Whisper Campaigns for Fools Who Listen

No doubt my junk mail filters have been working diligently, so I haven't received one of those vile and false emails spreading lies about Barack Obama's family and record - no, I had to read them in a report today from Ben Smith and Jonathan Martin in The Politico. This is a classic softening up campaign months before Obama is likely to face John McCain, and it's aimed at sowing doubt about his patriotism. The Clinton supporters who gather here should condemn this kind of behavior, since it's been used against Hillary for years. Here's one of the quotes the emails have been circulating:

“There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem itself conveys a war-like message.”

Of course, Obama never said it. And he didn't take the oath of office on the Koran, either. But these emails have become exceedingly viral in the worst sense of the word. The only way to fight back is to condemn them loudly - and correct anyone you hear repeating one of these cowardly whispers.

Comments

[Tessy]

You know what Tom - You reap what you sow. The Obama team didn't think twice about using Republican talking points against the Clintons.
When NBC talked about Clinton pimping her daughter the silence was deafening from Obama Team and some actually defended the comment. Obama team went to town about flimsy racisim charges against the clintons and so on and so forth.
They were arrogant and they were more than ready to purge us Clinton supporters from all things Obama. Now let they face the music and fight their own battles.

[David Parsons]

But it's ridiculous. If Mr. Obama gets the Democratic nomination I certainly won't vote for him in the general election, but this whole "he's not patriotic! He's a muslim! He's actually a space alien from Beta Arugula!" crap demeans the process to the point where the Democrats might as well just run a flatworm for President under the logic that if it doesn't have a central nervous system it can't wage jihad against Republican slandermongers.

Point and laugh. That's all you can do.

[Ren v Stimpy]

Has it occured to anyone that Obama's camp may be behind these "viral-emails"? As clever as his managers have proven to be in manipulating the message via email bursts these (potentially) self vetting emails are attracting attention and sympathy from those (like yourself) who would otherwise be unsupportive.

The fact they are intentionally and outrageously inaccurate might be your first clue. Anyone clueless enough to believe them would not be dissuaded from voting BO in the first place so they instead have their effect on the sensibilities of the intellectual left as a means of affirming the obvious by subconcious manipulation.

EXAMPLE: Spreading the rumor that BO is a Muslim invites the opporsite reaction even though he may very well be an "apostate" according to Shari'a law.

[Palomino]

Ordinarily I would condemn such tactics, publicly and loudly. But this time I'll take my cue from Senator Obama himself and keep my mouth shut, just as Obama has done regarding the misogynist characterizations and treatment of Senator Clinton--from which he is benefiting mightily--at the hands of the media, the DNC, and the many other Obama shills. Let Obama lie in the bed made by his own opportunism, cynicism, and passive aggression. Short of assassination, I really don't care what brings Obama down. In November I'll be happy to offer my little tut-tut about the Republican smear campaign against Obama, after The One has been forced to make his ignominious exit from the scene.

[Ren v Stimpy]

Can I just add this as a demonstration of my sympathy for Barry:

....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...

BAD FINGER DEMOCRATS

Obama/Obama '08
"The Messiah don't do running mates"

[Cm Sinclair]

Reap what you sow? Really?
C'mon kids...you're not getting it. Tom is doing his own viral thing here in deference to the cadre of Clinton fans that traffic here and you're messing it up. He prints the smear, you get to denounce it thus staking out the "moral high ground" from which you can toss bombs at Obama for not denouncing everything some some idiot gasbag at MSNBC said. An argument that, by the way, is implicitly sexist. Obama treated Clinton as the strong candidate she was, one who could and would fight her own battles. He supported her by disparaging sexism (on numerous occasions) and by letting her defend herself. Any attempt by him to parachute in and make a speech on her behalf would have been seen, correctly, as arrogant and sexist until that time that she drops out of the race.

At what point to you hold her to account for things she actually said? She just compared not seating Florida and Michigan to civil rights (and voting) battles. Um...anyone willing to ponder this comparison for a second and cop to the fact that a white woman, sitting senator and former first lady conflating her Presidential campaign with civil rights movements slides two ticks past audaciously dishonest straight into...what? Someone will, of course, argue that she's just standing up for voters in these states but you'd have to lower yourself to Lanny Davis levels. You'd certainly have to ignore the numerous times she stated clearly that she agreed with the DNC ruling that they would not be seated. You'd also have to ingore the fact that, even if you do count them, she's still not ahead in the popular vote. Because if you have a shred of sanity left you certainly don't want to linger on the comparison to civil rights battles for long.

[Ren v Stimpy]

Dear CM Sinclair
Now that your skull is sufficiently soft this too may creep in. Suppressing the "woman vote" has equal stature in the lexicon of criminal vote discourse. Only YOU make the sole reference to "civil rights" as being exclusive to blacks. But then you are missing a few other essential parts as well.

Now go make me a sandwich.

[Palomino]

@ Cm Sinclair: Staking out the "moral high ground" is a sucker's move when one's opponent is amoral. It's an enabling gesture that opportunistic, cynical characters rely on and often manage to extort from fair-minded people. But not this time. Obama can stew in his own nasty juice.

[Cm Sinclair]

Tom, as a Clinton supporter who understands the basic similarity of these centist/conservative Dem canditate's public policy and is committed to voting for whomever is the nominee, doesn't this brief series of posts signal to you that the time has come to end this? I mean look at what's left at this point.

While Pal (textbook example of claiming moral high ground) and Stimpy's responses speak for themselves, I can't resist the urge to do the cut and paste thing in deference to stimp who made me laugh out loud:
"the "woman vote" has equal stature in the lexicon of criminal vote discourse."
Um...ok.

[Ralph]

See Tom? These so-called Democrats want Obama to condemn the misogynistic attacks against Hillary Clinton -- but when it comes to defending Obama, he's on his own. Kinda warms your heart, don't it?

Tom, you have unknowingly contributed to this attitude on the part of these folks.

Here is some common sense from radio host Thom Hartmann:

Obama - Ask Hillary First!

The issue at hand for the Democratic Party for winning in ‘08 is not losing to McCain but losing to a divided Democratic party. The first thing Obama should do if nominated is put Hillary on the ticket. Will the Republicans have a field day with her on the ticket? Yes! Is their some bad blood in the water due to some negative campaign strategies on the part of the Clintons? Probably. Can Hillary be a tough fighter able to play tough allowing Obama to stay higher above the fray? Yes!

Howard Dean said a few months ago that the loser will be the most important person in the Democratic presidential run this year. Hillary's legacy in this 08 election could place her as the healer and bring together a united Democratic party. As a winning ticket they also move this country closer to healing the racial and misogynist undertones that still have roots.

Can you picture Denver with Hillary's delegates close to half of all delegates demanding that she be included on the ticket? To some it's a crusade. If Hillary was the one out ahead - by just a little over half - wouldn't Obama supporters want the same?

Obama's offer and Hillary's acceptance of an Obama/Clinton ticket hold the healing and the power to move this country in the direction of the real change in Washington that Obama talks about. First he must bring the Democrats back together again.

Obama - ask Hillary first. And if she should say no, the offer would still have a unifying affect.

--Thom Hartmann

[Susie]

"Any attempt by him to parachute in and make a speech on her behalf would have been seen, correctly, as arrogant and sexist until that time that she drops out of the race."

Then why are the Obama acolytes, I mean supporters, complaining that Clinton hasn’t spoken out about racism?

But there's really no point in arguing. Your man of a thousand perfections can do no wrong.

Returning to our topic, our host is quite right to say that these tactics should be condemned and these, uh, misapprehensions should be corrected whenever we encounter them.

That said, please forgive me for indulging in - no, rolling around like a pig in clover is really more like it - a bit of schadenfreude as Obama is attacked by the right wing machine with such methods. Remember, this is the candidate who has seen fit to blame 'the divisiveness on the 90s' on the Clintons as well as the Arkansas Project folks. It's one of the aspects of his unity schtick I find most irksome, and I'm afraid I shall rather enjoy seeing Barry and his lady wife take a few more punches. Chortle, chortle.

[Susie]

"Obama - ask Hillary first. And if she should say no, the offer would still have a unifying effect."

He better ask her, or there will be hell to pay, exactly as there would be if she won and failed to offer the VP slot to him. He'll be hoping that she refuses. She should do what's best for her, although I'd like to see her pull an LBJ and accept. The ensuing hysteria from the Obama blogosphere would be too yummy for words.

[Ralph]

The ensuing hysteria from the Obama blogosphere would be too yummy for words

Can we grow up? Is that too much for a loyal Democrat to ask?

[Ren v Stimpy]

Sinclair
Delighted that it sailed way over your head and that laughing out loud in that echo chamber with all your personalities makes it all feel better.

Like the swarm of guilt burdened, weak neck progressives proceeding you pandering to the "little people" of color reinforces your faux contrition and self loathing for feelings of superiority.

Now go make me a sandwich.

[Susie]

"Can we grow up? Is that too much for a loyal Democrat to ask?"

May I suggest that you direct your message of maturity to the Obama blogs, where as late as yesterday the nice folks commenting over at Balloon Juice were referring to Senator Clinton as a mendacious strident bitch? (That was a woman, BTW.)

Of course, never say never -- they may wind up as sore losers even yet, in which case a certain amount of bitterness and anger would be appropriate enough, although it wouldn't justify the kind of language being used.

'I certainly won't vote for him in the general election, but this whole "he's not patriotic! He's a muslim! He's actually a space alien from Beta Arugula!" crap demeans the process'

Indeed. If it goes to far it may very well backfire on them, although history shows this sort of thing tends to work quite well.

[carissa]

He supported her by disparaging sexism (on numerous occasions)...

Citation please? I've not seen this, especially "on numerous occasions."

[Tom W.]

Well this fun - defending Obama (who I still like, just second best) against an email smear, I'm nailed by Clinton supporters and Obama supporters. Man, there's a lot of work to be done. Tons - more than I thought. This is muy malo.

[darrow]

Ralph quotes Thom Hartmann:

Is their some bad blood in the water due to some negative campaign strategies on the part of the Clintons? Probably. Can Hillary be a tough fighter able to play tough allowing Obama to stay higher above the fray? Yes!

Yes, Thom. Now that we can all agree that the Clinton campaign caused some 'bad blood' with their 'negative campaigning' why can't we just all proceed with the coronation already?

Even when they're trying to woo you they're trashing you.

Referring to Harmann's comments today, vastleft's post at Corrente, "Tainted Love: How *Not* To Make Clinton Supporters Your Sweeties", sums it up pretty well.

Even if we pardon the faux pas of prematurely declaring your camp victorious and, thus, in the position to make magnanimous offers, this is magnanimity of a rather shoddy sort.

Why must your peace offering ratify the notion of “bad blood in the water due to some negative campaign strategies on the part of the Clintons,” casting Obama’s prospective understudy as a naughty, tail-between-her-legs bitch, a tough-tough junkyard dog who will bare her fangs so Obama can remain classily “above the fray”?

Even Richard Mellon Scaife is repentant, yet you insist that the GOP will have “a field day with her on the ticket.” Where have ya been, man? For weeks, the talking point has been that Hillary’s voters are crossovers sent by Rush. Why must you imply that offering Hillary a spot on the ticket would be a gutsy act of largess, not something she’s earned through — among other things — her amply proven popularity?

We’ve seen the same “let’s-be-friends-but-your-issues-are-still-illegitimate” gambit here, where upgrading (downgrading?) us from racists to trash-talkers is supposed to pass for understanding and a segue into “Kumbaya.”

Real friendship isn’t offered with the back of your hand.

You want to start healing wounds? Don’t insist that we never had a right to our concerns. Tell us that you know our tears were never fake and that we’re more than likable enough.

Do you actually think we won’t notice that you’re still treating us like damaged (and damaging) goods?

Us Bubbas may be stupid, but we’re not that stupid.

As for Tom's call for Clinton supporters to condemn lies against Obama, I've done that with every damn, stupid, viral email I've received about Obama over the last year. But guess what happened when I asked my fellow liberal Democrats to please speak out against the sexist treatment of Hillary? They didn't see any sexism. It was all about how she really is so "unlikable", "untrustworthy", "scheming", and "will do anything to win", etc., etc. One email exchange led to a bitter fight with a long-time friend, who I used to think was "progressive", who spews Hillary hate with the best of the right-wing nut-jobs. Oh, and he's basically backing Obama because he's the anti-Hillary candidate. He doesn't really know much about how Obama will lead or govern, he's just "hoping" that he'll bring "change" and heal the divisiveness that he hold the Clintons responsible for.

"Bad blood"? That doesn't even begin to describe the feelings of half of the Democratic party who've been dissed and dismissed by the DNC and our fellow Democrats.

DissNfranChise?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgyqWydgLz0

[huh]

As a long time independent who has linked into this site, I find the discussion here extraordinary. Loads of Dems here who say they won’t vote for Obama if he gets the nomination because he hasn’t denounced sexism in the media.

For full disclosure, I’m a purple state resident who would find it very difficult to choose between Hillary and McCain – two candidates that I see as heavily lacking in principle. When I talk about the election with my dyed in the wool Dem friends and I say that I would consider a vote for McCain, they always retort that election of a Dem President is important not only for the presidency itself but because of the all the peripherals – control over the administrative agencies, Supreme Court nominees, etc. They point out, for example, the near certainty that Justice Stevens won’t last another 4 years and that Roe v. Wade would therefore almost certainly be overturned under a McCain presidency. They ask if I want another 100 years war. . .

As an independent, those arguments don’t mean that much to me – especially given that we are headed for a heavily Democratic Congress. I’m a big fan of divided government and I’ll vote for Obama if he gets the nomination. But I must say that I am surprised to see that so many folks here place making some kind of symbolic statements against media bias over *hard policy* such as Roe. Years later, one wonders how all those Florida folks who voted for Nader are enjoying the Bush terms.

Perhaps the main response here will be to the procedural ("You've illicitly strayed off topic!!") But for any willing to actually take the question on – I’d be interested to know whether you are more like me (i.e. perhaps OK with a McCain presidency, even if it probably means no more Roe, etc.) or whether you get to your view through some other line of reasoning.

[Tom K]

Huh:

Reasoning?

[huh]

Tom K –

“Reasoning” – by which I mean that on balance, I mildly prefer the Dem platform (writ large). But that preference is not so strong that it overcomes my distaste for Hillary -- So I could see voting for McCain over her even if it means I have to live with things going the GOP way.

Perhaps I’m wrong, but I would not have thought that most residents here would agree with me on policy or vote? Not at all.

So I am rather surprised to see so many here say that they will explicitly or implicitly support McCain (either by voting for him or being on the left and not voting at all). To be honest, I don’t care THAT much – certainly not enough to get into some pissing match about it one way or another. But I would have thought that the Dems here would have held your nose and voted for Obama since at least you get to keep Roe, anti-war movement impact, etc. I appear to be wrong about that and I was kind of wondering why.

[Ralph]

huh - you need to understand that this is not a normal primary. Many people on both sides are taking the race way too personally. They are attaching to it all sorts of significance that cannot be resolved easily (sexism and racism!). Supporters have been way too antagonistic about the other side - so much so they cannot even be honestly critical about their own candidates. When the most outrageous comments are made from Obama or Clinton supporters (and the media) - the other side will hold it against the candidate personally. I have been trying to fight this self-destructive attitude, but many people have gone over the edge and will not listen to reason. I hope we can unify the party before November.

[Tom K]

There's precious little "reasoning" 'round these parts lately, and looks to keep that way through at least the nomination.

It's more a steel-cage death match to see who can self-position as the more victimized, with a premium placed on petty vindictiveness, and logic taken for weakness.

Not at all the sort of atmosphere that has traditionally characterized this space, or will (I trust) return to it one day.

[Crissa]

Of course... You didn't say the context of the paragraph, or whose email it was in, or even who said it.

Because the quoted paragraph is correct. There are people for whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. From wingnuts in flyover country to hungry people in the middle east to those who've had their lands invaded or stolen in Nigeria for oil, there are those who believe, rightly or wrongly, that our country is oppressing them.

How is this even an attack on Obama and not Bush?

[Susie]

"But I would have thought that the Dems here would have held your nose and voted for Obama since at least you get to keep Roe, anti-war movement impact, etc. I appear to be wrong about that and I was kind of wondering why."

I think some of us have explained, fairly clearly and rationally, why we are wavering or refusing to vote for Obama. We are, after all, only following the example set for us by Michelle Obama, who stated earlier that she wasn't sure if she could support Clinton. She is now changing her tune as they try to get the unity party underway. We'll see how that goes.

[Gabbie]

Hi Tom W. I came to you from the Field as Al has you marked as one of his blog rolls and I just wanted to say thank you for writing this post. However, I'm full of disgust to read what your Hillary supporters are saying on your site despite what your post was explicating and hence I can't continue you here...thats why I read the Field its so peaceful, truthful, and contains no hate like Hillary supports have. We speak of our disdain for Hillary but not in the words and graphics that your commentors here do...

[Ralph DeMarco]

only following the example set for us by Michelle Obama

So that's your rational reason for refusing to vote for Obama? Michelle Obama started it, so you're gonna do likewise.

And even if she changes her tune, you still may not vote for Obama. Seems to me your rationales are actually governed by the heat of the campaign, not Reason. Step back from this and you might see that.

[JY]

i felt compelled to educate tom's misinformed commenters on a previous post ("the historic nature of this campaign..."), and i made no head way. those staunch pro-Hillary, anti-obama types are sharply misinformed and stunningly opposed to evolving their narrow minded offensive spews into enlightened and informed views.
i thought it was because the chasm between education and lack thereof was just too wide to cross...
this post, proved me wrong.
its utter bitterness and overly simplistic bias... because the truth is this:
.
Hillary only wanted to be president as a duty to her ego, not the american people. if it were about us, she wouldn't be denigrating our legacy by:
1. insisting that barack obama can't get groups of white people to vote for him,
2. favoring republican nominee over her dem. opponent eventho john mccains politics fly in the face of everything she is supposed to "stand for."
3. making her desire for the veep known and insinuating that she deserves it. the vp is an honor bestowed on an individual by the WINNER. runner up doesn't mean anything except that you won't be the president. and hillary should swallow that.
4. changing the math and the rules the DNC came to and agreed upon through policy and process, for her own benefit thus undermining the entire structure and significance of OUR political party.
Hillary lost because she didn't work hard enough. The nomination was hers for the taking... she lost her lead, and now, she is losing the race.
Hillary does not deserve to be president. all that think so, need to defect to a land where divine appointment is still alive. This is america folks. if she can't get the votes, she doesn't get the job, nor is it OWED to her.
Hillary has offended the sensibilities of several democratic strongholds, like:
1. black women,
2. women who are truthfully pursuing equal rights for all, and
3. those of us who love and revere the kennedys and won't ever forgive her heinous reference to bobby k.'s untimely death to support her continuing run.
Hillary has proven that she is not the woman for the job.

gabbie's comment is so true.
its funny that only hrc supporter use blogs to lick their wounds and sniff each others rears.
is there an independent thinker amongst you?

p.s. susie, "this is a woman, btw."
which to you means a person can't find hillary unappealing. your logic: if you are a woman, you must like hillary. according to your logic then, i am a woman so i must like hillary. i don't know her, and most likely neither do you (but if you do, tell her to get out of the race), but her politics are garbage and losing her the race she was slated to not only win but blowout. but because i am a woman, by your logic, i can't have the common sense to see that? sad susie.
p.p.s. for all of you who keep screaming "woe is us, we victims of misogyny and sexism," here is another levelheaded woman's approach to that argument: http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html

cheers

[Andre]

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304

[Andre N]

http://www.newstatesman.com/north-america/2008/05/obama-clinton-vote-usa-media

Excellent take on this election from overseas.

[Hypatia]

JY, I don't care if you are a woman or a hermaphrodite from the Planet Twinkie. I do care that nowhere on this blog have I said anything resembling 'if you are a woman, you must like Hillary.' Nor have any other Clinton supporters here, as far as I can tell. I would suggest that even women who don't support her might as a matter of self-interest raise a gentle objection to raving misogyny when they see it, but evidently that is too much to ask.

I can't really respond to incisive statements such as 'her politics are garbage.'

"So that's your rational reason for refusing to vote for Obama? Michelle Obama started it, so you're gonna do likewise."

[Heaving great sigh.]I'm not 'gonna' do anything as a a result of Mrs.Obama's ill advised comment. This was an example of sarcasm, my dear.

[Judith]

another embarrassing thread.

Tom - you need to start moderating here, dude - this reads like notes on a clinical psych sheet.

[donna darko]

He probably doesn't want to be called a "racist."

[donna darko]

Where is everyone? Happy Memorial Day.

[Skip]

huh | May 23, 2008 at 11:27 AM
As an independent, those arguments don’t mean that much to me – especially given that we are headed for a heavily Democratic Congress. I’m a big fan of divided government and I’ll vote for Obama if he gets the nomination.

I'm a little late with this rejoinder, but you can't really be such a big fan of divided government, can you, if you're voting Obama with a heavily Democratic Congress? What logic is that! What are you really selling, huh?
And JY, most of what you wrote has no basis in reality. Get back on the meds, or off them, as the case may be.

[JY]

skip, get real. if my argument could really be dismissed by calling it "unreal," then you could have proven your point and debunked my well stated arguments with one fell swoop by educating me instead of insulting me. tell me what reality is... but i am sure you don't know, so you resort to the lesser and more childish tactic of unsubstantiated accusations.
me, get off the meds? you, go ask your mommy to wipe the crap out of your ass.
tom k, stop being a martyr. these are blog comments, we can say what we want, and if you can't deal with it... well, my advice to you is to explore other more fruitful pursuits in life, like getting one.

keep the comments coming guys. i love putting you in your places.

cheers

[Joel]

"Bad blood"? That doesn't even begin to describe the feelings of half of the Democratic party who've been dissed and dismissed by the DNC and our fellow Democrats.

DissNfranChise?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgyqWydgLz0

Posted by: darrow | May 22, 2008 at 06:49 PM

Exactly Darrow. The Democrats have lost.

[huh]

Skip - Since I asked the first question, I guess I should respond to yours.

The divided government issue in my view depends on whether one is interested in giving the POTUS a free hand or not. It's fair to say that though I am middle of the road on most issues, I am fervently anti-Iraq War. Hope spring eternal but I'd be willing to roll the dice and see whether Obama really would get us out of the War.

To be honest, I don't see HRC (see Kyl Lieberman, etc.) or McCain as very likely to make a serious effort at ending the War. Nor do I see either as principled - so if we are going to have one of those two in the oval office, tempering their power with an adverse Congress seems like a reasonably good idea.

So Skip, I'm not selling anything. Nothing at all. If I was, I sure wouldn't be spending any time doing so on a blog that appears to be filled folks from a lock down blue state.