring change to Washington.

2. Truly warn McCain to tone down the negativity of his adds because they are making him look bad.

3. Scare Obama away from being more aggressive, which he actually needs to be.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CAMPAIGNS_NEGATIVITY?SITE=CARIE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Should We Really Fight With Smears?

actionsauce — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:17:42 EDT

Calm down people, You don't have to act desperate. Dont let this go to your head, or affect your efforts for a victory, but this election is all but won by Obama's campaign. When the time comes to vote at the polls, people will think about two things: 1. Bush screwed us not once but twice, now his buddy is trying for a third time. 2. Obama is running a clean campaign with integrity, and is a different breed of politician that doesnt stoop to playground bullying, and flippancy. He is above the fray. Next thing they will do is vote democrat. Obama knows that the american people will embrace his message. He knows that as long as he sticks to his message, and gives a solid plan, that he cannot lose. Kerry was a weak candidate. He was an elitist, and he ran for president in too close to a post 911 america. His speeches sucked, his debates were lousy. Plus he didn't respond nearly as quickly or decisively as Obama has this election. And his message wasn't anything like Obama's. I voted for him for the same reasons many did. He wasnt Bush. Obama's message is that McCain is more of the same. He has the facts to back him, and a message that, well... draws 84,000 to invesco field, and 85 million to their tv sets. Have we forgotten? Are we so afraid of losing that we will result to the desperation of the GOP's pitiful tactics? Will this election be the same as all of the others? The GOP wants us to wring our hands and make desperate retalitory attacks at McCain. I am not saying that we should just sit by and let the GOP take bites out of our ass (no pun intended) while we sit idly by and appear weak. What I am saying is that we should stick to the issues that have taken us this far. We need only get the message out and concentrate on voter reistration and education. The GOP will use every dirty smear that they can think up. We democrats need only to respond by chastizing the way they run their campaign, and highlight how this is "more of the same" Bush/Rove tactics that americans have grown weary of. We only need to show that the pig is wearing lipstick, and wallowing in the mud. There is an old quote I know about playing dirty in politics: "You shouldn't wrestle with a pig, you get dirty, and the pig likes it."

We don't have to be desperate. The american people will respond appropriately. The GOP wants us to think that race is the top issue this election, and that our fear is more important to dwell on than our hope. If you are afriad, then get out there and register voters, and call swing states.

Obama is right to take the high road. He knows that we will catch more flies with honey. He knows that america wants to be great again, and is ready for change. After the debates, america will see clear and true who to vote for. Be patient my friends. It will come. It HAS to come.

This election is NOW an Indictment of the McCain/Palin Campaign and like minded politics

Marcus Anthony Teixeira — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 15:10:03 EDT

This may read harsh at first look. I assure you, when you walk away from this article, you will start to hear the Freedom bell ringing. I can only hope this blog makes it's way to Senator Obama.

I see what is happening on the TV. I only believe half of what is said until I look at it myself. Perception is everything during these times. It's the perception of the RNC that is getting them where they are. We know this appearance is false. It has little, if any, basis in facts. So the question presented to us? How does an organization like the Obama/Biden Campaign expose wholesale lies from McCain/Palin Campaign in a way that is palatable to the people where they will get onboard our ticket?

Change now is going to have to start with our campaign. We simply have to start presenting our facts with proof. This sounds too simple but it's true. This is where we are failing despite all our hard work. Simple proof like documentation available online or actually handed out. There is basically a tit for tat overall. Now McCain/Palin have taken up the cause for change. We know this isn't true and we can prove this by actually proving it. McCain couldn't prove it if he tried. If he tried he'd look like a liar (again). Basically the American people are now presented with two arguments for change since Palin was announced. All that has to be done is to disprove that lie by presenting actual proof. Physical in nature. Something people can see and or feel. This is a simple PR rule that seems to have slipped by us. As good a speaker Obama/Biden are, it doesn't substitute any doubts the people have. We/I owe it to try my get this message out so to prevent people from believing the McCain/Palin lies.

If we do this right, the American people will catch up to speed and do the rest.

McCain's Smear Campaign

IndependentVoter — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 03:07:06 EDT

McCain is playing dirty, dirty, dirty. The Republicans need voters such as me, the Independents, to win the election. However, they will not be getting my vote. Why? First, McCain has lost his integrity as far as I'm concerned. Some of his campaign ads have been insultingly idiotic and cheap. What happened to the honor he talks so much about? And Palin? Good heavens. The think that she is an acceptable candidate for this country? She has NO foreign policy knowledge...well other than what she has currently learned and been drilled on.

McCain's camp needs a big ol' can of whip-ass. It's time to play hardball, as being nice is not going to win us this race. I found a great article on the New Republic website that outlines some new plays we can put into practice. Read up and learn:

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/09/12/how-obama-should-frame-mccain.aspx

OWN THE TRUTH

Edwardo — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 21:32:26 EDT

Every "contrast ad" put up by the Obama campaign should have indisputable facts that can be easiy proven and they need to emphasize the "If you don't believe me, go here and find out the truth?" thing

Shine a big light on the third party players that support you're rebukes. Idependents need reassurring from non-politicians.

CHANGE THE FORMAT

Edwardo — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 20:44:32 EDT

Hey Barack!

Heres another idea that might counter the McCain "fake" ads - Change the format of you're spots!

Do a commerical where it's just you , a TV and a remote in a room, We see a clips of one of the "fake"McCain ads

You click it off and talk directly to the lens: "We all know that we can't believe everything we see on television - So for just for a few minutes tonight, turn it off, and ask yourself "How am I doing?" Am I better off now after eight years of Rublicans in the White House? Or Not?

With the combo of embracing the Reagan chant and the direct eye contact, it could change the game.

Also- Have surrogates start referring to MCCain ads as "Fake"

"Lie" is a an untrusted word on both sides of the debate because most people think that's what politicians do - but fake is like a cheap rolex or a bootleg DVD - It denagrates the truth of the statement... and the quality

Fantastic!

OBAMA LEADS BUT NEEDS ANOTHER SPEECH!!

Graham — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:12:01 EDT

The recent polls are misleading because they sample an equal number of democrats, republicans, and independents, and Obama is in fact still ahead because the registered democrats outnumber the registered republicans by 11 million, so everyone should calm down.

However, there are some things Obama needs to do to regain momentum. And the most important of that is to give another speech like his more perfect union speech. He needs to make it big, televised, and eloquent. When Obama was seeing trouble against Hillary and the Reverend Wright thing he gave his more perfect union speech and for the most part completely quieted all the controversy and uproar befre that, giving him momentum. Obama needs to do it again, to remind his supporters why they support him and to re-energize his base! this i think is one of the most important things Obama can do. If he does this Mccain will try to attack it and call it lacking in action but it will re-energize Obama's supporters, take the focus off Palin, and put the momentum back on Barack's side. Oh, and most importantly he should make it about sexism. THIS IS IMPERITIVE!

Forget the Media

steve4obama — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:39:52 EDT

The media will not come to the rescue of the righteous, valiant, and the truth. Obama needs to take it straight to McCain / Palin. Don't look for help outside the campaign for help or vindication.

It is not the time to "take off the gloves", it is time to break out the entire arsenal, good or bad, honest or dishonest, clean or dirty.

We will lose if we don't.

"Enough" is not enough

steve4obama — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:29:59 EDT

If today’s new ads are what we call going on the offense, then the Dems might as well pack up shop.
You don't bring a knife to a gun fight.
And, despite conventional wisdom that it's the "Top of the Ticket" that matters, it doesn't in this election. Go after Palin. She is propping up McCain. Knock out his crutch and he will crumble.
Palin is scary. Use a witch, a dominatrix , a nasty nun, to identify her with. I don't care if they say it's sexist, inflammatory, whatever.
This is a war for our country. If Obama doesn't win, this country is done. We might as well start calling it the United States of the Corporation, hell bent on anything that makes money for the wealthy, including wars. "Enough" is not enough, and if us Dems can't fight, dirty if necessary, than we don't deserve to take power.
"Enough" is like a pea shooter.
Time to launch a "take no prisoners" war.

Beyond the Smears to Hope: An Open Letter to Sen. Obama

Nadja for Obama '08 — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 23:34:19 EDT

Dear Sen. Obama:

After watching your acceptance speech during the DNC, and swimming high on the waves that you’ve created in the hearts of us Americans ripe for hope, I felt compelled to write to you. Now while I sincerely respect the history of service held by both Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin, and their contributions are both appreciated and acknowledged, that is NOT what this letter is about. As I’ve watched the election coverage these last weeks I have been overwhelmed by the unsavory tactics taken by the GOP in order to gain a lead by any means necessary. It seems regardless of agreements made by both the Democratic and Republican parties to take a higher road this has not been a covenant honored by the McCain/Palin camp as I see their ads portray you in a light that is both harmful and deceptive.

I’ve been deeply disturbed not only by the McCain camp’s decision to hijack your platform of change but by the methods which they have chosen to do so. Their disparaging ads are not, in my opinion, something they should be proud of. It seems after your enlivening speech at the DNC the Republican Party has committed to running with no holds barred in order to catch up. The GOP seems to only be able to formulate a prosperous campaign platform by “borrowing” from yours and if unable to do so seek to employ methods that attempt to discredit it. This is neither productive nor honorable in any field.

Though few might not openly admit it, the unspoken political advantage of McCain’s choice for a running mate is a fact I could not ignore. While what I am about to say does not seek to disparage the inroads Gov. Palin has made in her career it is not my belief that this was McCain’s primary reason for choosing her. The selection of Gov. Palin seems to be a tactic to significantly hamstring your campaign by making it impossible for you to address her inexperience without addressing (what some naysayers consider to be) your own. Also if you were to do so McCain would simply try to turn the same dog on you. The choice of Gov. Palin also surreptitiously stirs the cockles of those that held high hopes that you would select Sen. Clinton as your running mate. Apparently in political races the point is not simply to run a sound one by your own lights but to try to trip the competition along the way. Tell me, how does trying to knock the other runner into a pothole help to lift the rest of us up?

These choices are not the sort I want from a President. I, in my deepest heart, hope for more from a person that seeks to lead this nation. With the needs of the American people being the main topic of both parties, however different in approach, the one ideal we can agree upon is that what America does not need is a knee jerk leader.

Gallup polls and CNN reports are not what set the GOP on its ear but something more far reaching in its scope. What frightens them is what you have been able to awaken within the spirits of the American public. While your detractors continually claim they do not know what you stand for –I believe they do. It is this, the change you are spearheading, which reaches beyond your sensible policies toward what has only been envisioned: Our greatest possibility as a nation. The possibility to attain and LIVE the principles written in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America, with the latter having been referred to by President Bush as just a “piece of paper”. Maybe your critics have become so accustomed to everyone sitting down that they do not know what standing up looks like anymore.

All too often I’ve heard your opposition try to diminish your hopes for this country and its people as just “speeches”. I must say I am more concerned with those NOT deeply moved by one who can encapsulate their vision into words and share it with others in a way that they can see it too. Before their greatest achievements when the most notable leaders of this world came, they first came with speeches.

You are in good company Sen. Obama. Other speech makers have led us out of oppression, beyond wars and hopelessness, and away from outdated destructive socio-political structures and into fresh realities. They spoke their ideas to the masses before these very ideas were accomplished and they unified people to make those visions flesh. Yes, I suppose if making great speeches is a bad thing you are in awesome company. Churchill, Dr. King, Gandhi, St. Peter, Patton, Lincoln, to name a widely varied few. All spoke visions before they were manifest and none, not a single one, fell to the ground. I do not want to think of where we would be as a global community if each of those I mentioned were labeled as mere speech makers.

Every attainment of value, every step that took us to higher ground instead of further along the same road, began with two things: vision and hope. It is from these which humanity, in all its wonders, soars. A vision must come first. A vision keenly seen by the inner eye which shows us that which not yet IS. Then follows hope. Hope that this vision of which we’ve dreamed can come to pass and compels us to reach for it. For without these humanity is nothing.

While I understand that the political arena is a dog-eat-dog forum, I am a proud American that was refreshed to see you raise the political standard to a level that is suitable yet sadly rare for this great country of which we are a part. I could not simply stand aside and not let my thoughts be known. Washington DC is not a place filled with Obamas and when one does come along those that support you should stand up and call it like we see it. That is what I am doing now.

Run the race Sen. Obama. Run the race that you were meant for. One that is worthy of this fine and diverse nation of everyday heroes led onward by heavenly ideals. Run for us. Run the race of honor and good taste. Run the race of dignity and mutual respect. Run the race of the noble beyond the status quo which Washington has found beyond its ability to fully grasp. Be better, be more, than what we’ve accepted up to now. And as you run, speak for us. Speak our hopes from mere thoughts into the reality of this country. Yes. Run the race Sen. Obama and sweep us toward a better tomorrow in the wind of your wake.

I am a writer in New York and please allow me to leave you with the quote from my novel Carte Postale. It encapsulates perfectly my thoughts and feelings on this matter of smear tactics.

There are places in the world and people’s hearts that prowl for someone to put underfoot. In a time of scarcity, the pinch of it shows mercy to no one. When folks get scared, like rats, they run for higher ground. Some will fall and let themselves be afraid, noses pressed to the ground by their own despair. Others see opportunity in the nearest place to them. Higher ground for some is on the backs of other men.And in times of trouble there is always someone ready to get astride another and press him down with their weight. More the better if they have fallen from a high and mighty place. And when the mighty fall a looting man might see them and think he can nearly touch the clouds and lose his own misfortune by standing on the greatness of someone else’s. Either way the folks that would do such things do not see it for what it is. No matter how tall they think it makes them, they are still only inches from the ground.

Stay strong, Senator. Stay strong.

Just some info on the ridiculous storylines in CNN, FOX and MSNBC

tmsingh — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 12:00:31 EDT

John McCain about Hillary's medical care proposal:

Mr. Giuliani called her plan "socialist" and accused the Democrats of advocating a "nanny state."

Mr. McCain also criticized the Democratic plans, but his comments were more in passing and were far less barbed.

But when asked about Mrs. Clinton his speech, he said her proposal was “eerily” similar to the plan she came up with in 1993, when she headed a health care reorganization effort during her husband’s administration. “I think they put some lipstick on a pig,” he said, “but it’s still a pig.”

Sound familiar? I just saw the most recent McCain ad. For Republicans to stoop so low is just.......well, hell, what I am thinking? This is McCain we're talking about here.

I'm going to have a nervouse breakdown before this election is over.

Millennialist Tactics, Why the Smear?

Nalia from Manhattan, KS — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:30:15 EDT

To many of us, we watch incredulously, shaking our heads at the immaturity of smear ads by the competing candidate. I hear alot about how McCain is "reaching, grasping at straws to save a failed campaign", but there is more substance to this strategy, and we need to understand it in order to meet the fears and questions on the minds of Americans with sane, rational and meaningful dialogue. If we do not understand the source behind what has been mislabelled as the "Radical Right" movement, we cannot understand how "Radical" issues have been mainstream issues for a very long time.

We need to be very careful about marginalizing these beliefs, they are more widespread and common than most want to beleive. It is a many faced entity which has proven to be able to effectively communicate and motivate people from disparate beliefs from the "Far Right", reaching into "Centrist" groups and even into the "Left wing". If you want to know why McCain's YouTube ad smears Obama as "The One", don't assume it is a silly and desperate tactic. McCain's constituent voted the last administration into the White House not just for one term, but for two! With Bush's support comes a surge of support that will not only come as votes, door knocking and blogging, but as a wildfire grassroots movement with revivalist and apocalyptic overtones that reach deep into the American psyche.

With the Y2K scare over, many feel that we simply move into a new era, shedding the dark fears of the end of the world, World Control conspiracies and Millennialism. This is not the case. Milleniallism is not a flashpoint movement that arises near the end of each century or millennia, but a movement as old as A.D., continous, durable and volatile. The dates move and it's followers plod onward following the Carrot on a Stick. Each failed prophecy chews up another prophet and serves up a new one, with new reasons for the same fears to continue.

This is not a Conspiracy Theory, but a well documented phenomena throughout Western Civilization. It is the root of the disconnection between government and it's people, between Civil Rights and those who need those rights the most. It is a disconnect in language and values between those who see themselves as Educated and Informed and those who see themselves as Down to Earth and Common. Rhetoric about the Working Joe, Blue Collar Values, Middle America and Working Class Values have been turned against ideals that call for International cooperation, Civil Rights Movements and Enviromentalism. It's language equates all of these themes as Satanic or Conspiritorial in nature. The new Millennial Carrot is set as 2012. It's landscape is a surreal chimera of psuedo-faith, science fiction, and conspiracy theories designed to play on the most primal fears of the widest constituent possible. In the same language this rhetoric can openly communicate to people of widely disparate beliefs, painting a different image for each perspective directing and motivating these people toward the same goal.

I urge you to read and consider these well researched articles. These are University Professors whose careers and reputations are on the line. They are on the mark. Take this from an "insider", growing up in a Millennial household who worshipped Reagan with frightening devotion. Millennialist themes should not be overlooked or marginalized as "radical". Do not think that this is a fringe society. It is part of our subconscious as a culture, it has a dialogue, and it speaks to alot of people. We need to learn it's language and realize what is being said to us. ALOT of people are afraid and terrified, and those who are not afraid believe that the whole system is rigged, and it won't matter who gets voted for. The change in dialogue from "prevention" of "global warming" to "Adaptation" to "Climate change" is saying something alot deeper. Many people feel that they are powerless to stop this trend for varying reasons...from global conspiracy to religious faith, and McCain's campaign is addressing these issues, and Obama is not answering in recognizable language.

Late 1990's article on Millennialism in The Public Eye by Chip Berlet

http://www.publiceye.org/apocalyptic/Dances_with_Devils_TOC.html

1999 submission for Merriam Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions 1999 by Richard Landes

http://www.bu.edu/mille/people/rlpages/millennialism-mw-encyl.html

Comments are welcome and ecouraged

Obama needs civilized attack ads

Unknown user — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:14:03 EDT

I sincerely hope that Obama and his campaign staff know what they are doing. To be honest McCain/Palin ads seem to be more dominant than the Obama ads. They leave an impression on your mind. They have used smear ads and I know Obama has specific portions of his website promoting the reduction of smear ads but he needs to be more scathing in his attacks. But he must do it on the ISSUES. In this way, it is definitely not a smear ad but pretty much an attack ad on issue. Obama desperately need attack ads on issues. I suggest to the Obama campaign to make the following ads: (1) Contrast John McCain's voting record on wind energy (he voted against all wind and alternative energy reforms but now he's campaigning for alternative forms of energy), (2) I was looking at Jon Stewart's Daily show on McCain's acceptance speech vs. George Bush's acceptance speech and they're pretty much the same....USE IT! It was loud and clear the same promises made by Bush 8 years ago are the same McCain is making. Besides there was already an ad up comparing Bush and McCain from the Obama campaign. It needs to be refreshed, more new ones need to be made, put it on cnn or other major networks at peak times, keep it going so it sticks in the minds of the American people. (3) attack John McCain's own admission in January of 2008 that he would not even vote for his own immigration reform bill if it was brought to Congress (4) attack his judgment: in 2001 McCain said the war would be easy, in 2006 he said if anyone thought the war was going to be easy needs to have their brains checked. These are just very few I have in my mind; there are lots more and maybe they don’t want to blow their budget on ads but it is critical. All I'm seeing in a McCain ad is hard hitting stuff while Obama's ads are much tamer. Hire the Daily Show staff for crying out loud.

The Obama campaign seriously needs to organize some clips showing McCain criticizing his own self. It's quick, straight to the point and shows immediate contrast. Furthermore it's not smear. Smear is when you put up an ad comparing Paris Hilton to Obama, that's smear! Or putting up ads showing Obama's children asking if they're ready to lead: "They're the cutest children in the world - but are they ready to lead?" while McCain answered to a journalist about the ad: "we had to do something to give the American people some straight talk on those two brats". I thought both parties agreed that family was off limits? Or did that come after McCain already put out those ads and Palin's family are now under attack by the media? This is what I'm saying, in either case; Obama's camp is too soft on these things. They need to rise to the occasion and make some intelligent ads. Shun the new "maverick" ad by showing specific things John McCain voted for with Bush (or the fact that he voted with Bush 100% of the time in 2008). Do it in the same style as the "maverick" ad to add some juice to it. That's not smear, that's campaigning wisely. Obama's camp has so many things to go on when it comes to John McSame and Same-ah Palin but I get the feeling they don't know how to use it properly and wisely.

Palin and McCain, lies and distortion.

Michael Oakes — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 15:53:13 EDT

Here's Newsweek's fact check on the convention speeches:http://www.newsweek.com/id/157206?tid=relatedclHi,This is a response to an e-mail forwarde by a family member, purpoting to show a NYT article by Mareen Dowd showing Obama was funded by Saudi's and Iranian's. It was a smear of course. I want to thank you for engaging in this discussion. I'm learning a lot. Here's the real scoop.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/obama_funds.htm

Comments: New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd did not write this article. Not only does it not appear on her list of published columns, she has also denied being its author. "The line about it being the 'most shocking revelation,' I don't think I've ever said those words, except in a satire," Dowd said in a statement to the Huffington Post. "Also, it is about money, which I never write about."

Beyond that, the text is riddled with errors and falsehoods. I found no record of anyone in the Obama campaign stating that the average individual contribution amounts to between $10 and $25 (in fact, the stated average is around $100). Nor have there been any public revelations (apart from the unsupported allegations in this anonymous email) to the effect that "security people" (whoever they might be) have raised alarms about contributions flowing into the campaign from overseas. Obama's website states that no donations are accepted from foreign nationals, and all online contributors are required to certify that they are U.S. citizens.

This is in line with federal laws stipulating that foreigners may not contribute to U.S. political campaigns and prohibiting finance committees from "knowingly soliciting, accepting or receiving" such funds.

Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

Where to begin? For starters, the average Obama contribution has been around $100, not $15. The campaign, by law, must disclose all donors who have given over $200. And, most obviously, a review of the paper of record shows that Dowd's column on June 29 was not on Obama fundraising but rather Hillary Clinton supporters.

Dowd herself found the email an exercise in absurdity, not to mention -- quite possibly -- the first time she's been indirectly involved in a smear campaign.

"The line about it being the 'most shocking revelation,' I don't think I've ever said those words, except in a satire. Also, it is about money, which I never write about," she told the Huffington Post. "Sometime you try and protest things you hear about, but sometimes it's just not worth it... It is hard to track down and control these things, and anyone who reads my column knows that this wasn't me. I got to the second line and I knew it wasn't me."

The Obama campaign, as is now its practice, addressed the fake Dowd column in a post today on its website, Fight the Smears. But sometimes it's worth noting just how outrageous and offensive -- both to Obama and the public's intelligence -- these attacks can be.

Smear campaigns have been a big part of politics for some time. Unfortunately, Right Wing Republican's have taken it to new heights with the combined power of the internet, the media, and the Government. I've found it difficult to cut through, but luckily the Democrats are trying, having learned from the past. It is sad that whole groups of American's have to be engaged in exposing wild lies and distortions instead of discussing real issues, but here's a link to Sen. Obama's official site. I find the pages on the issues and policies much more interesting, http://www.barackobama.com/issues/, but if you are one likely to be swayed by smears, this may help you separate the wheat from the chaff. There is an update specifically on the "Fake Maureen Dowd Column" (I couldn't open it but hopefully you can. I gather it was a fabrication) Apparently, e-mails full of lies are par for the course. I hope you can turn some of the indignation you feel towards Sen. Obama when you read these scurrilous smears and rumors, into righteous indignation toward those who spread them and subvert our democracy with propaganda worthy of Goebbels. After all, they are the same ones who smeared presidential candidates and Vietnam Vets Al Gore and John Kerry, and oh yes, John McCain. (Remember the "McCain fathered a child with a black women" lie sent out during the 2000 Republican primary in the south?)http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fightthesmearshomeandhttp://factcheck.barackobama.com/

Well, we're sure you were moved greatly by the speeches at the GOP convention. So was I. I can see clearly the appeal. After the last 8 years, even other Republican's look good. These ones have served their country, or have children who have or will, and I honor that. They would bring unique life experiences to the White House, including Mrs. McCain.

Unfortunately, they would also bring much of the same failed policies concerning our economy, taxes, energy, the war in Iraq, war with Iran, education and the environment. So take some of Gov. Palin's own advice and don't be swayed by what she herself belittles a "pretty speeches". Especially ones that focus so little on issues and policy. Especially ones, like hers, largely written by Bush speech writers and filled with the same old lies, distortions, and divisive rhetoric. Her main point seemed to be, trust me, I'm an good, honest, family person who will bring Christian integrity to the office. How could she then, in her first real address to the American people, lie about her own record, and Sen. Obama's? I was astounded that she repeated the sound bite, "I told Congress "thanks but no thanks" for the "bridge to nowhere", and said if we're going to build a bridge, we'll pay for it ourselves." Big cheers; isn't she gutsy, honest, and a reformer? The facts are that only two years ago, she ran for Governor on the slogan, "Build the Bridge", and as Tom Brokow reported, only suspended the project when Congress said the state would have to pick up the tab! And of course her unprecedented actions as Mayor to hire a Washington lobbyist and get her small town $25 million in Federal earmarks. Sen. McCain again emphasized that he would veto earmarks, and "Call out the names of those who sponsor them, and make them famous!" It seems he should start by calling out the name Sarah Palin. Though McCain is ten times the man Bush was, his policies are nearly identical. Unfortunately the lessons he learned from the suffering of war seem to be that you must keep fighting every war, no matter how ill conceived, hopeless, endless, costly, immoral and bloody. Not every patriot can support our country giving so much of our resources to military contractors for immoral wars and the endless occupation of an oil rich nation. Not every patriot supports passing a bankrupt government on to the next generation, which McCain sais he cares so much about. Not every patriot thinks it is honorable to never mention the 1.2 million Iraqi lives we've taken; the innocent civilian children, women, elderly we've killed, imprisoned, tortured and raped. While his own suffering was on display, he showed no compassion for the innocent victims of a war built on lies. And despite the image created by his well crafted and heart felt speech, his reputation and record are full of true examples of his hot headed temperament, unstatesmanlike comments, shoot from the hip decisions, and poor judgment. From opposing the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday, to supporting George Bush against fellow decorated Vietnam Vet, Sen. Kerry, to peddling his influence as a Senator as one of the notorious Keating 5, to supporting this misguided war in Iraq from its ignominious inception through today, to clearly indicating his militaristic world view with statements like, "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.", 'We may have to stay in Iraq 100, 1000, even 10,000 years." And, "There will be many more wars for us to fight." It has been said, you can't work for peace while preparing for war. I know the macho, jingoistic slogan of coming from a position of strength. But does not power corrupt. Much of the world has seen America as a bully, an imperialist, militaristic, murderers, and a Great Satan. They don't feel this way because we fought a revolution for human freedom, because we fought each other for liberation, because we fought fascism in WW ll, because we fought totalitarian communist regimes, or even because we fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The human heart knows when a fight is just. The world and history revile us when we use our power unnecessarily, un-wisely, callously. When we hypocritically speak of keeping the world safe for democracy, and prop up dictators. When we get bogged down in foreign Civil wars and proxy wars that lead us to commit atrocities and near genocide on civilian populations: like the millions killed in Vietnam, Korea, South America, and Iraq. All these mis-adventures, John McCain supported, and still supports. These failed, militaristic policies have not only reeked untold misery on humanity, they have stained our flag with innocent blood and hurt our countries standing in the world. Peace through war has never worked. The best examples of peaceful change for human kind are non-violent; Jesus, Buddha, Schweitzer, Gandhi, Mother Theresa, Dr. King, the Dalai Lama. Barak Obama has demonstrated, certainly not the pacifism of a saint, but at least the wisdom and judgment of a statesman to know when and where, and who, and why to fight. This is the leadership our country needs now. This is the hope the people of the world now anticipate: an America that inspires, instead of dominates them. This is change that Sen. McCain, this wounded warrior from a military lineage, simply cannot muster. As John Adams said, "I practice war so my children can practice politics, and my grandchildren can practice music."But getting away from those personality/judgment/temperament considerations, it is his policies and platform that should concern us all most. Here is a link to Sen. Obama's detailed policies. This is the nuts and bolts of what he means by change.http://www.barackobama.com/issues/On the economy, precious little was said. Maybe that's because as McCain himself said, "The economy's not my strong point." Palin let herself be used as a mouthpiece to dissemble Sen. Obama's tax plan. "How are the fisherman, and the teacher, and the truck driver going to be helped by Sen. Obama's increased tax burden?", she went on and on. Well, they'll be helped because their tax burden would go down, and Bush's record tax cuts to the wealthiest people and corporations in the country would be eliminated, moving more of the burden back to those who can most afford it. McCain supported Bush's tax plan and unbridled military spending, and plans to continue it. The plan which in 8 years has taken America from the largest surplus in history, to the greatest debtor on earth. What's patriotic about that? McCain pledges to continue the greatest redistribution of wealth to the top in our nation's history, while millions of families are fighting for their homes. He'll do little to address the 45 million uninsured Americans. How's that fighting for his fellow American's, for the average Joe? He and Gov. Palin have an out dated oil centered energy policy that will lead us away from a sustainable future, be a disaster for our environment, and have virtually no impact on our energy needs. That means it's going to leave us in the same boat, still dependent on foreign oil for 97% of our demand. They give only lip service to the renewable alternatives that should be the center of a sustainable energy policy. They seem unable to reconcile the concepts of energy independence, sustainable economic development, environment, and Global Climate Change. They emphasize only the evils of foreign oil, and ignore the incontrovertible evidence and dire consequences of Global Warming, and the need to break our addiction to oil, period. This energy policy out oils Bush/Cheney. Sen. Obama has set a goal of energy independence in 10 years, with a focus on building a clean economy. Hardly "doing nothing", he has a detailed plan, widely supported by experts.And that's the problem with the Republican platform and policies for years. Rhetoric about small government, and unlimited spending. Acting like good old boys, reformers, and Hokey mom's, while taking millions from Political Action Committees, and Big Oil. Evoking FDR, Truman, and Kennedy, while dismantling the social safety net they strived to create: Social Security, Public Schools, worker protections, the right to organize, universal health care. Perpetuating tax breaks for the wealthiest, while driving millions into poverty. Crying out for de-regulation, even as we bail out Wall Street and Banks gone under due to de-regulation. Where's the change there?Showing no understanding that protecting our Environment is an economic, human health, and ethical necessity. No sense that clean water and air, healthy food and land, flourishing forests and diverse communities of life, are the birth right of every child. Stuck in the outdated and false dichotomy of ecology vs. economy. Still blind to what many big businesses and governments alike can see; that pollution equals waste, that green means efficient, that those nations and companies leading the way to sustainable development will win in the Global economy. With so much talk about leaving the world a better place, Palin and McCain literally smirk at someone trying to "Save the planet." No change there either.John McCain certainly fought for our country. Gov. Palin may be sincere in her convictions. On almost every issue important to our nation's future, they proudly proclaim that they are ready to lead, but in the wrong direction. They will perpetuate the hold on power and the failed policies of a Republican Party rank with corruption. Their policies have and continue to do great harm to the country we all love. From the unnecessary loss of innocent lives in an immoral war, to an unlevel playing field where the rich get richer and the poor get shafted, to the hypocrisy of calling for Change in Washington, while employing the same old partisan attacks, lies, and smears. Saying you've taken on Big Oil, when you are sponsored by them. The cynical choreography of having someone else make the false attacks and smears, while the candidate assumes an air of statesmanship. This is exactly the Bush/Cheney/Rove model. So, what else is new? The question is, will we fall for it yet again. The other major theme of all the speeches was the Sen. Obama has no accomplishments. Gov. Palin said "Here's a man whose never passed a single piece of legislation or even a reform." Here's a sample of Sen. Obama's record; you decide if Gov. Palin and the Republican's were "Talking straight":March 08, 2008Fact Check on Story that Minimizes Obama's Senate Accomplishments

REALITY: Obama Has Passed Several Important Laws In The Senate, Including Legislation To Prevent Terrorists From Obtaining WMDs, Increasing U.S. Investment In Alternative Energy, And Improving Services For Our Troops And Veterans

ETHICS/TRANSPARENCY

Obama Was A Key Player In Assembling And Passing The 2007 Ethics Reform Law, Which Curbed The Influence Of Lobbyists And Was Described As The "Most Sweeping Since Watergate." In the first week of the 110th Congress, Obama joined with Senator Feingold to introduce a "Gold Standard" ethics package. Many of the Obama/Feingold bill's most important provisions were included in the final ethics reform package passed by the Senate in late January: a full ban on gifts and meals from lobbyists including those paid by the firms that employ lobbyists; an end to subsidized travel on corporate jets; full disclosure of who's sponsoring earmarks and for what purpose; additional restrictions to close the revolving door between public service and lobbying to ensure that public service isn't all about lining up a high-paying lobbying job; and requiring lobbyists to disclose the contributions that they "bundle" - that is, collect or arrange - for members of Congress, candidates, and party committees. The Washington Post wrote in an editorial that "...Mr. Reid, along with Sens. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.), deserves credit for assembling and passing this package." In September 2007, the AP reported, "President Bush signed a bill Friday that will require lawmakers to disclose more about their efforts to fund pet projects and raise money from lobbyists, a measure that backers call the biggest ethics reform in decades...Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. who had pushed for the bundling provisions..." [S. 230, 110th Congress; S.1, Became Public Law 109-110-81, 9/14/07; AP, 9/15/07; Washington Post, Editorial, 1/21/07]

Obama Passed A Bill Creating A "Google-like" Database For The Public To Search Details About Federal Funding Awards. In 2006, Obama was an original cosponsor of a bill to create a "Google-like" database of information on federal spending. The bill requires the OMB by January 1, 2008, to make available to the public a searchable, free website that includes the (1) amount; (2) transaction type; (3) funding agency; (4) North American Industry Classification System code or Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number; (5) program source; (6) an award title descriptive of the purpose of each funding action; (7) the name and location of the recipient and the primary location of performance; and (8) a unique identifier of the recipient and any parent entity. The site must allow users to conduct separate searches that distinguish between awards that are grants, sub-grants, loans, cooperative agreements, and other forms of financial assistance and awards that are contracts, subcontracts, purchase orders, task orders, and delivery orders. [S. 2590, Passed by Unanimous Consent, 9/7/06; Became PL 109-282, 9/26/06] SEE THE DATABASE HERE

Obama Passed Into Law Legislation Requiring Lobbyists To Disclose Their Bundling Activity, Making Him Unpopular Even Among Other Democrats. Obama sponsored an amendment to require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership PACs, or political parties for whom they collect or arrange contributions, and the aggregate amount of the contributions collected or arranged. The amendment was passed by unanimous consent and attached to the Senate ethics bill, which was signed into law on September 15, 2007. The New York Times wrote, "The disclosure idea's lead sponsor, Senator Barack Obama... 'has not been the most popular person in our caucus in the last couple of weeks,' said a Democratic aide involved in deliberations over the bill." [S. Amdt. 41 to S. 1, S. Amdt. 3, Submitted 1/11/07, Agreed to By Unanimous Consent, 1/18/07; S. 1, Signed into Law 9/14/07; New York Times, 1/20/07; CQ, 9/15/07]

FOREIGN POLICY

Obama Passed Law Requiring Comprehensive Nuclear Threat Reduction Strategy To Secure Weapons And Usable Nuclear Material. "Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) and Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) announced that a provision authored by Obama and Senator Hagel (R-NE) in the Senate and advanced by Schiff in the House requiring a comprehensive nuclear threat reduction plan passed as part of the omnibus appropriations bill. This provision requires the President to submit to Congress a comprehensive plan for ensuring that all nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material at vulnerable sites around the world are secure by 2012 from the threats that terrorists have shown they can pose. The Senate passed the omnibus appropriations bill last night and the House approved the same bill today. It will now be sent to the President to be signed into law…The Comprehensive Nuclear Threat Reduction provision requires the President to develop a strategy that will: ensure that all nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material at vulnerable sites around the world are secure by 2012 against the threats that terrorists have shown they can pose; ensure adequate accounting and security for such materials on an ongoing basis thereafter; include a plan for expanding the financial support and other assistance provided by other countries, particularly Russia, the European Union and its member states, China and Japan, for the purposes of securing nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material worldwide; and outline the progress in and impediments to securing an agreement from all countries that possess nuclear weapons or weapons-usable material on a set of global nuclear security standards, consistent with their obligation to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540." [Obama Press Release, 12/20/07]

Obama Passed Legislation To Keep Weapons Of Mass Destruction Out Of The Hands Of Terrorists. In 2006, Obama was an original co-sponsor of legislation to expand U.S. cooperation to destroy conventional weapons. It also expands the State Department's ability to detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction. The legislation was included in an appropriations bill that was later signed into law by the president. [Congress, S. 2566, Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 456, 5/25/06; Provisions included in H.R. 6060/P.L. 109-706]

Obama Passed Law to Promote Relief, Security, and Democracy in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In 2005, Obama sponsored the Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act of 2006. The bill would set forth specified U.S. political, social, civil, and economic policy objectives (policy objectives) with respect to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and obligated a specified minimum amount of foreign assistance funding for FY2006-FY2007. [S.2125, 12/16/05, Become Public Law No: 109-456, 12/22/06]

HEALTH CARE

Obama Passed An Amendment Into Law That Pressured The EPA to Comply With New Lead-Paint Regulations After Seven Years of Delay. In 2005, Obama passed an amendment, which became law, to the FY 2006 Department of Interior Appropriations Act prohibiting the use of funds in the bill to delay or contravene implementation of an existing but unmet statutory requirement passed by Congress in 1992 that the EPA rewrite regulations on dispersal of lead paint by home remodeling contractors by October 1996. As of July 2005, the regulations still had not been written. Weeks after Obama’s amendment passed the Senate, Obama received commitments in writing and during a Senate hearing that the EPA would comply with the law. According to an Obama press release, "In 1992, Congress required the EPA to write regulations relating to the dispersal of lead paint by contractors during home remodeling by October, 1996. As of July 2005, these regulations still have not been written. In April, Administrator Johnson stated that to address the problem of lead paint poisoning, the EPA ‘will determine what additional steps may be necessary, including regulation’ despite the fact that the 1992 law does not say the regulations are optional." [SA 1061 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent, 6/28/05, Obama Press Release, 7/25/05; H.R. 2361, Became Public Law No: 109-54, 8/2/05]

EPA Finally Published Nine-Years-Overdue Proposal For Lead Paint Regulations Four Months After Obama Passed Legislation And Held Up EPA Nominations. Building Products wrote, "The EPA recently published long-overdue proposed regulations that affect contractors working on older houses that contain lead-based paints. The regulations, if adopted, would require that contractors be trained in lead-safe work practices and be certified by the EPA. The rules also would impose protective standards for those working on houses with lead paint. In 1992, Congress directed the EPA to write regulations that would limit lead paint pollution during home remodeling by October 1996. By last summer, with no sign of the new regulations, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-III., introduced more legislation designed to encourage the EPA to publish the rules. When that didn't work, Obama announced in the fall that he would block the appointment of every nominee to top EPA jobs until the agency produced the new rules. The EPA finally announced the proposed regulations Dec. 29, 2005." [Building Products, March-April, 2006]

Obama Passed A Law Requiring The Defense Secretary To Report On The Pentagon's Efforts To Prepare For Military And Civilian Personnel For A Possible Influenza Outbreak. In 2006, Obama sponsored an amendment to the FY 2006 Defense Authorization Act that required the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on the Pentagon's efforts to prepare for pandemic influenza, including pandemic avian influenza, including status on the procurement of vaccines, public health containment measures that could be implemented on military bases and other facilities; surge capacity for the provision of medical care during pandemics; surveillance efforts domestically and internationally and how such efforts are integrated with other ongoing surveillance systems; the integration of pandemic and response planning with those of other Federal departments; collaboration (as appropriate) with international entities engaged in pandemic preparedness and response. [SA 1453 as modified agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent, 11/18/05; S. 1042/H.R. 1815, Became Public Law No: 109-163]

Obama Passed Legislation Providing $25 Million In Funding For Avian Flu Research And Containment Efforts By U.S. Agencies In South East Asia. "The amendment calls for greater investment in our preparedness efforts by providing more than $3 billion to build a stockpile of antiviral drugs and necessary medical supplies...Obama first introduced legislation in April requiring the United States to stockpile antiviral drugs...In May, Obama worked with a bipartisan group of Senators to appropriate the $25 million called for in the Foreign Assistance Act authorization bill. This money is currently being used by U.S. agencies in South East Asia to combat and contain possible outbreaks of avian flu." [Obama Press Release, 1/12/07]

ENERGY

Obama Passed Legislation Creating A Tax Credit For The Installation Of E-85 Fuel Pumps. In 2005, Obama introduced legislation that provided a tax credit for up to 50% of the cost of installing an E-85 pump. Obama passed the tax credit as an amendment to the 2005 transportation bill. The amendment was not included in the final version of the bill but was signed into law as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The AP reported, "Under the provision, gas stations would get a tax credit to install equipment accommodating E-85 - an ethanol-based fuel alternative that its promoters say is up to 50 cents cheaper per gallon than unleaded gasoline. The credit would cover 30 percent of the installation costs at a given station up to $30,000...Freshman Sen. Barack Obama introduced the tax-credit measure in the Senate in the spring, and it was co-sponsored by Illinois' other Democratic senator, Dick Durbin. Obama also worked for the credit's inclusion in the energy bill as one of the conferees preparing the Senate-House conference committee report..." [AP, 7/27/05; H.R. 6, Became Public Law No: 109-58; S. 918, 109th Congress; SA 670 agreed to, 5/12/05; H.R. 6, Became Public Law No: 109-58; S. 918, Referred to the Committee On Environment and Public Works]

Obama Passed An Amendment Into Law To Fund Research For Hybrid/Flex Fuel Vehicles. In 2005, Obama sponsored an amendment, which was signed into law, to the Energy Policy Act that established an applied research program to improve technologies for the commercialization of a combination hybrid/flexible fuel vehicle; or a plug-in hybrid/flexible fuel vehicle. The program would provide grants with preference to proposals that achieve the greatest reduction in miles per gallon of petroleum fuel consumption, achieve not less than 250 miles per gallon of petroleum fuel consumption and have the greatest potential of commercialization to the general public within 5 years. [SA 851 to HR 6, Passed by Unanimous Consent, 6/23/05; H.R. 6, Became Public Law No: 109-58]

EDUCATION

Obama Passed Legislation Into Law Making Black Colleges Eligible For $15 Million In Federal Funding. In 2007, Obama introduced legislation that would make a predominantly black institution eligible for federal grant money. The legislation was written into the "The bill would define a PBI as a college of at least 1,000 undergraduates in which Blacks represent 40 percent or more of the student body. At least half of all undergraduates also must be low-income or first-generation students. The legislation would provide a minimum grant of $250,000. Jackson, another NAFEO board member, says Medgar Evers could find immediate uses for the funding." [S. 1513, Referred to HELP Committee, 5/24/07; H.R. 2669, Became Public Law, 9/7/07; Diverse Issues In Higher Education, 6/29/07]

Obama Passed Into Law An Amendment Establishing A Grant Program To Support Summer Curricula That Emphasize Math And Problem Solving. In 2007, Obama sponsored an amendment, which became law, to the America Competes Act that established a competitive state grant program to support summer learning opportunities with curricula that emphasize mathematics and problem solving. [S.Amdts. 924, Agreed to by unanimous consent, 4/25/07; S. 761, Incorporated into H.R. 2272, which became P.L. 110-289, 8/9/07]

MILITARY ISSUES/VETERANS

Obama Passed An Amendment, Which Became Law, Preventing The VA From Conducting A Review Of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Cases Aimed At Reducing Benefits. In 2005, Obama was an original cosponsor of an amendment that became law preventing the VA from conducting a review of cases, without first providing Congress with a complete report regarding the implementation of such review. In November 2005, the VA announced that it was abandoning its planned review. "Obama had several generations of veterans in mind, he suggested, when he joined fellow Democrats Richard Durbin (Ill.), Patty Murray (Wash.) and Daniel Akaka (Hawai'i) Sept. 22 on a successful amendment to block the Department of Veterans Affairs from reviewing case files of 72,000 veterans rated 100-percent disabled by post-traumatic stress disorder…VA officials believe some PTSD claims have been decided for veterans without proper documentation. They announced their massive review only after the VA inspector general studied 2,100 randomly selected cases of PTSD disability awards and found that 25 percent lacked documents to verify that a traumatic, service-connected incident occurred…But the Senate's amendment would bar the VA from conducting its case review until it justifies the program to Congress." [SA 1864 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote, 9/22/05; Became Public Law No: 109-114; Military Update, 10/3/05]

Obama Passed Legislation, Which Became Law, Improving And Increasing Services For Homeless Veterans. In 2006, Congress passed a Veterans Affairs Committee bill which included several provisions originating in Obama's SAVE Act (S. 1180) and Homes for Heroes Act (S. 3475). "The legislation...includes a number of proposals from legislation Senator Obama had previously introduced (S.1180, the SAVE Act and S.3475 the Homes for Heroes Act) to expand and improve services for homeless veterans. The bill permanently authorizes and increases funding to $130 million per year for a competitive grant program to provide homeless services to veterans. It greatly increases a successful program to provide rental vouchers to homeless veterans. The legislation extends programs to providing treatment for veterans with mental illnesses and other special needs. And it permanently extends VA's ability to transfer property it owns to homeless shelters." [S. 3421/P.L. 109-461; S. 1180, 109th Congress; S. 3475, 109th Congress; Obama Press Release, 6/26/06]

Obama Passed Legislation Extending Tax Credits For Military Families By Allowing Service Members Deployed In War Zones To Apply Non-Taxable Combat Pay To The EITC. In 2006, Congress passed legislation based on a proposal sponsored by Obama, Kerry, and Pryor that extended tax credits for military families by allowing service members deployed to war zones to apply their non-taxable combat pay toward the Earned Income Tax Credit. The amendment was introduced during debate on the Senate’s 2006 tax reconciliation bill, ruled out of order, but later included in the Gulf Opportunity Zone Act, which passed both chambers and became law on December 22, 2005. [H.R. 4440, Became P.L. 109-135, 12/22/05; SA 2616, 109th Congress]

Obama Passed An Amendment, Which Became Law, To Require The VA To Conduct A Campaign To Inform Disabled Vets Of Disparities In Compensation And Explaining Their Rights To Seek Review. In 2005, Obama was an original cosponsor on an amendment requiring the VA to conduct a campaign to inform veterans in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Connecticut, Ohio and New Jersey about their right to seek a review of their past claims. Specifically, the legislation required the VA to send letters to all veterans currently receiving disability who live in six states with a past history of below-average disability compensation, informing them of the past disparity, and explaining how to request a review of past claims and ratings and how to submit new claims. The VA was also required to inform all other veterans whose past claims may have been properly denied of this disparity by other means such as broadcast of print advertising. States whose average annual disability compensation payment was less than $7,300 qualified as below average. In 2003, Illinois veterans received an average of $6,802. The amendment became law on November 30, 2005. [S. Amdt. 1865, Passed by Voice Vote, 9/22/05, to H.R.2528, Signed by the President and Became Public Law No: 109-114 on 11/30/05]

HOMELAND SECURITY/DISASTER RESPONSE

Obama Passed A Law Initiating A Long Overdue Investigation Into FEMA Failures And Response To Trailers Contaminated By Formaldehyde. “U.S. Senators Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and Barack Obama (D-IL) lauded Congress’ passage of their proposal to launch an investigation into reports that housing trailers contaminated with formaldehyde were provided to Hurricane Katrina victims. This provision, which is contained in the Omnibus Appropriations package soon to be signed into law, will initiate a long overdue investigation into why the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) failed to prevent the contamination or investigate the allegations.” [Obama Press Release, 12/21/07; H.R. 2764, Became Public Law No: 110-161]

Obama Passed Legislation Prohibiting DHS From Entering Into Open-Ended, No-Bid Contracts For Emergency Response Activities. "Legislation authored by U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) that will stop the abuse of no-bid contracting in the aftermath of a disaster was included in the final Department of Homeland Security funding bill likely to pass the Senate today. After Senate passage, the bill will go to the President's desk to be signed into law...After Hurricane Katrina, the Federal Emergency Management Agency used emergency authority to enter into open-ended, no-bid contracts. What was meant to be temporary stop-gap authority ballooned into wasteful contracts that lasted many months and wasted significant federal resources. Obama and Coburn legislation will stop this practice by restricting the use of emergency contracting authority only to urgent needs in the immediate response to emergencies...On three separate occasions, Obama and Coburn have passed legislation in the Senate that would end no-bid contracting with Gulf Coast reconstruction funds. Legislation that would have specifically prohibited no-bid contracts with Gulf Coast reconstruction was stripped from a previously passed funding bill." [Obama Press Release, 9/29/06]

Obama Passed An Amendment Into Law Creating A National Family Locator System. In 2006, Obama passed an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2007 Homeland Security Appropriations Act that required the Department of Homeland Security to create a centralized family locator system through which family members can contact their lost loved ones during disasters. The amendment, which was signed into law as part of the final version of the bill, was based on legislation Obama introduced immediately after Hurricane Katrina. [SA 4573 as modified agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent, 7/13/06; H.R. 5441, Became Public Law No: 109-295; S. 1630, 109th Congress, Referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs]

WORKING FAMILIES

Obama And Hatch Passed Legislation To Protect Individuals' Rights To Continue Donating To Charities And Religious Organizations During Bankruptcy. In 2006, Obama was an original cosponsor of a bill that protected individuals' rights to continue donating to charities and religious organizations during bankruptcy proceedings. The Hatch-Obama bill responded to a court ruling that above-medium income debtors in Chapter 13 bankruptcy could not deduct charitable contributions, including religious contributions, from their payment plans. The ruling was based on an interpretation of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA). Hatch and Obama authored S. 4044 to ensure that all individuals in bankruptcy, no matter their income, would be able to continue giving to charity and their church. The bill passed the senate by unanimous consent and was signed by the president. [S. 4044, Signed 12/20/06, Became Public Law No. 109-439]

REALITY: BAMA "STEPPED FORWARD" AND STRENGTHENED THE CASE FOR HIS PRESIDENCY BY LEADING ON ETHICS REFORM

Washington Post: Obama Deserved Credit For Assembling And Passing "Strongest Ethics Legislation To Emerge From Congress Yet." The Washington Post wrote in an editorial, "The final package is the strongest ethics legislation to emerge from Congress yet...Mr. Reid, along with Sens. Russell Feingold (D--Wis.) and Barack Obama (D--Ill.), deserves credit for assembling and passing this package." [Washington Post, Editorial, 1/20/07]

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: Obama Stepped Forward, Did a Wonderful Job. "And finally, Senator Obama. I chose personally Senator Obama last year to work on ethics and lobbying reform, and he's done a wonderful job. He's stepped forward. He's been a leader with Senator Feingold...And I admire and respect his stalwartness in moving forward on this." [Press Conference Transcript, Federal News Service, 1/18/07]

Madison Capital Times: Obama's Work On Ethics Legislation Strengthens Case For Presidency Candidacy. In an editorial, the Madison Capital Times wrote of Obama and Feingold, "The two senators are sponsoring groundbreaking ethics legislation that they say will improve upon Senate Bill 2349, the lobbying disclosure and ethics measure that the Senate passed in March 2006. 'Our goal,' say Feingold and Obama, 'is to restore the public's faith that Congress places its interest ahead of special interests.' The bottom line is that this is a real reform. No one will be surprised that Feingold's name is associated with this effort. But the fact that Obama is so willing to be a part of it will only strengthen the case for consideration of his potential presidential candidacy." [Madison Capital Times, 1/12/07]

Dayton Daily News: Obama Ethics Amendments Got Reform Bill "Watered Up." The Dayton Daily News wrote in an editorial, "Indeed, the bill goes further than Democrats even promised during the campaign. This was one of those rare occasions when a reform bill is introduced, then, rather than get watered down, gets watered up. This fact has been widely attributed to the work of Sens. Barack Obama, D--Ill., and Russ Feingold, D--Wis. They proposed reforms that the other senators -- while reportedly not happy about -- decided they couldn't oppose in the current political environment." [Dayton Daily News, Editorial, 1/24/07]

Obama Was Named Democrats' Point Person on Ethics. Under the headline "Obama is Democrats' point man on ethics," the Chicago Tribune wrote, "As Democrats attempt to capitalize on the perceived ethical shortcomings of Republican congressmen and staffers, party leaders have tapped Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) to be their point man to carry the message of ethics reform during the midterm election year. Obama begins his assignment Wednesday when he joins Democrats at the Library of Congress to unveil proposals intended to limit the influence of Washington lobbyists on politics and policy. The task is the most visible--and potentially partisan--role Obama has taken as he begins his second year in office." [Chicago Tribune, 1/18/06]

REALITY: OBAMA ALSO PASSED SWEEPING ETHICS LEGISLATION IN ILLINOIS

Obama Passed Illinois State Gift Ban Act "Heralded As the Most Sweeping Good--Government Legislation in Decades." In 1998, Obama passed the Illinois Gift Ban, which prohibited legislators, state officers and employees, and judges from soliciting or receiving gifts from a person or entity with interests affected by government. The Chicago Tribune called it wrote, "an ethics and campaign finance package heralded as the most sweeping good--government legislation in decades." The law also required greater campaign finance disclosure and limited the uses for which raised money could be spent. [HB672, 3R P 52--4--1, 5/22/98; PA 90--0737, 8/12/98; Chicago Tribune, 8/13/98; Chicago Independent Bulletin, 6/4/98]

Illinois Campaign for Political Reform: Sponsors Of Ethics Legislation "To Be Strongly Commended" For "Bipartisan," "Landmark Legislation." The leaders of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform wrote, "The Illinois Campaign for Political Reform applauds the Illinois legislature for passing the bipartisan campaign finance and ethics package...the bill's sponsors, state Sens. Kirk Dillard (R--Hinsdale) and Barack Obama (D--Chicago), and state Reps. Gary Hannig (D--Litchfield) and Jack Kubik (R--La Grange Park), made campaign finance reform in Illinois a reality by forging areas of common ground. With the support of legislative leaders, both parties and houses moved beyond their differences to pass this landmark legislation. All are to be strongly commended." [Chicago Tribune, 6/20/98]

Ethics Reforms Championed By Obama "Revolutionized" Illinois Politics. The New York Times reported, "The disclosure requirement 'revolutionized Illinois's system,' said Cindi Canary, executive director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. By giving journalists immediate access to a database of expenditures and contributions, it transformed political reporting. It also, she said, 'put Senator Obama on a launching pad and put the mantle of ethics legislator on his crown.'" [New York Times, 7/30/07]

Mendell Called Ethics Reform Obama's "First Major Legislative Accomplishment;" The Bill Did Not Sit Well With Some Of His Colleagues. In From Promise To Power, Mendell wrote, "His first major legislative accomplishment was shepherding a piece of campaign finance reform in May 1998. The measure prohibited lawmakers from soliciting campaign funds while on state property and from accepting gifts from state contractors, lobbyists or other interests...The bill was not a watershed event anywhere but Illinois. It essentially listed Illinois, a state with a deep history of illicit, pay--to--play politics, into the modern world when it came to ethics restrictions. The bill gave Obama a legislative success, but his public criticism of Springfield's old school politics did not sit well with some of his colleagues who already considered the Ivy League lawyer overly pious." [From Promise To Power, 124]

REALITY: OBAMA EXPANDED HEALTH CARE IN ILLINOIS

Obama Passed Bipartisan Legislation That Expanded Health Care Coverage To 154,000 Residents, Including 70,000 Children. As a state senator, Barack Obama sponsored and helped pass legislation that expanded and made permanent Illinois' KidCare program by raising eligibility from 185% to 200% of the federal poverty level. The legislation provided coverage for an additional 20,000 children and 65,000 more Illinois adults in the first year, and by 2007 had expanded health care to 70,000 kids and 84,000 adults. In its endorsement for his Senate race, the State Journal--Register wrote, "Obama brings similar common--sense views to improving health care in America -- for example, as a state senator he championed the successful KidCare program that assists thousands of children of the working poor." The bill was sponsored in the state House by Sandra Pihos, a Republican and passed 42--13. [93rd GA, SB 130, 3R P 42--13--2; Signed into law 6/30/03, PA 93--0063; Chicago Daily Herald, 7/2/03; Blagojevich release, 1/9/07; Blagojevich release, 4/13/07; Kaiser family report, 5/07; State Journal--Register, 10/29/04]

Obama Passed Health Care Justice Act; IL's Largest Health Care Coalition Applauded Obama's Leadership In Passing the Bill. In 2004, Obama was chief sponsor of bill creating the Health Care Justice Act, providing that the State of Illinois shall implement a health care access plan that provides uniform benefits for all Illinois residents by establishing a Bipartisan Commission that is required to submit a report to form the basis for the health care access plan to: "1) Provides access to a full range of preventive, acute and long--term health care services; 2) Maintains and improves the quality of health care services offered to IL residents; 3) Provides portability of coverage regardless of employment status; 4) Provides core benefits for all IL residents; 4) Encourages regional and local consumer participation; 5) Contains cost--containment measures." The Journal Register wrote the bill was "amended to make full access to health care a goal instead of a policy and to strongly encourage, instead of require, the state to implement a health--care access plan." The bill passed. When the bill was funded in 2005, Jim Duffett, executive director of Campaign for Better Health Care, the largest health care coalition in Illinois, said, "We applaud the leadership of Governor Blagojevich, state Rep. William Delgado and former state Sen. Barack Obama, who were the chief sponsors of this act." [93rd GA, HB 2268, 5/19/04, 3R P; 31--26--1, 6/24/04, Sent to the Governor; Lexington Herald Leader, 1/18/07; State Journal--Register (Springfield, IL), 6/15/04; Campaign for Better Health Care release, 7/31/05]

REALITY: Obama Began Calling For A Phased Withdrawal From Iraq In November 2005

11/22/05: Obama Called for A Phased Withdrawal From Iraq, A Commitment To Having No U.S. Bases In Iraq Within a Decade. "First and foremost, after the December 15 elections and during the course of next year, we need to focus our attention on how reduce the U.S. military footprint in Iraq. Notice that I say 'reduce,' and not 'fully withdraw.' This course of action will help to focus our efforts on a more effective counter-insurgency strategy and take steam out of the insurgency...Second, we need not a time-table, in the sense of a precise date for U.S. troop pull-outs, but a time-frame for such a phased withdrawal. More specifically, we need to be very clear about key issues, such as bases and the level of troops in Iraq. We need to say that there will be no bases in Iraq a decade from now and the United States armed forces cannot stand-up and support an Iraqi government in perpetuity - pushing the Iraqis to take ownership over the situation and placing pressure on various factions to reach the broad based political settlement that is so essential to defeating the insurgency." [Obama Speech, 11/22/05]

12/8/05: Obama Said He Supported A Phased Withdrawal To Avoid Security Vacuum; Said War In Iraq To Blame For Terrorist Problems. Obama favors starting 'a phased withdrawal process' of troops next year. The process would be based on what happens with the elections, he said. 'What we're engaged in is a difficult balancing act here…Having gone in, how do we step back but ensure that there's not such a vacuum that either chaos occurs or jihadists take over critical areas that can make huge problems elsewhere? The irony, of course, is that there really wasn't a terrorist problem before we went in. There is now.'" [State Journal-Register, 12/8/05]

1/8/06: Obama Said It Was Important To Start Phasing Down Troops. The Sun-Times wrote, "Obama said 'if we don't see significant political progress' over the next six months or so, 'we can pour money and troops in here until the cows come home but we are not going to be successful.' It is important, Obama said, 'to start phasing down the troops' and 'to give the Iraqis more ownership.'" [Chicago Sun-Times, 1/8/06]

4/13/06: Obama Said U.S. Should Start Phasing Down U.S. Troop Presence In Iraq By The End Of The Year. At a town hall meeting, Obama said, "'If I continue to see what seems to be the case right now--an inability and unwillingness on the part of the various factions to want to live together--we can't be in a position where we're in the middle of a civil war...If we're not seeing a government that is actually committed to working together, then I don't see how our presence there can be helpful,' Obama said. Even if a new government is formed, Obama said, by the end of the year 'our job as the police and army of Iraq should be complete. We will have done our task and we should start phasing down our troops.'" [Chicago Tribune, 4/13/06]

REALITY: Press on significance Of Obama’s Ethics Reform Legislation

Obama Was A Key Player In Assembling And Passing The 2007 Ethics Reform Law, Which Curbed The Influence Of Lobbyists And Was Described As The "Most Sweeping Since Watergate." In the first week of the 110th Congress, Obama joined with Senator Feingold to introduce a "Gold Standard" ethics package. Many of the Obama/Feingold bill's most important provisions were included in the final ethics reform package passed by the Senate in late January: a full ban on gifts and meals from lobbyists including those paid by the firms that employ lobbyists; an end to subsidized travel on corporate jets; full disclosure of who's sponsoring earmarks and for what purpose; additional restrictions to close the revolving door between public service and lobbying to ensure that public service isn't all about lining up a high-paying lobbying job; and requiring lobbyists to disclose the contributions that they "bundle" - that is, collect or arrange - for members of Congress, candidates, and party committees. The Washington Post wrote in an editorial that "...Mr. Reid, along with Sens. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.), deserves credit for assembling and passing this package." In September 2007, the AP reported, "President Bush signed a bill Friday that will require lawmakers to disclose more about their efforts to fund pet projects and raise money from lobbyists, a measure that backers call the biggest ethics reform in decades...Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. had pushed for the bundling provisions..." [S. 230, 110th Congress; S.1, Became Public Law 109-110-81, 9/14/07; AP, 9/15/07; Washington Post, Editorial, 1/21/07]

NYT: 2007 Ethics Reform Bill "Quickly Sent A Ripple Of Fear Through K Street" And Was "Already Changing The Culture Of Washington" Before It Was Signed Into Law, Beginning With "More Dutch Treats And Fewer Steak Dinners." "The new law has quickly sent a ripple of fear through K Street...Stanley Brand, a longtime Washington defense lawyer who usually represents Democrats, said the law was a sea change. ''It should send shivers down lobbyists' spines,'' Mr. Brand said. ‘It is a minefield now...President Bush has not said whether he would sign the bill, but it is already changing the culture of Capitol Hill in myriad ways, beginning with more Dutch treats and fewer steak dinners...One lobbyist, who would speak only anonymously to avoid attracting the attention of prosecutors or rivals, said he had started sending himself date-stamped e-mail to create a record of every phone conversation he had with a lawmaker. Then he stopped making campaign contributions...For lobbyists -- who live at the nexus of contributions and favors -- it is an alarming trend. ''They might as well just pull up the paddy wagon outside the Capital Grille,'' one lobbyist said, referring to a clubby steakhouse near the Capitol that is a well-known K Street hangout. [New York Times, 8/7/07]

Good Government Groups: Ethics Reform "Shouldn't Be Belittled." The good-government groups that criticized Mrs. Clinton took issue with her comments about the ethics reform bill. While she voted for it, she has suggested that the legislation was not a landmark change and that Mr. Obama was hardly alone in championing it. Fred Wertheimer, president and chief executive of Democracy 21, which promotes campaign finance reform, said the bill contained some of ''the most important and comprehensive ethics and lobbying reforms since the Watergate era.'' Meredith McGehee, policy director of the Campaign Legal Center, said: ''I think it should be seen as the decent, credible and substantial legislation that it was. It shouldn't be belittled.'' [New York Times, 1/15/08]

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: Obama Stepped Forward, Did a Wonderful Job. Senator Reid said, "And finally, Senator Obama. I chose personally Senator Obama last year to work on ethics and lobbying reform, and he's done a wonderful job. He's stepped forward. He's been a leader with Senator Feingold...And I admire and respect his stalwartness in moving forward on this." [Press Conference Transcript, Federal News Service, 1/18/07]

Washington Post Said Obama Deserved Credit For "Strongest Ethics Legislation...Yet." The Washington Post wrote in an editorial, "The final package is the strongest ethics legislation to emerge from Congress yet...Mr. Reid, along with Sens. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.), deserves credit for assembling and passing this package." [Washington Post, Editorial, 1/20/07]

Chicago Tribune: Obama and Feingold Pressured the Senate Into Adopting Tougher Ethics Reforms. "After Democratic and Republican leaders introduced their bipartisan working version of an ethics plan, pressure from Obama and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) inspired them to open the measure up for some tougher restrictions." [Chicago Tribune, 1/19/07]

Dayton Daily News: Obama Ethics Amendments Got Reform Bill Improved Instead of Watered Down. The Dayton Daily News wrote in an editorial, "Indeed, the bill goes further than Democrats even promised during the campaign. This was one of those rare occasions when a reform bill is introduced, then, rather than get watered down, gets watered up. This fact has been widely attributed to the work of Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Russ Feingold, D-Wis. They proposed reforms that the other senators - while reportedly not happy about - decided they couldn't oppose in the current political environment." [Dayton Daily News, Editorial, 1/24/07]

REALITY: Significance Of Obama’s “Google For Government” Bill, Which Was A Landmark Effort In Bringing Transparency To Federal Spending And Was Passed Against Strong Opposition

Providence Journal: Coburn And Obama “Deserve Credit For Fighting Doggedly For This Legislation.” “What a great idea: Create a searchable online data base of federal grants and contracts, identifying the members of Congress behind the spending, so that citizens, even on their home computers, can easily determine where, how and why the government is spending their money. A bill to do just that, sponsored by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., with the bipartisan support of such heavy hitters as Republican Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., Democratic Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and John McCain, R-Ariz., has passed the Senate and may soon become law…For a time it looked dicey. In an impressive display of the arrogance of power, two of Congress's most egregious kings of pork - Sens. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska., and Robert Byrd, D-W.Va. - secretly put a hold on the legislation. After citizens groups smoked out this betrayal of the public, Byrd and Stevens backed off…That may be why liberal Democrats have joined with conservatives on the bill. It presents an opportunity to break the deathgrip of incumbency. Coburn and the co-sponsor, Sen. Barak Obama, D-Ill., deserve credit for fighting doggedly for this legislation.” [Providence Journal Editorial, 9/20/06]

The Google For Government Bill Was A “Fine Accomplishment” And “Passed Largely Because Of The Bipartisan Leadership Of Tom Coburn, R-Okla And Barack Obama, D-Ill” “The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act is a fine accomplishment. It will create an earmark database that the public can easily access on the Internet. The bill passed largely because of the bipartisan leadership of senators Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Barack Obama, D-Ill.” [Chattanooga Times Free Press, 10/15/06]

REALITY: Falsely Implied That Obama Has Not Been Committed To Immigration Reform, And Neglected To Mention The Key Role He Played In Major Debates

Gannett: “Low-Ranking Obama Front-And-Center On Immigration.” In an article entitled, “Low Ranking Obama Front-And-Center On Immigration, Gannett News Service reported, “When the president sat down with eight senators to strategize about immigration last week, the group represented the Senate's elite on the issue. Among them were the top Democratic and Republican leaders, those from border states, two Hispanics and those with a history of involvement with immigration legislation. And then, there was Sen. Barack Obama, Illinois' junior senator, who ranks 98 out of 100 in seniority in the Senate. He is not on the Senate's Judiciary Committee where immigration legislation originated and the state he represents is closer to the Canadian border than the deserts of Mexico…Alejandro Lugo, an associate professor of anthropology at the University of Illinois who studies border issues, says Obama's recognition of a border control problem coupled with a practical solution will play well if people are paying attention.” [Gannett News Service, 5/1/06]

Kennedy And McCain, Authors Of Immigration Reform Bill, Thanked Obama As One Of Small Bipartisan Group Of Senators Who “Stood Together To Make This Legislation Possible.” McCain said, “After several weeks of extensive debate and consideration of numerous and complicated amendments, the Senate is about to move to final passage on S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act…I also commend the Senate Leadership on both sides of the aisle for their efforts to ensure that the Senate addressed this important issue and gave us more than adequate time for a thorough debate. This is a proud moment for the United States Senate, as we have conducted good work and returned to orderly traditions of the legislative process as envisioned by our founding fathers…And of course, I commend Senator Kennedy, who is perhaps the leading expert on this difficult issue…I also want to thank Senators Brownback, Lieberman, Graham, Salazar, Martinez, Obama, and Dewine for their shared commitment to this issue, and working to ensure this bill moved successfully intact through the legislative process.” In a speech on the Senate floor, Kennedy said, “I thank those of our bipartisan group who stood together to make this legislation possible--Senator Graham, Senator Salazar, Senator Martinez, Senator Hagel, Senator Durbin, Senator Lieberman, Senator Brownback, Senator Obama, and Senator DeWine.” [McCain Press Release, 5/25/06; Congressional Record, 5/26/06]

Illinois Coalition For Immigrants And Refugee Rights Praised Obama For Leadership In Moving Congress Towards New Immigration Laws. “Fred Tsao, policy director for the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, praised U.S. Senators Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for their leadership in moving toward new immigration laws on Capitol Hill. But ‘we must demand similar leadership from the president and the speaker of the House,’ he said. ‘We need real comprehensive immigration reform that will allow the undocumented to gain legal status, bring families together, respect hard work and help students realize their dreams.’” [Chicago Sun-Times, 4/24/06]

Obama Passed Amendments To The Senate’s 2006 Immigration Bill That Would Have Established An Employment Verification System And Protected American Workers From Losing Jobs To Guest Workers. In 2006, Obama passed an amendment t

Mr. Obama, time for Change, but also time to change your dialog

Richard in Toronto - Still American After All These Years — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 13:37:10 EDT

Dear Senator Obama,

We have been so impressed and inspired by your wonderful vision, which is merely the reflection of our own. You repeatedly demonstrate the ability to take the high road even when attacked and provoked. But as I'm sure you noticed you need to be much more effective than you were on Bill O'Reilly... he had one valid point, and that is that most Republicans have neither the vocabulary nor the attention span to understand the issues, let alone make rational decisions based upon them. All of us regardless of party lines have now been subjected to decades of "put-down humor" on sitcoms and elsewhere; we respond to sarcasm and jabs.

"90% 90% 90%" ...it's getting as redundant as "drill drill drill"

Acknowledging Mr. McCain's heroism can no longer be spoken without reminding voters he sang "Bomb Bomb Iran" to the tune of the Beach Boys, and viciously attacked teenage Chelsea with a joke the Washington Post said was "too vicious to print." Whenever reporters say the name McCain our response should be to ask "Which McCain? The brave hero of the 60s or the unprincipled senator who will say anything to get elected, make light of dropping WMDs on Iran and attacked Hillary's teenage daughter?" Mr. Biden and We The People can without a shred of hyperbole proclaim that Barack Obama knows his opponents' children are off limits and is not just a better choice for president than John McCain, he is a Better Man.

Whenever the name Palin is mentioned our response must henceforth include the phrase "unfit to be vice president;" not "unqualified," not "unprepared," but "unfit." When that particular choice of words is questioned there are many examples, but a few I've thought of and find particularly to the point are "Americans don't censor books and close libraries" and "a woman who says 'pray for a pipeline because it's God's will 'does not adequately understand the separation of church and state as defined in our Constitution," and that "while no one here is questioning the faith of another American, invoking the Christian God does not reflect a true understanding of the diverse nature of America."

When either opponent is heard to suggest you may be European or someone suggests that America doesn't need to care what the World thinks of us it should be asked immediately whether the questioner would be more receptive to an outstretched hand or to a hunting rifle aimed in their face.

Senator Obama, our nation's image in the world and our very future depend on your being elected this November. It is the tragic legacy of these Republicans that there is no high road to the White House. That in itself is the very first improvement to our infrastructure that your election will provide.

Richard Fouchaux
Citizen of the United States
Resident of Planet Earth

viruses from email forwards

Sarah M — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 08:34:02 EDT

A relative of mine frequently sents out anti-Obama E-mail hoaxes. Now she has a Trojan virus on her computer. I know it came from one of these hoax E-mail forwards with an attachment. Right after she sent this particular E-mail another relatives of mine got a virus warning from the same E-Mail. Just to be safe everyone should delete email forwards with attachments without opening them.

I'm sure that her computer virus came from an E-mail she forwarded called "Expose Obama". That's really too bad and I hate that she's having trouble. Anyway, I cut and pasted the warning that another relative passed along:

There was a trojan in this message please check your computers. Run virus
scan.
----- Original Message -----
From: <avast! 4>
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 9:45 PM
Subject: [avast! heuristic - WARNING]

> Suspicious extension(s) of attachment
> * Expose Obama.mht
> Content-Type doesn't correspond with attachment's extension
> * Expose Obama.mht - message/rfc822

My Opinion

Kay from Washington, DC — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 06:07:06 EDT

Let me start by saying am a big supprter of senator obama from day one, through the primary and until now. No matter how much McIdiot and his followers smear or attack, nothing is going to shake my support for Obama campaign till election day. But this is not the same for many middle-class voters across the country especially those who doesn't know or not familiar with senator very well.

This will be my first time creating a blog; i usually read. I decided to write this post because am starting to get worried about the way the race has gotten tighter. The reality is that obama camp has been under-performing and the polls show it. I believe the McOld camp feel very good about where they are now.

I'm very current and up-to-date with the race and i believe i have a very good suggestions and useful opinion for this campaign. I'm gonna touch on some issues which i think Obama camp can improve on.

Background on Israel Insider smear campaign

Roberta in Chapel Hill — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 01:14:06 EDT

The Web site of Israel Insider has recently drawn considerable attention in the blogosphere by attacking the veracity of Obama's citizenship, with particular regard to his certificate of live birth. This story line is not likely to disappear any time soon, so I'm offering some background information which you may find useful.

The owner and editor of Israel Insider is Reuven Koret, who immigrated to Israel from the USA many years ago and operates what appears to be a successful advertising agency in Tel Aviv. I have been corresponding with him sporadically since 2002, originally in a dialog about how the Web might be used to help Israeli retailers whose businesses had been devastated by terrorism.

Koret is on the far right of the Israeli political spectrum; his views on Israel's policies are not representative of the vast majority of Israel's citizens. He apparently has convinced himself that an Obama presidency would endanger Israel's security, and has launched a campaign to smear and discredit Barack.

This started with a story about Barack's half-brother having told the Jerusalem Post that Barack has a "Muslim background." This story was recanted by the Jerusalem Post several days later, and I pointed this out to Koret, who promptly revised his original article, as follows:

This article updates and corrects the one previously published on June 13, 2008 with newly uncovered evidence of the audio recording at the center of the controversy.

Apparently the Jerusalem's Post's sloppy paraphrase of a radio interview with Barack Obama's half-brother created the false impression that he had explicitly confirmed the "Muslim background" of the likely Democratic Presidential nominee. The newly uncovered recording presents more ambiguous evidence.

Soon thereafter the Israel Insider began publishing articles citing "proof" that Obama's Certificate of Live Birth had been forged. The anonymous "investigator" making these claims was then discredited by an internationally recognized expert in image manipulation; the very technical details are at

http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/authors/1-Dr-Neal-Krawetz

and expanded upon, with comments at

http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/202-The-Birth-of-a-Conspiracy.html

On August 12, Koret recanted all his previous articles on this subject, saying that

The notorious "techdude" analysis is revealed as so much hot air, but that has not stopped the spread of theories about what Barack Obama may have to hide.

Today (August 21) FactCheck ran a story and photo showing the original birth certificate, along with their determination that the document is incontrovertible proof that Barack was born in the USA.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

This, however, is not going to stop Reuven Koret. In an August 14 article, he cites an ostensible photograph of Obama's school registration in Indonesia, which he claims cast doubts on Obama's citizenship and religious background. He credits this image to the Associated Press, but there is no way to verify this because a duplicate of the image supposedly at Photo Bucket has been removed and the AP site is available only to customers -- people who actually have an AP account. This article is at

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/13056.htm

and includes a staggering number of additional claims based entirely on innuendo. There is no followup article about this matter, but today Koret criticizes the Obama campaign for its outreach to American Jewish voters.

My conclusion about this is that there is nothing that will stop Reuven Koret from his sorry attempt to derail the Obama campaign. And I also believe that he is really enjoying the publicity that this controversy has brought to Israel Insider, which previously had a relatively small readership.

I have given up on trying to convince Koret to abandon this wild goose chase, which will -- in the end -- have no palpable effect on Obama's campaign or the election.

Also, I'm not sending the FactCheck article to Koret, because he undoubtedly knows about it already. And, knowing the way he operates, he will no doubt find some sort of conspiracy theory behind a sudden flood of email on this topic, and launch yet another idiotic attack.

L

I'm not going to fall for McCain's smear tactics!

J. Everett — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:29:59 EDT

I'm not sure what's going on with the Obama Campaign, but I know it's not what should be going on! We have got to do better at getting voters registered, attracting the youth vote, and proving to John McCain and his croonies that no matter how many millions of dollars he spends ruthlessly attacking Obama that this country IS ready for change! I live in Iowa, and I'm constantly watching McCain's commercials and Obama Ads. I use the word "commercials" because I know that McCain isn't trying to provide the nation with information about himself INSTEAD he's trying to sell the idea that Obama isn't truly patriotic or "Not ready to Lead". McCain and the Lobbyists backing him can't get into the white house or we might as well try to revote for Bush! I'm only seventeen so my whole political life has occured under the Bush Presidency which really has shown me that money rules in washington, but Obama will hopefully return Morality to the office of the President. It's up to us to get him there however. WE can't be tricked or swayed by McCain's smear tactics, and we have to try our absolute best to get out the vote for Obama and for the People. McCain's new dominance in the polls will be short-lived and hopefully reversed before the Democratic Convention a week from now!

Let's elect this man into the white house and finally get the change we need!

Right-Wing Fantasyland (21 January 2009)

Kaleokualoha — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:17:44 EDT

Even before Inauguration Day, it was painfully obvious that the Right-Wing Fantasyland seriously misrepresented Barack Obama. While some right-wing critics of Barack Obama suffered under serious delusions themselves, other critics deliberately misrepresented Obama’s values in order to portray him as a threat to the United States of America. Guilt-by-association smears linked him to the radical background of family friend Frank Marshall Davis, Reverend Wright, and William Ayers.

The smears were produced through a three-stage disinformation campaign. First, the radical background of Obama’s associate was exaggerated. Second, the association with Obama was exaggerated. Third, the associate’s effect on Obama was exaggerated. This deception was epitomized by Accuracy In Media’s (AIM) campaign against Frank Marshall Davis, in which AIM claimed that “his values, passed on to Obama, were those of a communist agent who claimed allegiance to Stalin” [1]

While the smears concerning William Ayers can be debunked by examining the Obama-Ayers association in Chicago’s Annenberg educational board, the smears regarding Davis and Wright were more ominous because they also insinuated a radical racial agenda. Since the Davis-Obama disinformation campaign is more closely examined in other posts on this blog, the Rev. Wright misrepresentation deserves a closer look at this time.

Getting the word out in the Philly suburbs!

Jared — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 17:42:32 EDT

I don't know how many of you noticed the campaign listed on your My Barack Obama home page to speak out against the Corsi hit piece, but I certainly did. My letter to the editor was ready in less than fifteen minutes. I have to say that the letter to the editor tool here is pretty easy to use. Anyway, I just got a call from the Daily Local News (www.dailylocal.com) saying that they wanted to publish my letter. They said I could expect it to be published tomorrow, but one never can tell. And given the fact that I'll be working ten hours at the office tomorrow, I doubt I'll have a chance to pick up a copy. So anyway, for those of you who get the Daily Local News, keep an eye out for the letter. And for those of you who won't be able to pick up a copy (like myself), feel free to peruse my letter, reproduced in its entirety below.

UPDATE: A Different Politics Is One Thing; Not Confronting McCain And The GOP Is Something Else

Charley James — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 15:06:24 EDT

I'm not taking credit for anything happening, but having written the original post a few days ago, you cannot imagine my profound relief at the campaign's nimble, hard and loud retort to James Corsi's smear, Obama Nation.

As I wrote at the time, "Fight back hard. Not dirty, but hard." I'm ecstatic that someone in Chicago or camping out in Hawaii did just that. Whoever it was, thank you!

And a special thanks to Media Matters for pushing the MSM to write about the lies and distortions in the book.

Republicans For Barack?

Peter from Reading, PA — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 00:13:54 EDT

Sick and tired of OUR PARTY only being able to win through inference and outright smear?

Yes, we can still be conservatives and vote for Obama. No question about it.

The truth is OUR PARTY needs to CLEAN HOUSE. We need to fess-up to the fact that the Contract With America was a LIE. We need to admit that the Bush Administration has been, by far, the MOST CORRUPT group of gangsters ever to hold public office in this country. We need to ADMIT that the whole time we have been calling the Democrats "tax-and-spend liberals" WE REPUBLICANS have been "borrowing-and-spending" and selling the nation down the river.

And it looks like NOBODY in MY PARTY's leadership has the guts to do what needs to be done.

The only recourse is to throw them all out! Join me, my fellow Republicans.

www.politicalprisonerblog.com

Senator Obama...PLEASE challenge Jerome Corsi to sit down with you on the same stage!

Jerome Corsi, a hatchet-job, and a sense of deja vu

John Lewis-Dickerson, Atlanta — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 19:15:35 EDT

Jerome Corsi, a hatchet-job, and a sense of deja vu

by Steve Benen

Jerome Corsi helped destroy John Kerry in 2004 with a hatchet-job, “Unfit for Command,” that became the basis for the entire Swiftboat smear. It worked once, so Corsi’s giving it another shot.

Almost exactly four years after that campaign began, Mr. Corsi has released a new attack book painting Senator Barack Obama, the Democrats’ presumed presidential nominee, as a stealth radical liberal who has tried to cover up “extensive connections to Islam” — Mr. Obama is Christian — and questioning whether his admitted experimentation with drugs in high school and college ever ceased......
ARTICLE- http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16538.html#more-16538

Debunking McCain Campaign Ads & Other Propaganda

Chris 11 — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:42:40 EDT

You may have seen the ads for McCain claiming that Obama would raise middle class taxes, or you may have received an email shuddering at the claim that Obama painted over the American flag on his campaign plane.
What's the truth? More . . . .

Smear which Boils My Blood

Chris — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 20:44:03 EDT

The GOP smear campaign that Barack Obama is shallow wrt his energy plan is outright false! He has outlined in detail his long term and short term plans. He has also joined forces with an independent group of politicians who have pulled together their energy plan (with some off shore drilling as a potential short term element). McCain is playing games with his offshore drilling tirade and working up citizens who are tired of high gas prices. Only problem is that Offshore drilling is a short term finger in the dyke and seems to be the anchor of McCain's entire approach. How can we put a stop to this lie?

Low Road Campaign: Sunscreen Vs. Tire Pressure

Obamanizer — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 14:45:44 EDT

If the McCain campaign in its latest Internet commercial assumes that Senator Obama "Might Be The One", shouldn't it also in old biblical terms expect an eye-for-an-eye response?

How about this one in the light of the "Obama's energy plan is to inflate your tires":

All that John McCain suggests to fight the global climate change and the related weakening of the ozone layer is to wear sunscreen

McCain Would Rather Lose His Soul in Order to Win a Political Campaign

Cindy in Salt Lake — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 19:52:31 EDT

At the beginning of this general election, I had hope that McCain would keep to his promise to run a "respectable" campaign. We have now seen four campaign ads in a row that not only attack Obama's character but include outright lies about him. (This does not include "The One" from yesterday).

As Rick Davis, McCain's current campaign manager, said in an article from 2004, The anatomy of a smear campaign:

"It's not necessary, however, for a smear to be true to be effective. The most effective smears are based on a kernel of truth and applied in a way that exploits a candidate's political weakness."

To use McCain's own words, he would rather lose his soul in order to win a political campaign.

Honolulu NAACP Pilikia (Trouble) in 1949 (10 Aug 08)

Kaleokualoha — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 15:30:59 EDT

DISINFORMATION 105: HONOLULU NAACP PILIKIA (TROUBLE) IN 1949

Just as an effective cover story requires consistency, so too does an effective disinformation campaign. Trying to convince people that your target is an atheist Muslim probably won't work, nor would trying to convince them that he is a gay womanizer. According to conventional wisdom, certain traits are mutually exclusive. Internal consistency is the key to creating a credible illusion.

Inconsistency is always a threat to crude disinformation campaigns. Because illusions are often built by stacking lies upon other lies, the slightest misstep may cause the illusion to crumble. Although an illusion may not survive serious scrutiny by an objective analyst, it should still be plausible to those with the appropriate predisposition to believe. It should make sense to the casual observer. This is a cardinal rule of effective disinformation.

In the series of disinformation claims regarding Frank Marshall Davis's encounter with the Honolulu Branch of the NAACP in 1949, Accuracy In Media (AIM) may have violated this cardinal rule. Perhaps Cliff Kincaid's theoretical "mentor," the head of the Soviet KGB's "active measures" department, may be rolling over in HIS grave due to AIM's mutually exclusive messages:

Cartoon - "John McCain's Corollary to the Golden Rule"

Cindy in Salt Lake — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 15:04:13 EDT

Attribution: RJ Matson, The St. Louis Post Dispatch, 8-1-08

Low-Road Express

jgabriel — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 09:12:34 EDT

Obama has debuted a new site dedicated to fighting the smears and untruths coming directly from the McCain campaign, "Low-Road Express" - http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/mccainslowroadexpress/

The site takes its name from a July 30 editorial in the NY Times lambasting McCain for his sudden turn toward aggressive, nasty attacks - most likely a direct result of his hiring of several individuals from the Bush reelection campaign. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/opinion/30wed1.html?_r=2&oref=login&pagewanted=print

Tell me again how he's so different from George W. Bush?

Obama Gets Rock-Starred

mathpol — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:38:10 EDT

Bill Press has a rather short and mediocre post , "John McCain Plays the Race card", in today's Huffington Post. He states in part:.

[F]or the last month [McCain has made] a string of personal attacks, culminating in yesterday's ad smearing Obama as "the biggest celebrity in the world." He's just another famous, pretty face, in other words, and not ready for the presidency.

True? No. Childish? Yes. But that's not all. This ad is also deliberately and deceptively racist. Of all the famous celebrities they could have compared Obama to, why not Tom Cruise? Or Arnold Schwarzenegger, or Donald Trump, or Oprah Winfrey? Why Britney Spears and Paris Hilton? Why two white blond bimbos?
Only one reason. It's a somewhat tamer version of the white bimbo ad used so successfully against Harold Ford in Tennessee. In juxtaposing Barack Obama with Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, the McCain campaign is simply trying to plant the old racist seed of black man hitting on young white woman. Not directly, but subliminally and disgracefully.

Here is the comment I posted.

The Grand Old Tradition

Charles Conner — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:47:55 EDT

The GOP has begun the Grand Old Tradition of character assasination in a national political campaign. The new web site they launched this week (http://www.gop.com/AudacityWatch/) claims to unmask the audacity of Senator Obama by pointing out such "newsworthy" items as the fact that Obama has put together a transition team to handle the transfer of power from the Bush administration to his own administration.

This is supposed to indicate that Senator Obama assumes that he will win the election in November and that he has the audacity to assemble such a team this early in the process.

The fact of the matter is that McCain has also assembled such a team.

Every candidate for President should think ahead and plan for such an important and complex task. We need to be vocal about the facts and not let distortion of the truth go unchecked.

We should all be ready for a few months of unrelenting negativity directed toward our candidate. Keep up the fight!

Seek the truth and it will set you free.

Can the Spears, Hilton, Obama Smear Ad Work for McCain?

Steve Sulkin — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 22:10:42 EDT

I must be unqualified to create ad campaigns for politicians because I would not in my wildest imagination think that an advertisement for McCain comparing Obama to Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears, would be anything but immediately laughed at by everyone. While some do laugh, some didn't. Pundits seriously discussed the ad. Some pundits thought the ad was just fine. The Washgington Post backs this sort of attack. The McCain campaign said it was merely comparing "apples to apples." Paris Hilton is apples to apples with Obama?

How is it possible that such an ad doesn't instantly disqualify McCain as a serious candidate? Why is this not an all out scandal for McCain? Why doesn't an ad like this immediately backfire? Can someone out there please tell me who likes this ad and why such an ad could work? I want to hear from McCain supporters as much as Obama supporters. I'm mystified that such an ad actually exists. Are you?

Edgar Tidwell Confirms Kaleokualoha Identity

Kaleokualoha — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:56:41 EDT

I am John Edgar Tidwell, University of Kansas (tidwelje@ku.edu), and editor of the oft-mentioned books by Frank Marshall Davis. Although prior commitments prevent me from actively participating in this debate, I would like to take this opportunity to confirm the identity of Mark Kaleokualoha Davis, who posts comments as "Kaleokualoha," and who has a blog at [1]. He is indeed the son of Frank Marshall Davis.

I can also verify that Kaleokualoha's Alan Maki post [2] contains an accurate copy, through Jul 12th 2008 at 11:13 pm EDT, of the COMMENTS section from Alan Maki's blog at [3]. Alan Maki subsequently deleted critical comments, falsely claiming they were "part of a racist, anti-Semitic hate campaign," when in fact they were only critical of Maki's actions. A comparison of both blogs will verify that Kaleokualoha's comments were NOT part of a racist, anti-Semitic hate campaign.

Although my research indicates that Davis joined the CPUSA as a "closet member" during Word War II, there is no evidence that he was a Stalinist, or even a Party member before WWII. Further, to those attempting to make the specious stand for the concrete, there is no evidence that he instructed Barack Obama in communist ideology. Frank Marshall Davis did NOT believe in overthrowing the USA. He was committed to what the nation professed to be. For him, communism was primarily an intellectual vehicle to achieve a political end-a possible tool for gaining the constitutional freedoms of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for ALL Americans.

References:

1. http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/Kaleokualoha

2. http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/Kaleokualoha/gGxk2C

3. http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/alanmaki/gG5GqK/commentary#comments

(See Frank Marshall Davis "Rice & Roses" PBS program at

http://www.hawaii.edu/uhwo/clear/HonoluluRecord1/Frankvideo.html)

Fighting Bogus Emails

Debbie from Oak Park, CA — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 17:15:48 EDT

OK-I think I've come up with a great fund raising idea!?Think about how many emails you receive from well intentioned friends that contain less than accurate, if not outright false information. Within the past 2 days, I received the "O'Bama Tax" email from numerous different friends. Even with all the Fact Checking web sites out there, people just don't have the time to check all the information.Well, thanks to the Bush Administration, I'm unemployed (as is my husband and we're in foreclosure, but I digress). So I do have time. When I replied to one of the 'tax plan' emails, I was so tempted to Reply To All. However, I recognized this as an internet faux paus. So what I did was reply to the friend that sent it to me, asking her to send the corrected info. I even offered to be her Fact Checker.

So here’s my idea. I propose that we all make a deal with our friends that if they send us political emails that are inaccurate, they donate to O’Bama’s campaign. It doesn’t have to be a lot, say $1 for each inaccurate email, but at the rate we receive these emails, it would add up quickly. And, likely put a stop to the intentionally false email smears.

Just who is behind "Both Ways Barack"

ldasteelworker — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 15:31:12 EDT

First alerted by Patty [ http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/pattysc ] in the post titled; 'Independent Ad Knocks Obama' [ http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/pattysc/gGx4DK ] I decided to do a little checking on just who is behind this smear campaign...

[ http://www.bothwaysbarack.com/index.html ]

This is a project of "Let Freedom Ring, Inc."

See: [ http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Let_Freedom_Ring ]

Let Freedom Ring is a new, conservative "grassroots" 501c4 group set up by a one million dollar from Dr. Jack Templeton, son of John Templeton, Jr., an influencial money changer who created a prize for innovation in religion and science.[1]. The principles behind the new organization begin with not participating in "negative personal or partisan political attacks", as stated by the group's president, Colin Hanna. "We want to reach out to patriotic, especially people of faith, and encourage them not to let mud-slinging by the left turn them off to our political process." [2]

LFR has other projects to get them started. One is a documentary about the faith of George W. Bush, Sen. Rick Santorum and Sen. Zell Miller. Hanna believes this will help get a vote out of the four million evangelical Christians who did not vote in 2000, apparently due to disillusionment. This upcoming movie could change that.

They are also looking to organize a thousand volunteers to get out the vote in the following states: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Iowa, and Wisconsin. They "also want to build coaltions of existing organizations whose membership is likely to encompass some of the values that we have." Perhaps this will give them the grassroots title they already claim.

They are also having a contest like MoveOn.org did as a search for the best commercials. However they will not "be simply a conservative version of Moveon.org and The Media Fund.[3]

Although Colin uses the words "we" and "us" quite a bit, who exactly "we" and "us" are is not expanded on. On The Washington Journal, July 5, 2004, Colin was able to get himself a half hour spot of time to talk to America about who they were.

Their website has the Statue of Liberty, the Constitution, the Liberty Bell, Flag and Sunsets invoking a pure feeling of America. The points they claim they are devoted to promoting are:

Constitutional Government
Economic Freedom
Traditional Values
[edit]Contact
Let Freedom Ring
603 Fairway Drive
West Chester, PA 19382
610-793-1800

Retrieved from: [ http://www.sourcewatch.org/in dex.php?title=Let_Freedom_Ring ]

Looks to me like they just violated their stated principles of not participating in "negative personal or partisan political attacks." So much for their integrity!

Let Freedom Ring, Inc. does not list "Both Way Barack" as a project on their Web Page [ http://www.letfreedomringusa.com/home ] which does list:

'We Need A Fence' [ http://weneedafence.com/ ]

'In Their Own Words' [ http://theirownwords.com/ ]

'Pennsylvanis Pastors Network' [ http://www.pennsylvaniapastors.com/ ]

But "Both Ways Barack" does say at the bottom of its Web Page that it is a project of Let Freedom Ring...

John M. Templeton, Jr. the creator of Let Freedom Ring also is the current president of the John Templeton Foundation which was established in 1978 by the late investor and philanthropist Sir John Templeton and is usually referred to simply as the Templeton Foundation.

See: [ http://www.templeton.org/ ]

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Templeton_Foundation ]

I am sure there is more that can be dug up on the principles behind "Both Ways Barack"

Outrage in Appalachia

Neo — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 19:50:22 EDT

Friends,

I have been posting online in the "reader comments" section of a small-town southern Ohio newspaper for some time now. I wanted to share with you a link to a column from today's newspaper that, I believe, speaks for itself. The writer calls Senator Obama "...Marxist-Socialist turned Democrat..." and then goes in, in depth, to compare Senator Obama to Adolph Hitler. Surprising?

Well, it was disappointing to me. Please note, I have already made the Obama National team aware of this smear article. I am sharing the link to the column in print today, as well as the online reader comments (I am Neo) to make you aware of some of the "home grown" propoganda that is in circulation. Here is the link:

http://www.irontontribune.com/articles/2008/07/16/opinion/columns/column01.txt#blogcomments

Calm Down

Stephen N — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:24:46 EDT

One of the biggest problems I've always had with my fellow liberals is over-sensitivity. This phenomenon reared its politely angry head again this week when the newest issue of The New Yorker was revealed. In it, there is an interesting article by Ryan Lizza detailing some of Senator Obama’s history as a young up-and-coming politician in the Hyde Park area of Chicago as well as examining and dispelling some of the myths that have come up about Barack Obama.

Lizza’s article, titled “Making It: How Chicago Shaped Obama,” is not however the main focus of the rage set against The New Yorker - what is typically thought of as a liberal beacon. The cover of this week’ New Yorker, illustrated by Barry Blitt depicting Obama and his wife Michelle is what caused the main ruckus. By now, almost everyone has seen the cartoon-ish image of Barack and Michelle fist-bumping in the Oval office, Barack in traditional Muslim garb, Michelle wearing fatigues, strapped with an AK-47, next to a picture of Osama bin Laden hanging over a fireplace with the American flag burning inside.

Andrew Malcolm of the LA Times Blog, put it well when he wrote “A problem is there's no caption on the cover to ensure that everyone gets the ha-ha-we've-collected-almost-every-cliched-rumor-about-Obama-in-one-place-in-order-to-make-fun-of-them punchline.” Editor of The New Yorker, David Remnick added in an interview with The Huffington Post that The New Yorker rarely captions cartoons or explains the satire they have become known for alongside their journalism usually thought of as among the top echelon in the industry. I will say: the article is well-written, and the cartoon front cover is well-illustrated, as long as one understands Britt’s angle and humor.

It’s satire, people. Plain and simple. It is supposed to be poking fun of the people who make too much out of every rumor that ever comes out about Barack Obama, and I feel, like folks at The New Yorker, that it does that quite well in compiling almost all of them in one place. Sometimes satire will seem slightly tasteless, but that’s the point of humor and political satire – it doesn’t have to be held to the same standards as the journalism inside.

Comedy Central’s The Daily Show and Colbert Report do this on a nightly basis, and for some reason, people rarely, if ever, make much steam about those acts of “offensive” satire. Is it because those are television shows that can come in and leave the consciousness in a short amount of time? Compare that to The New Yorker cover that liberals will have to face day after day when they go into Barnes & Noble or walk down the street in Manhattan and see it on the corner newsstand. The New Yorker’s cartoons are not to be held to the same standards as the articles inside, just like the nightly programming on Comedy Central should not be held to the same standard as the nightly news on CBS, NBC, and ABC. They are making a satirical point.

Therein lies the biggest reason to be mad at the people who are so angry with the New Yorker cover: only liberal people read The New Yorker! The real thing people should be mad at is that there are actually super-conservative people out there that somehow believe every one of the rumors referenced on that cover (and I should know, my grandpa is one). Nobody gets mad at Stewart or Colbert for poking fun of Barack for being “un-American” or supposedly Muslim because there aren’t many conservatives watching that. Nobody should get mad at this cover either because there aren’t many conservatives reading this, although if they would, it could do some good, because the article does a tremendous job of explaining the truth about these rumors (FightTheSmears.com can’t do everything – remember: conservatives don’t like technology unless it’s wiretapping).

“Politicians don’t like satire because it's subject to differing interpretations.” – Andrew Malcolm, LA Times

To date, Barry Blitt has done nine covers of The New Yorker. They can all be seen here.

Obama on Larry King Tonight, The New Yorker

CorpusMama — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:57:55 EDT

If you haven't heard Obama will be on Larry King Live. I'm sure he'll be asked by larry about The cover of the New Yorker.

I think those who try to brush this off as mere satire are either fools or to arrogant to realize this cover crossed the line from satire into smear tactics.

What if Obama's Kids saw it? How would you feel if that was your parents?

Also Michelle Obama has no business being treated as harshly as she is since she is merely the presumptive nominee's wife not a politician.

Where's the satirical cartoon of Cindy Rodeo Queen stealing drugs from sick kids in Africa from her own charity as her husband calls her a overly madeup trollip and a c**t and they board Cindy's private jet which is a loophole Mccain created for himself in the McCain-Finegold so-called campaign finance reform bill? Now I think that would be funny or at least it would be the truth and that's what satire is about making fun of the truth. But nothing in this cartoon is true or funny.

The so-called intellectuals ought to think twice about dismissing this cover so easily. I'd like to know who is really behind it and where is the Jr. Senator from New York's comment about said cover?

Strange Bedfellows: Alan Maki & Cliff Kincaid (23-7-08)

Kaleokualoha — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:26:05 EDT

In a blatant misappropriation of Obama campaign resources, "communist" blogger Alan Maki is colluding with "conservative" blogger Cliff Kincaid in a disinformation campaign designed to portray Barack Obama as communist-influenced [1]. Accuracy In Media's Kincaid has been running this redbaiting campaign since he published "Obama's Communist Mentor" [2] in February 2008, in which Kincaid exaggerated the influence of "communist" Frank Marshall Davis (1905-1987) on teenage Obama. "Frank" was mentioned in Obama's "Dreams From My Father.'

On July 3, 2008, Kincaid published "Communist Party Backs Obama" [3], partially based on Alan Maki's deceptive blog on the my.barackobama.com website [4]. Kincaid extensively quotes Maki based on the Frank Marshall Davis connection:

History of Discrimination Elephant: Ignorant Press Shows True Colors

Team Player — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:52:05 EDT

Time for the status quo, East Coast media power base to get familiar with a "Chicago" attitude when it comes to smears. We are so common sense here in the heartland, you know? The manic media coverage of the New Yorker cartoon is a perfect example of today's HUGE elephant... "some people still don't get it".

Historically, discrimination has ALWAYS been "cloaked" in "humor" and satire. Mocking people with exaggerated, stereotypical imagery that encourages internal, knee-jerk ignorance is so twentieth century, such old news really. But don't take my word for it: simply "google" and review some of the cartoons from before the civil rights movement; the stereotypical, cartoonish characterizations of African Americans has insulted folks and encouraged racists since the dawn of America's "peculiar institution". On what planet is stereotyping people of color ever funny?

To continue to insult the achievements of the first African-American presidential candidate and his wife, using humor or "buzz" as a justification, simply does not compute. Last week, Mike Barnicle (Morning Joe) used the words "too academic" as a CRITICISM of Sen Obama's persona. Aren't all of our problems today the direct result of 28 yrs of Republican anti-intellectualism and a lack of scholarship and research-based decision-making?

Ignorance is alive and well, and living on the East coast under an assumed name, New Yuck!er magazine.

MSNBC OUT OF CONTROL PLEASE HELP!!!!

CorpusMama — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:29:55 EDT

This would never have happened if Tim Russert was still alive. What hippocrits his teleprompter readers who call themselves journalists are please take a minute and send them these 62 McCain Flip-Flops!

Lisa Owen gets the credit for finding all these facts but she is always very accurate and checks her resources. Its too bad the media doesn't do the same!

Beginning at 9am today to the present time- 12:45pm, MSNBC has done a segment entitled "How to Attack Barack Obama" every 15 minutes with the "host" speaking to 2 different Republican strategists and NO Democrats- not a single time. They gave free reign to the Republicans and it's been UGLY. The main thrust of their attacks was that Obama flip-flops on all his positions and he has no real positions, blah blah. This is outrageous that they would do this all morning and into the afternoon. It's still going on. I estimate they have had 16 segments today on "How to Attack Barack Obama" so far.
Why do they even have "hosts" when they say nothing for the other side and just go along? The hosts partaking in this were Tamron Hall, Contesssa Brewer, Monica Novatny.
I expect it to continue. It is horribly unfair, especially because Hendrik Hertzberg, senior editor for The New Yorker, was on Morning Joe and said that "Obama hasn't changed his position on anything except maybe FISA." This was in response to Mica Brzezinski constantly saying that "Obama changes positions every 20 minutes" and "he's changed 5 positions in 5 days." She has been saying this for a week and said it again this morning. Email her the facts: mika.brzezinski@nbcuni.com
EMAIL the bosses of MSNBC about their ridiculous smear on Obama all morning:
phil.griffin@nbc.com
steve.capus@nbc.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please cut and paste as you please and spread this to as many groups as you can!!!!

Jukebox John changes his tune every few minutes- McCain Flip-Flops
Posted July 8th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Share This | Spotlight | Permalink
Atrios mentioned yesterday, "…I don't think the 'Obama is a flip-flopper' will be an especially useful line of attack for the McCain campaign, but it makes sense that they're using it. The script is already written, making it easier for the barely literate cable newsers to run with it."
Quite right. At first blush, the line of attack against Obama seems utterly ridiculous, but the McCain campaign seems to have settled on it anyway, in part because it's the closest available, already-written Republican narrative, and in part because McCain staffers haven't been able to think of anything else.
The irony, of course, is that the McCain campaign couldn't have picked a more hypocritical line of attack. For John McCain to accuse anyone of excessively changing policy positions is a bit like George W. Bush of attacking someone's grammar. Or Dick Cheney whining about a political figure being overly secretive.
But if this is the game the McCain campaign wants to play, so be it. Let's play. As the self-designated keeper of the Official List of McCain Flip-Flops, I'm pleased to report, thanks to reader contributions, we now have a whopping 61 policy reversals from the Republican nominee. If McCain wants to argue that flip-flops are an example of a political leader who can't be trusted to keep his work or honor his commitments, McCain might as well drop out of the race now.
Based on some reader suggestions, we're going to do things a little differently this time. Now, I've numbered the list and organized it by category for easier reference.
Remember, just two weeks ago, John McCain said, "This election is about trust and trusting people's word." Just a few days prior, the McCain campaign admonished Barack Obama for trying to "have it both ways" on issues.
And with that in mind…

National Security Policy
1. McCain thought Bush's warrantless-wiretap program circumvented the law; now he believes the opposite.
2. McCain insisted that everyone, even "terrible killers," "the worst kind of scum of humanity," and detainees at Guantanamo Bay, "deserve to have some adjudication of their cases," even if that means "releasing some of them." McCain now believes the opposite.
3. He opposed indefinite detention of terrorist suspects. When the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion, he called it "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country."
4. In February 2008, McCain reversed course on prohibiting waterboarding.
5. McCain was for closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay before he was against it.
6. When Barack Obama talked about going after terrorists in Pakistani mountains with predators, McCain criticized him for it. He's since come to the opposite conclusion.
Foreign Policy
7. McCain was for kicking Russia out of the G8 before he was against it.
8. McCain supported moving "towards normalization of relations" with Cuba. Now he believes the opposite.
9. McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Hamas. Now he believes the opposite.
10. McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Syria. Now he believes the opposite.
11. McCain is both for and against a "rogue state rollback" as a focus of his foreign policy vision.
12. McCain used to champion the Law of the Sea convention, even volunteering to testify on the treaty's behalf before a Senate committee. Now he opposes it.
13. McCain was against divestment from South Africa before he was for it.
Military Policy
14. McCain recently claimed that he was the "greatest critic" of Rumsfeld's failed Iraq policy. In December 2003, McCain praised the same strategy as "a mission accomplished." In March 2004, he said, "I'm confident we're on the right course." In December 2005, he said, "Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course."
15. McCain has changed his mind about a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq on multiple occasions, concluding, on multiple occasions, that a Korea-like presence is both a good and a bad idea.
16. McCain said before the war in Iraq, "We will win this conflict. We will win it easily." Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was "probably going to be long and hard and tough."
17. McCain has repeatedly said it's a dangerous mistake to tell the "enemy" when U.S. troops would be out of Iraq. In May, McCain announced that most American troops would be home from Iraq by 2013.
18. McCain was against expanding the GI Bill before he was for it.
Domestic Policy
19. McCain defended "privatizing" Social Security. Now he says he's against privatization (though he actually still supports it.)
20. McCain wanted to change the Republican Party platform to protect abortion rights in cases of rape and incest. Now he doesn't.
21. McCain supported storing spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Now he believes the opposite.
22. He argued the NRA should not have a role in the Republican Party's policy making. Now he believes the opposite.
23. In 1998, he championed raising cigarette taxes to fund programs to cut underage smoking, insisting that it would prevent illnesses and provide resources for public health programs. Now, McCain opposes a $0.61-per-pack tax increase, won't commit to supporting a regulation bill he's co-sponsoring, and has hired Philip Morris' former lobbyist as his senior campaign adviser.
24. McCain is both for and against earmarks for Arizona.
25. McCain's first mortgage plan was premised on the notion that homeowners facing foreclosure shouldn't be "rewarded" for acting "irresponsibly." His second mortgage plan took largely the opposite position.
26. McCain went from saying gay marriage should be allowed, to saying gay marriage shouldn't be allowed.
27. McCain opposed a holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr., before he supported it.
28. McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he's pro-ethanol.
29. McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.
30. In 2005, McCain endorsed intelligent design creationism, a year later he said the opposite, and a few months after that, he was both for and against creationism at the same time.
Economic Policy
31. McCain was against Bush's tax cuts for the very wealthy before he was for them.
32. John McCain initially argued that economics is not an area of expertise for him, saying, "I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues; I still need to be educated," and "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should." He now falsely denies ever having made these remarks and insists that he has a "very strong" understanding of economics.
33. McCain vowed, if elected, to balance the federal budget by the end of his first term. Soon after, he decided he would no longer even try to reach that goal. And soon after that, McCain abandoned his second position and went back to his first.
34. McCain said in 2005 that he opposed the tax cuts because they were "too tilted to the wealthy." By 2007, he denied ever having said this, and falsely argued that he opposed the cuts because of increased government spending.
35. McCain thought the estate tax was perfectly fair. Now he believes the opposite.
36. McCain pledged in February 2008 that he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Specifically, McCain was asked if he is a "'read my lips' candidate, no new taxes, no matter what?" referring to George H.W. Bush's 1988 pledge. "No new taxes," McCain responded. Two weeks later, McCain said, "I'm not making a 'read my lips' statement, in that I will not raise taxes."
37. McCain has changed his entire economic worldview on multiple occasions.
38. McCain believes Americans are both better and worse off economically than they were before Bush took office.
Energy Policy
39. McCain supported the moratorium on coastal drilling ; now he's against it.
40. McCain recently announced his strong opposition to a windfall-tax on oil company profits. Three weeks earlier, he was perfectly comfortable with the idea.
41. McCain endorsed a cap-and-trade policy with a mandatory emissions cap. In mid-June, McCain announced he wants the caps to voluntary.
42. McCain explained his belief that a temporary suspension of the federal gas tax would provide an immediate economic stimulus. Shortly thereafter, he argued the exact opposite.
43. McCain supported the Lieberman/Warner legislation to combat global warming. Now he doesn't.
Immigration Policy
44. McCain was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants' kids who graduate from high school. Now he's against it.
45. On immigration policy in general, McCain announced in February 2008 that he would vote against his own bill.
46. In April, McCain promised voters that he would secure the borders "before proceeding to other reform measures." Two months later, he abandoned his public pledge, pretended that he'd never made the promise in the first place, and vowed that a comprehensive immigration reform policy has always been, and would always be, his "top priority."
Judicial Policy and the Rule of Law
47. McCain said he would "not impose a litmus test on any nominee." He used to promise the opposite.
48. McCain believes the telecoms should be forced to explain their role in the administration's warrantless surveillance program as a condition for retroactive immunity. He used to believe the opposite.
49. McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade to saying the exact opposite.
Campaign, Ethics, and Lobbying Reform
50. McCain supported his own lobbying-reform legislation from 1997. Now he doesn't.
51. In 2006, McCain sponsored legislation to require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. In 2007, after receiving "feedback" on the proposal, McCain told far-right activist groups that he opposes his own measure.
52. McCain supported a campaign-finance bill, which bore his name, on strengthening the public-financing system. In June 2007, he abandoned his own legislation.
Politics and Associations
53. McCain wanted political support from radical televangelist John Hagee. Now he doesn't. (He also believes his endorsement from Hagee was both a good and bad idea.)
54. McCain wanted political support from radical televangelist Rod Parsley. Now he doesn't.
55. McCain says he considered and did not consider joining John Kerry's Democratic ticket in 2004.
56. McCain is both for and against attacking Barack Obama over his former pastor at his former church.
57. McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as "an agent of intolerance" in 2002, but then decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans "deserved" the 9/11 attacks.
58. In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending "dirty money" to help finance Bush's presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.
59. McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.
60. McCain decided in 2000 that he didn't want anything to do with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, believing he "would taint the image of the 'Straight Talk Express.'" Kissinger is now the Honorary Co-Chair for his presidential campaign in New York.
61. McCain believed powerful right-wing activist/lobbyist Grover Norquist was "corrupt, a shill for dictators, and (with just a dose of sarcasm) Jack Abramoff's gay lover." McCain now considers Norquist a key political ally.
And while I realize there are some who believe these constant flip-flops are irrelevant, I respectfully disagree.

Open Letter to Evangelical Community

J.W. — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 09:50:29 EDT

To the Evangelical community:

Hello, my name is James Woodson, and I am a 24-year old Christian male from New Brunswick, NJ. I am writing to you today to appeal to your better judgment, to the incredible reasoning ability given to each of us by God, and to your faith as Americans who believe in a higher power.

You, of all people, ought to know what it’s like to be misunderstood, to be mischaracterized, to be judged based on opinions of you that are simply not true. You, of all people, ought to have an overwhelming respect for the TRUTH, for HONESTY, for INTEGRITY. You, of all people, should understand what it means to be RESPECTFUL, CONSIDERATE, and KIND. However, the things that I have seen coming from many in the evangelical community have been everything but, to the point that it has made me ashamed to call myself an evangelical.

Shame on you, those within the evangelical community who spread lies about Barack Obama! Who say that he’s a Muslim, that he’s a racist, that he doesn’t care about America! Shame on you for distorting and manipulating the truth for your own selfish desires! There is absolutely no excuse for a Christian, or any believer of any faith, to blatantly and unashamedly tell vicious and scandalous lies about a person for personal reasons – just because you may not agree with his or her political policies. To slander someone’s religious beliefs, whether you’re sure or unsure that you’re comments are untrue, in my opinion, is a sin above sin. Jesus said judge not lest you be judged (Matthew 7:1-5). Jesus said “then you will know the TRUTH and the TRUTH shall set you free” (John 8:32). The ten commandments tells us that we shall not bear false witness against our neighbor (Exodus 20:16). So what are we doing? As believers, what type of standard are we setting when we blatantly act in opposition to God's word?

As Christians, we are called to be bearers of truth. Anything else devalues our beliefs and brings shame to the God we claim to represent. So let’s stop the personal attacks, stop the lies, and get on to having a debate about the issues.

Lastly, before you say another untrue thing about Barack Obama, stop and ask yourself, how much has John McCain said about his religion? What has he done to reach out to the evangelical community other than seek out high-level endorsements? In a time in our country when there are more issues at stake than just abortion and gay marriage, who really represents the best interest of the American people? As Christians, our votes shouldn’t be cast based on one or two issues, but on the entirety of a candidate’s platform. So ask yourself, whose policies truly reflect those of an evangelical – the importance of loving your neighbor as yourself (Mark 12:31), of loving your enemies (Matthew 5:44), of showing love to everyone, not just those who are like you (Matthew 5:46-48). Open your eyes and realize what's really going on in this election. I guarantee you will be a better person of faith for doing so.

Yours in Christ,
James Woodson
New Brunswick, NJ

P.S. Click the link (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/02/evangelicals.ap/index.html) to read about a new movement happening within the Evangelical community where leaders are fighting back against the Gospel being politicized in favor and opposition of people's own personal political views.

The opinions and views expressed in this email are not those of Barack Obama, the Obama campaign, Obama for America, or any organization associated with Barack Obama, and are solely those of the writer.

we do need to worry about this one; input from members welcomed

Danielle — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:21:18 EDT

I came across this video on youtube this morning, when I followed a link to another video there, that had been brought to my attention. I have to admit friends, this smear concerns me deeply. Take a look for yourself and let me know how you think we should address this. Click on the link below and make sure your volume is set where you can hear all of it. We need to inform David of this, if he isn't already aware of it. I can't see any Republican NOT believe this and fear it. Thanks for your attention to this concern/issue.

Danielle

http://www.nohussein.org

Obama will be president for all people no matter what race

Corinna — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 07:21:24 EDT

Jackson is a Jealous man , who seems to want someone to do his bidding, thank god Obama is for change, Jackson cant offer an apology big enough to take back his words it seems his mind is one sided and he don't understand anything beyond that. His comments where so grotesque I cant believe he is a preacher. Mr Obama I wouldn't even give a comment , to that kind of smut.

Dismantling the Ego Angle (Warning: Incoming Disjointed Angry Rant)

Joe Monica — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 15:23:33 EDT

Preface: I know I'm posting this to the choir but I have to vent, plus the objects of my angst and their potentially unbridled r-complex wrath frightens me. So I choose to rant to friendly minds. You can see this post as a warning and advice for dealing with said individuals.

The uninformed knee-jerk viral attacks on Barack Obama from a lazy underinformed portion of the population continue. The new dig I've seen propping up goes something like this "I'm so sick of Obama's ego." And some have even stated that Barack Obama's ego is so big a football stadium wouldn't be large enough to fit it... maybe we should move the convention to the moon (to paraphrase one ridiculous post).

Must See Video : Media Caught In The Act

FreedomOfSpeechForObama2008 — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 10:09:36 EDT

The You Tube Video is called Barack-Iraq-Gate: Anatomy of a Media Smear and it exposes CNN's Jessica Yellin who is the sole person responsible for the negative story about Barack Obama and his position on Iraq.

This is what the Media do all the time, but the only difference was that Jessica "LYIN", er, Yellin was so sloppy and so obvious, she pretty much gave herself away and got caught. Watch the video.

Redbaiting Barack Obama (9 August 2008)

Kaleokualoha — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:28:59 EDT

INTRODUCTION

Conservative opponents of Barack Obama face a dilemma. Some are determined to stop him by any means necessary, but most know that direct appeal to racial prejudice is unacceptable in the 21st century. Because Obama is a relative newcomer to the political scene, he does not have enough of a voting record to make him vulnerable in that area. As a last resort, they are trying to convince voters that he is unfit to be President by making false accusations regarding his character.

Spreading false information about your opponent is as old as politics itself. Unlike the swift boating of John Kerry in 2004, in which his heroism was questioned, current attacks against Obama take a more sinister tone. They are trying to convince voters that Obama is anti-American based on the radical behavior of some of his friends many years ago. To make these false accusations stronger, conservatives exaggerate the radical behavior of these old friends, and exaggerate the influence they had over Obama. Thus, they attempt to portray Obama as being just as radical.

Maureen Dowd spoof smears Obama

Dave McLane — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 00:23:37 EDT

The smear is basically this: "It appears that some of the millions of $$$ that Obama has received from Internet fund raising efforts comes from overseas... China and the Middle East, to be exact. Why would donors in those countries contribute to an election campaign for President of USA?"

Here are the details:

ThomasMoore commented on my article "Unite for Change: Prescott, Arizona" on www.azcentral.com (The same article is also on www.barackobama.com .) and said:

========== ThomasMoore Comment ==========
It's not a secret any more, Dave, about where the millions of dollars are coming from that Obama has been receiving, so much that he went back on his promise to accept the spending limits of public campaign financing.

The millions are not from small donations of $25 to $100, as Obama has claimed. It's been traced to banks in Saudi Arabia and other Middle East countries, as well as a bank in China. The many small donations come from only a few credit-card accounts.

Wealthy foreigners, including the radical Islamic Wahabi sect that supports Osama bin Ladin, are attempting to provide millions of dollars for television ads to influence the U. S. Presidential election.

Don't take my word; read NYT columnist Maureen Dowd, who's about as liberal as anyone who works for that newspaper. Click on this link:

http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/ThomasMoore/26838
========== ThomasMoore Comment ==========

When you check out that link, it's not to the New York Times but to ThomasMoore's blog which doesn't provide a link to an original article by Maureen Dowd and I was unable to find such an article on the NYT or elsewhere.

The operative line is "I wonder if we WILL see this article in the Arizona Republic tomorrow? (the www.azcentral.com is the Arizona Republic's website).

I've sent a report to www.azcentral.com and to Marueen Dowd but no reply.

THE VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY..REALLY

BIG MIKE, COMEDIAN — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 14:40:55 EDT

SINCE I HAVE BEEN ACTIVE IN SPREADING THE WORD AND DOING MY PART TO BRING PEOPLE TO THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN, I HAVE BEEN HARASSED BY ANTI-OBAMA EMAILS. THESE BORED WEIRDOS LIKE TO FEEL IMPORTANT AND DISTORT SENATOR OBAMA'S POSITIONS ON EVERYTHING IN THE BOOK..I CAN TELL YOU NOW THAT I AM TOTALLY DEDICATED TO MAKING BARACK OBAMA THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! THE PEOPLE THAT CAN BE SWAYED ARE UNDECIDED VOTERS LIKE MY WIFE WHO HAVE NEVER VOTED IN THEIR LIFE OR FOLKS THAT HAVE NEVER WATCHED HARDBALL WITH CHRIS MATHEWS. PLEASE TELL ANYONE THAT WILL PUT UP WITH YOU THE GREAT QUALITIES OF MR. OBAMA AND THE REASONS WHY HE IS A BETTER CHOICE FOR PRESIDENT THAT SEN. JOHN McCAIN. THANKS, MR. MICHAEL GLEN MITCHELL,JUNIOR.

Fighting the Smears: "Obama's Not Exactlys"

Julia ~ Northern MN — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:34:36 EDT

Here's one of the many smear emails floating around...A list of 38 supposed Obama falsehoods.

Each item (Not just some or even most)--every single item is crap!!

Please read, copy, paste, and forward it around.

The danger of the e-whisper campaign is that has the potential to be far more powerful than public swiftboating advertisements. When people receive an email from someone they know, there's a better chance that they'll believe some (or even all) of the message. ...So it's very, very important to share the reverse message and stop the fear campaign.

Thanks!!

Wisdom from the past

Dan McNamara — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:19:28 EDT

I recently stumbled on a quotation from Margaret Chase Smith (1950), the first woman ever elected to the United States Senate (R - Maine).
Although she wanted her party to win in the next election, she said

"I do not want to see the Republican Party ride to victory on the Four Horsemen of Calumny - fear, ignorance, bigotry, and smear"

Sadly, these are the very tactics the Republican party is bringing to bear against Barak Obama today by lies, distortions and cowardly whispering campaigns. Either McCain is not the honorable man he purports to be or he is too weak a leader to control his people, let alone be president. OBAMA '08

Dan McNamara

Getting into the fray, not used to fighting

Barbarella — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:25:06 EDT

I was taught to be polite. Giving others the benefit of the doubt and listening to others points of view is one of my policies. I listen patiently, with compassion to some of the most offensive points of view, and I try to see things through the speakers eyes. I believe that we are all deeply connected, and that if I had experienced what the other person had, I might feel that way too. So I listen, ask questions, get closer, try to understand, and gently introduce new ideas. It is a very yin way of being.

Now, it is time to change. If change is what I want, and it is, change I must. Yang is what I seek. I need to learn to argue. For I am confronted with a barrage of unsavory smears about Obama. You don't have to scratch the surface to sniff the fear and hate. The scum of lies are open and ferocious. I don't see the possibility of changing the more virulent of our opponents. However, I need to know how to engage these folks. I also need to learn how to persuade those who might be more open to change. I want to do some door to door campaigning for Obama, and I will need to learn how to fight.
I need information on how to counter each accusation, find a group of people who need to do the same thing and practice with them point by point.

Fight the email smears—update

Mikeystyle — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:02:56 EDT

I’ve got an email campaign going to counter the smears against Obama and I just updated it for the umpteenth time to keep up with the hate.

If you’re not familiar with this, more than 200 people are involved in sending this message to everybody they know—or you could just use it as a ready-made response for when someone sends you an email smear. We’re hoping this goes viral (as in everywhere) but we need your help to make it happen.

It’s chock full of links and posted on my blog:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/Mikeystyle/gGBLHQ

Just another example of smear and how 1 of my friends cope

Bill Browne — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:11:53 EDT

This is the letter along with a link that was sent to a friend of mine in Virginia last week. It is just another example of the cheap smears being thrown at Senator Obama. After the link you can read my friend, Cynthia "Poetcyn" Lewis' response.She is an excellent writer who expresses herself with poise and dignity.

FIRST THE LETTER AND VIDEO LINK TO HER:

On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 12:22 PM, Bill Parry wrote:
Hi folks, many of you may find rhis offensive and I do not want another mcbush, but Obama scares me. Delete thlis if you wish, but my feeling is that none of us can hide our heads in the sand becauase of our extreme dislike for W. If you choose, take a look
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?rsrcid=2036

___________________________________

MORE CRAZY PREACHERS..REV. DOBSON

BIG MIKE, COMEDIAN — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 07:57:07 EDT

I SAW THE VIDEO THAT UPSET MR.DOBSON SO MUCH AND I THINK HE IS NUTS. TO GO AND FIND A TWO YEAR OLD TAPE OF A GREAT SPEECH BY SENATOR OBAMA AND CRITICIZE IT JUST TO SCORE COOL POINTS FOR JOHN McCAIN IS SAD AND SILLY! THE SMEARS ARE GOING TO KEEP COMING AND WE MUST BE DILIGENT IN OUR COMMITTMENT TO SENATOR BARACK OBAMA! HE IS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN THE BEST CHOICE FOR PRESIDENT!

We Smear for Obama

DrCat2013 — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:07:14 EDT

Ever gone to gop.com? Chances are that you haven't, and you're missing out. Really. If you delve deep enough into the Bible, surely there is something about "Know thine enemy" lingering somewhere, and if you go to the website you will immediately see that the G.O.P knows this all too well. In fact, the entirety of the site isn't even directed at the issues themselves, it's all about smearing Barack Obama. Apparently that is all they can do to try to make themselves look better at this point. As the Republican party is being abandoned by the Old Money that embody the nickname "Grand Old Party", as well as the neo-Evangelicals and other conservative Christians that have come to realize that war wasn't on Jesus' mind, and now by poor people who realize that they need things like health care and jobs, the best they can do is try to run Obama through the mud and hope that anyone still cares.

Fighting Disinformation (October 2008)

Kaleokualoha — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:53:51 EDT

Cliff Kincaid and his colleagues have accused Frank Marshall Davis (1905-1987) of being a Stalinist, a lifetime member of the Communist Party, and “Obama’s Communist Mentor.” Kincaid heads “Accuracy In Media” (A.I.M.), an organization dedicated to “fairness, balance and accuracy in news reporting.” Kincaid and his colleagues are all honorable men.

Having asked Kincaid to substantiate some of his accusations, and having received no reply, one can only conclude that Kincaid must be preoccupied with more important questions, because Kincaid is an honorable man.

Although the ironically named “Accuracy In Media” has yet to substantiate that Davis actually mentored Obama (a claim specifically rejected by the Obama campaign), such a relationship could have provided a bi-racial teenager with the key to success in mainstream America. To minimize criticism and maximize their potential, bi-racial African-Americans must walk a narrow identity path between group expectations. Davis was uniquely qualified to show the way. He may have significantly facilitated Obama’s vision of an inclusive society.

National Press Club Gives Podium to Smear Campaign

F. Shinneman — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:16:20 EDT

The National Press Club will hold a news conference at 3PM Thursday 6/18 to give Obama smear campaigner Larry Sinclair the podium. Sinclair's claims have been discredited.

You can show your displeasure to the NPC and their sponsors as shown below.

National Press Club Contact: info@press.org

Event Coordinator: Montgomery Sibley mbsibley@earthlink.net 202-248-3973

NPC Advertisers:

Committee to Protect Journalists: info@cpj.org

XM Radio: email page @ http://www.xmradio.com/help/emailus.xmc

joe.wilkinson@xmradio.com Investor Relations

Word for Word – American Public Media mail@americanpublicmedia.org

Good Energy info@goodenergy.com

Sterling Planet info@sterlingplanet.com

The Smears

Andrew — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 10:49:16 EDT

I'm so glad that barackobama.com has added a page that responds to the lies and smears. With, you know, the truth ... based on evidence and reason? Remember those?

One of the most worrisome things to me about this campaign is the effort to smear Obama through whisper campaigns that fly below the radar (ie via emails, blogs, etc). You know the ones I'm talking about: Obama is a secret Muslim infiltrator, Michelle screamed Whitey, he won't wear the flag pin or was sworn in to congress on the Koran, etc etc.

As far-flung as some of these rumors are, I believe they can be incredibly damaging to the campaign. The New Republic published a study recently about race and politics. They showed that overt racism in political campaigns is ineffective. It turns off more voters than it attracts.

But COVERT or coded racism is extremely effective. It plays on people's fears and prejudices without specifically seeming like racism. It can sway a lot of voters.

These rumors have that in common: racial anxieties, religious fears, xenophobia. None of them explicity says "Don't vote for Obama because he's black. Or Don't vote for him because he spent part of his youth in a foreign country. Or his father was a Muslim." but they play up on these very common fears and are extremely hard to answer.

How do you prove that someone DIDN'T ever say whitey? You can't. It's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to prove a negative statement. You could never prove conclusively to someone that believed in unicorns that unicorns DON'T exist. "Well why has no one ever seen one?" you might ask. "They're hiding," they'd say. "People have searched the world over and never found one. No skeletons, fossils, no evidence that they exist or ever existed. No trace of their presence," you might say. "They're very good hiders. It's in their nature. The living ones hide the bones of the dead," And so on.

Likewise on these blogs and emails. "The tape is out there. Several people know several people who have seen it." I've even started to see the argument that no tape is necassary to prove she said it (Could the argument be shifting because even the right wing bloggers are starting to realize that no tape exists?) "You don't need a tape to show that Abe Lincoln said 'Four Score and Seven Years Ago...'" And so the argument goes on. And the unicorns were just here. You just missed them! They're hiding again now, of course.

Anyway, those are just a few rambling thoughts about my concerns regarding this issue...

The smears play up on pre-existing fears. They're extremely effective in that they use covert cues to effectively elicit a response that--if they were stated overtly--would be ineffective. And lastly they are extremely effective and hard to disprove or counter.

So how do we fight them?

With the truth and reason and evidence. Sadly, these can sometimes seem like small and ineffective tools. Especially when there are so many who don't believe in or won't listen to arguments based on reason and logic. They're responding out of fear.

If you get one of these smear messages, a good response is to respond by sending a link to the response page on Obama's site. Again, I often think the truth and reason are blunt instruments, tapping ineffectively on the boulder-sized fears of these people, but you never know who you might help.

There's a famous quote by Mark Twain tha runs something like, "A lie runs halfway round the world before the truth can get its boots on." An writer in the National Review once added, as an aside, "But, eventually, truth gets booted and spurred, and the lie gets a good licking."

Now if only that were so...

We must act as if it were.

Let's Stay Away From Those Swift Boats

CorpusMama — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 18:28:26 EDT

As a recoverying Arizonan Republican, I was appalled to hear those disgusting "swift boat" guys at it again.

First it was Kerry.

Now McCain?

Look, I wasn't with John McCain at the Hanoi Hilton. Only he knows what really happened there. I do remember how he looked after those 5 lonely years, as he got off the plane he was so weak and skinny he could hardly walk. The fact is he was a POW for 5 years in Vietnam, held in captivity like an animal. No matter what anybody tells you about his experience even McCain himself, the truth is he served his country honorably.

Yes, there were forced confessions at gunpoint and he did talk but it was nonsense. How much could he tell them, guys? Like he was locked up out out of touch for 5 years!

The Obama team does not need to resort to Swiftboat style attacks and of course it never will. I believe the only purpose of those Swiftboat ads is to somehow link it to us so they can say the Obama campaign is playing dirty politics as usual which we aren't.

However, this would give them an excuse for the smear tactics the GOP is notorious for. Rush will blame these attacks on us and encourage his listeners to go out and get even by smearing Barack Obama.

It is imperative that we get out the word to stay away from spreading these ads.

Trust me, there is enough policy problems and real issues that we can use against John McCain. Let's just stick with the facts.

Obama is "exotic"

Scott — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:24:15 EDT

This is the adjective Pat Buchanan and Republican strategist Brad Blakeman used repeatedly to describe Obama on Dan Abram's MSNBC show "The Verdict" last night.

It got me thinking about the nature of that word: EXOTIC and I looked up its formal definition:

1. of foreign origin or character; not native; introduced from abroad, but not fully naturalized or acclimatized

And though I don't think most of us think about this word in such precise detail, I do see how it dovetails perfectly into the most scurrilous accusations the GOP make about Obama, "He's a secret muslim terrorist! What's with the fist pumping? Why no flag on his lapel? Michelle is his 'baby mamma!' not his wife."

See the point Buchanon and Blakeman are trying to make?

He's not a real American. Real Americans aren't brown! Real Americans don't come from Hawaii or broken homes! Real Americans don't fist pump! It's all very strange and foreign and scary. Be afraid, be very afraid. Don't think too much and just vote for the white guy.

I would be offended by their xenophobia if I didn't find it so amusing and honestly believe, in the end, it will backfire on them.

These people are old, white and out of touch. They don't realize that Obama is only exotic to Buchanan and McCain's contemporaries (so, essentially, the 70+ crowd).

Most of America now has more in common with Obama than McSame (my pet name for Johnny as he is indistinguishable policy-wise from Bush).

Our generation, as often as not, is also from broken homes and know the upheaval and discomfort of moving around in childhood as Obama did. If we're not of color--and so many more of our generation are--we at least shared dorm rooms and ate with people of color in our cafeterias. Fist pumping doesn't frighten us.

Americans are smarter than the GOP gives them credit for. For that I'm grateful and will relish seeing them go down in November.

THE SHAME OF THE NEWS MEDIA

M J Taylor — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:56:14 EDT

Pls excuse any typos I was a bit emotional and rushed when I wrote this. It is just my opinion but I believe Mr. Obama should address this, either he or a surrogate. It’s just not right to attack Michelle this way, with lies to boot. And for CNN to perpetuate this lie further under the guise of responsible un-biased reporting is even more shameful.

THE SHAME OF CNN. Have you noticed the bias in reporting since Obama won the election. Now that the race is between Dems and Republicans it is becoming painfully obvious to me that CNN, is as biased if not more biased that FOX. I feel their recent reporting is divisive and shameful. They have moved away from the issues and blame it on the candidates. Spreading rumors that appear on the net without substantiation. (yes I know that the Dems started TOO MANY of these rumors against Obama) and that really makes them SPECIAL. Either way this is not what is best for America. And it makes me really start to wonder if either party is good for the masses of Americans who simply want a decent job a living wage and to give their children a better chance than they had….

The reporting of the
“Baby Momma” statement from FOX was disgusting.. It was repeated every hour on the hour and over n over again during the hour. And I watched it all night hoping some change would come to the story or the reporting of it. But noting new came out of it so I watched until I could take no more and changed the channel at 2am. In the end their opinion was that it is ok to attack THE WIFE OF a candidate for the President of the United States…..no there is no honor in our news nor our political system anymore. This "Me First" mentality that has been perpetuated by the Republicans is going to destroy all that is great about America.

The reporting by CNN, on all levels was truly sickening. To repeat the statement over and over again and such a racist statement is it especially in the context in which it was used is even more shameful.. They basically promoted and supported FOX in the ascertation that it is ok to defame Ms Obama. Watch your back Barrak, the kid gloves are off and too many in America don’t want the good that you will do to come to fruition.Our reporters too many are uninformed, un caring, and don’t realize or don’t care that to serve the best interest of the public is their duty. The media should be our informers, not just our reporters. News not longer truly investigates they just report sound bytes, whether they are Fact or Not.

Obama Smear Video ALERT

ofsoundmind — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:32:01 EDT

Just this morning I checked my email to find a wonderful email from a family member containing the subject line - Obama Video - PLEASE WATCH. So I did.... WELL, the link took me to a conservative blog with this 13 minute video smearing Barack Obama in a most ludicrous way.

To say the least, I got angry and replied to the dozen or so people that my family member forwarded this to with a few choice words that I sort of regret the tone but not the message I was sending. I hope you all can be made aware that this really is viral and spreading and we need to make sure we inform everyone of this when we come upon it.

My family member did email me back quite sarcastic and angry that I had jumped all over this attack video - but I feel very justified that maybe I made someone in that list just a little less ignorant than before.

"Eternal vigilence is the price of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

http://www.theurbangrind.net/?p=2570%3chttp://www.theurbangrind.net/?p=2570

We all need to respond to wingnut emails

Bruce F — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:07:54 EDT

I originally posted this on DailyKos a few weeks back. As I have been responding to smears I am learning that we can incrementally influence some people. Some people from the email distros are actually contacting me seeing if I know the truth about the smears. I am going to crosspost some of the emails and my responses from my blog.

http://thoughtsfromruralwisconsin.blogspot.com/

I have a number of acquaintances that are either wingnuts or right wing evangelicals. It seems that feel they need to save me and forward all their wingnut crap to me. I used to hate it, but now I find it is a very useful way to get out truth. We all know their emails are full of lies, rumours, innuendo and general BS, but we shouldn't just delete them. We need to respond. I find that it only takes me 5-10 mins to do the research to debunk their emails. I respond to everyone on their distro. Not surprisingly I get few responses and those are usually full of strawmne and ad hominem attacks and just flat our personal attacks.

If no one responds with the truth the lies and misrepresentations get presented as fact. People who do not know the truth assumes the wingnut email is truth. We are not going to change peoples minds and enlighten them if we just ignore the trash and filth that is peddled by the right wing smear machine.

Maybe someone has already set this up, but I think the progressive blogosphere needs to put together a clearinghouse for people to get the truth and easily counter the emails with an intelligent reasoned response.

Snopes is a great resource, but they are not always timely and they do no deal specifically with political issues. I know the Obama campaign ahs put together a rapid response team to deal with attacks and smears. I wonder what could be done to build a site so progressives everywhere can find answers and responses quickly.

I am going to start posting the wingnut emails and my responses on my blog.
http://thoughtsfromruralwisconsin.bl...

If you get an email from a wingnut please send it to me so I can post it and your response. If you need help formulating a response I will gladly try to assist. We need to fight them in the trenches. These email smears are the trenches of this war.

In response to fear-peddling e-mail I received

Oregon Artists 4 Obama '08 — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 16:17:45 EDT

Letter to my Bro & Sis ...

I have shared my campaign activity photos with you, but in order to avoid any drama, have not voiced my political opinions. We are now down to 2 candidates, thankfully. I received an email filled with hate & fear mongering. That prompted me to send you this brief synopsis of why I made my choice. I don't try to persuade you, just share with you how I came to my decision and what makes sense to me. We do not have to agree -- I refuse to let differences of opinion disrupt my love and devotion to you. Having said that, here is my offering: ======================================================================

We're not gonna sit in silence

Scott in Nac — Wed, 21 May 2008 22:56:20 EDT

The e-mail forwarded by my godmother yesterday morning came like a gut-punch. Addressed to about two dozen of her family members and friends, it was headed "What a black columnist has to say about Obama," it started with a re-print of a New York Sun opinion piece by a right wing columnist painting Obama as ultra-liberal. OK, he's entitled to his opinion, and it's no shock that my elderly, wealthy godmother is politically conservative.

At the bottom, though, was a dark warning that Obama fits the description of the antichrist from the book of "Revelations." It implored me to pass this warning on to as many people as possible, lest Obama get himself elected in order to "destroy everything."

What to do? I have no desire to pick a fight with this woman, who has been so sweet and generous to me for practically all my life. But I could not sit by silently while hateful, cowardly lies are spread about the best hope for positive change for all of us.

It took me about an hour, but I used snopes.com to get together the factual refutation of the Biblical nonsense (the antichrist isn't even mentioned in "Revelation," etc.", and the Barack for America web site to assemble facts about Obama's faith and history, and an array of experts, mainstream press and bi-partisan politicians denouncing the smear campaign against him. I asked that McCain supporters please respect their candidate's express wishes and not perpetuate hateful personal attacks on his opponent. I wrote my response as respectfully and calmly as I could and I hit "reply all." And waited for the blowback.

But I was relieved by the responses to my response. Someone I didn't recognize wrote a skeptical but respectful question about my assertion that Obama is a practicing Christian; I sent a quote from The Audacity of Hope and directed her to the "faithfacts" part of the Obama site and thanked her politely.

Then, this morning, a reply from my godmother. "Thank you from the bottom of my heart," she wrote, "for giving me such a good report on the facts about Obama." She apologized rather sheepishly for having sent the thing at all--her eyesight is nearly gone and she frankly couldn't or didn't read it all the way through before she forwarded it. "All my love" was her sign-off. I wrote back to thank her for accepting my response in the spirit in which it was meant and to say how much I love her too.

It pretty much ruined my day yesterday, and made my day today. I disagreed with someone close to me and I wasn't disowned or humiliated or berated. I spoke my mind calmly, respectfully, made my case factually and backed up my research. I was heard with respect and was reminded that if we love one another, we can disagree without being disagreeable, and get through it together. I probably didn't change anyone's vote, but I feel that acted with a little integrity and maybe made someone think twice before forwarding that kind of poison.

My suggestion to fellow Obama supporters: speak your mind to those you love. If you do it with love, it might be a good experience even if your loved ones disagree with you.