An "Idiot Wind": The New McCarthyism

In desperation, as his campaign bottoms out, John McCain has abandoned any shred he had left of dignity, honor, integrity and conscience.

Here is the latest attempt to smear Obama through the McCarthyite tactic of "guilt by association": for several days, the McCain camp and its surrogates have been in a tizzy trying to link the Democratic nominee with the foreign-sounding name to a prominent (American) Middle East scholar with a foreign sounding name, Rashid Khalidi. Of course, this is simply the latest in a not-so-subtle attempt to "other" Obama in the minds of white voters. Note the emphasis from Rethugs on Khalidi's Middle East connections, his Arab? Muslim? sounding name, his links to so-called terrorist groups (the P.L.O., in this case), suggestions that he is anti-semitic and violent for voicing criticism of recent Israeli governments, and even claims that he is a neo-Nazi!

Here is Michael Goldfarb, a right-wingnut blogger and McCain surrogate (and general jack-ass), getting embarassed on CNN after throwing around unsubstantiated charges of anti-semitism-by-association against Obama, which he cannot back up:

Yet, despite this ugliness from the McCain campaign, there are some hopeful signs: McCain is getting some serious push-back now from the media on this latest exercise in the low politics of hate and division.

For instance, in response to the above episode, Joe Klein wrote,

Here we have the McCain campaign’s execrable Michael Goldfarb slinging around accusations of anti-semitism—a favorite pastime, as we’ve seen this year, among Jewish neoconservatives.

Andrew Sullivan agreed, writing:

Michael Goldfarb, McCain spokesman, accuses Barack Obama of hanging around with anti-Semites – plural – on CNN. Asked to name one other anti-Semite other than his allegation about Rashid Khalidi, he can’t. He won’t. But he leaves it hanging, refusing to disown or retract the charge. This is pure McCarthyism. And it is the rotten core of McCain.

And Jo-Ann Mort commented:

It has come to this--the red baiting and the nastiness of the McCain/Palin campaign, in desperation to get Jewish support, is now baiting and bad-mouthing a notable Palestinian-American historian, Rashid Khalidi, for his and his wife's friendship with Obama. The Khalidi's know Obama from their time in Hyde Park, when Rashid was a professor at the University of Chicago.

Now at Columbia University, he is someone who has always reached out to all sides in the debate about the future of Israel and Palestine. He has been outspoken in his arguments against Arafat's ways of governing and terrorism and when he was at U of C, he was close to Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg, one of the most important American Jewish figures of our time. For the Republicans to go after him is pure vial--they think that the Jewish vote is so stupid and racist that they will turn away from the Democrats solely on this type of slander. For someone like Daniel Pipes, quoted in today's New York Times story, to call him 'marginal,' is a joke. It's time to move the Center back to the Center--let's hope that happens as of November 5--for the sake of America, the sake of Israel and the sake of Palestine.

This morning, The Washington Post published a scathing editorial hammering John McCain over the Khalidi issue. Titled, "An 'Idiot Wind,'" the editors called this latest of McCain's "increasingly reckless ad hominem attacks" "a vile smear" and praised Obama as "a man of considerable intellectual curiosity who can hear out a smart, if militant, advocate for the Palestinians without compromising his own position. To suggest, as Mr. McCain has, that there is something reprehensible about associating with Mr. Khalidi is itself condemnable -- especially during a campaign in which Arab ancestry has been the subject of insults." Amen.

Similarly, over at Harper's, Scott Horton writes about the Khalidi smear, particularly an article at the conservative National Review by Andrew McCarthy, as a part of "the New McCarthyism." Horton acknowledges that the last weeks of presidential campaigns often see a lot of negativity, but that this year "the process has gotten nuttier and more malicious than usual." Horton knows Khalidi. Here is the portrait he paints:

This doesn’t sound much like the Rashid Khalidi I know. I’ve followed his career for many years, read his articles and books, listened to his presentations, and engaged him in discussions of politics, the arts, and history. In fact, as McCarthy’s piece ran, I was midway through an advance copy of Khalidi’s new book Sowing Crisis: The Cold War and American Dominance in the Middle East. (I’ll be reviewing it next month–stay tuned.) Rashid Khalidi is an American academic of extraordinary ability and sharp insights. He is also deeply committed to stemming violence in the Middle East, promoting a culture that embraces human rights as a fundamental notion, and building democratic societies. In a sense, Khalidi’s formula for solving the Middle East crisis has not been radically different from George W. Bush’s: both believe in American values and approaches. However, whereas Bush believes these values can be introduced in the wake of bombs and at the barrel of a gun, Khalidi disagrees. He sees education and civic activism as the path to success, and he argues that pervasive military interventionism has historically undermined the Middle East and will continue to do so. Khalidi has also been one of the most articulate critics of the PLO and the Palestinian Authority—calling them repeatedly on their anti-democratic tendencies and their betrayals of their own principles. Khalidi is also a Palestinian American. There is no doubt in my mind that it is solely that last fact that informs McCarthy’s ignorant and malicious rants.

And here is John Judis of the New Republic on the subject:


Josh Marshall, of TPM, sums it up this way:

For McCain, personally, to compare Khalidi to a neo-nazi, it's just an offense McCain should never be forgiven for. It's right down in the gutter with Joe McCarthy and the worst of the worst. Khalidi is in this new McCain set piece for one reason -- as a generic Arab, to spur the idea that Obama is foreign, friendly with terrorists and possibly Muslim.

Let me underscore that Khalidi is American-born and Ivy educated and while his ideas are controversial to some (by the way, just about anyone who writes seriously and complexly about the Middle East is "controversial to some"), Khalidi is a complex, well-respected scholar of the Middle-East who advocates an end to violence there through a mediated solution. In fact, he has been involved, formally, in various peace negotiations.

Let me also write that underlying the obvious slime of this and other attacks is a profound, on-going assault on academic freedom, the free-flow of ideas in our democratic society and the whole idea of intellectualism. (Note how "well" this anti-intellectual philosophy has worked out over the last 8 years with the Boy Idiot King in charge of things in the U.S. Uh... not so good.) For a long time now, conservatives have played the anti-intellectual/anti-academia card in order to rally a populist, anti-elitist base to their thoroughly elitist economic policies. They demonize the very idea that it might make some sense to have folks with some know-how on an issue involved with that issue in government. They attack the notion that a studied knowledge of a subject is a good thing in government. And, this is the way of authoritarians: they rule with an iron fist, scared of any and all competing ideas, frightened at intellectual honesty and complexity, and so they move to crush it. They do not have faith in the power of their own ideas over competing ones, because the ideas they espouse are undemocratic and largely bankrupt.

It is important for all of us, every citizen, to understand that fundamental to institutions of higher education is the principle of academic freedom. The idea is that campuses are places where all kinds of ideas can get a hearing and be discussed, challenged and turned over openly and publicly, or in the mediated forum of a classroom. Campuses are places where competing ideas are pit against one another and students and the public alike are encouraged to engage them, grapple with them, and make decisions and judgments for themselves. This is the work we do, regardless of discipline, in academia. We are charged with developing young minds and helping them to critically assess all kinds of ideas and make informed judgments, based on evidence. This is the root of critical thinking and citizenship in a democracy, too! We have faith, on campus and in democracy, that the best ideas will win out in the end, if this free flow is unencumbered, if people have access to information and if they are equipped with some basic skills.

Like the 1st amendment, academic freedom means the most when it is extended to those opinions and views we might not agree with. It is here where we must be most vigilant in defending intellectual freedom.

I hope you will stand with me to defend academic freedom, the free flow of ideas and our basic liberties in the United States. If we do not, our democracy is truly imperiled...

It's Getting Ugly Out There...

Looks like yet another Clinton campaign surrogate has smeared Obama. This time it was BET founder Robert Johnson who smeared him on the drug stuff and for being, well, hhmmmm... he laid down this weird Sidney Poitier stuff, so I guess he meant to call Obama an Uncle Tom. Man, this is really getting ugly...

Sad: Robert Johnson Smears Obama at Clinton Endorsement Event

Or, here: Clinton backer appears to raise Obama's drug use

The Right Hook: a bizarre-o Sidney Poitier Uncle Tom charge

“That kind of campaign behavior does not resonate with me, for a guy who says, ‘I want to be a reasonable, likable, Sidney Poitier ‘Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner.’ And I’m thinking, I’m thinking to myself, this ain’t a movie, Sidney. This is real life.”

The Left Hook: the drug smear

“And to me, as an African-American, I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood – and I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in the book – when they have been involved."

So, I want to make sure I've got this straight. Hillary is on Meet the Press in the morning blathering about how it is not her campaign, but Obama's, that is playing the race card, how she is the victim of racial politics (despite 5 or 6 instances of campaign surrogates playing the race card). Then, later the same day, one of her surrogates in the battleground state of SC, where the African American vote will be decisive in a couple weeks, makes what can only be described as a complete and utter racial smear against Obama, no TWO of them. Uuuuhhhmmm... I, uh, think that, uh, maybe..., uh, suggests that... uh, the Clintons might, uh... be... playing ... the... race... card.

Look, one or two of these incidents might have been explained away as a rogue supporter who put their foot in their mouth, but now we are up to five or six or seven or something like that...

... If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

what do you think?

UPDATE: This is probably not helpful from the Obama camp:
Obama Staffer Plays Jay-Z Song at Event

Hey, Barack, DON'T TAKE THE BAIT!

More Garbage Thrown at Barack

Well, we knew the barrage of garbage would keep coming against Obama. Here is another email that is circulating in the shadows. This one attacks his church...

Subject: FW: Obama's Church

Barack Obama mentioned his church during his appearance with Oprah. It's the Trinity Church of Christ. I found this interesting.

Obama's church: Please read and go to this church's website and read what is written there. It is very alarming.

Barack Obama is a member of this church and is running for President of the U.S. If you look at the first page of their website, you will learn that this congregation has a non-negotiable commitment to Africa . No where is AMERICA even mentioned.

Notice too, what color you will need to be if you should want to join Obama's church... B-L-A-C-K!!! Doesn't look like his choice of religion has improved much over his (former?) Muslim upbringing.

Are you aware that Obama's middle name is Mohammed? Strip away his nice looks, the big smile and smooth talk and what do you get? Certainly a racist, as plainly defined by the stated position of his church! And possibly a covert worshiper of the Muslim faith, even today. This guy desires to rule over America while his loyalty is totally vested in a Black Africa!

I cannot believe this has not been all over the TV and newspapers. This is why it is so important to pass this message along to all of our family and friends. To think that Obama has even the slightest chance in the run for the presidency, is really scary.

Click on the link below for the website of the church Barack Obama belongs to: www.tucc.org/about.htm

I'll give you one guess how many people of color go to the author of this email's church... uh... try zero. You know the old addage: "What's the most segregated hour of the week? Sunday morning at 10am"

There have been a few news stories lately about a "swift boat-style" group preparing an attack on Obama through his affiliation with this church. So, if you like Obama, get ready to fight back...

... to that end, here is an excellent and reasoned break-down of Obama's church from The Christian Century: Africentric Church: A visit to Chicago's Trinity UCC

Some folks think we should simply ignore this stuff and hope it doesn't do any damage. Some folks think posting it on a blog like this, or forwarding it on to others, only perpetuates it and gives it strength.

I'm of a different opinion. I think we need to shine light on this crap and call it what it is: a racist attack. We need to not shrink away but stand up to it. The time has come for a massive movement of people, in the face of this inevitable onslaught of divisive, racist innuendo, to say, "No more! We reject these tired politics. We will defeat you at the ballot box and make a better America. We have hope and we will make change."

I find it interesting that currently everyone is talking loud about the gender dynamics of the election, while most commentators I read and hear out there (even on the liberal/progressive/left) want to minimize the racial dynamics of this race. Don't get me wrong, sexism is very much alive and well out there and Hillary faces it. I just find it strange that folks don't want to face the racial reality, too, or as vigorously...

... for instance, while I am not sure I'd call it "racist," take Hillary's ludicrous statements that LBJ was more important to realizing Dr. King's dream than Dr. King or, by implication, the civil rights movement. Yikes! http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifI'll write more on this later, but suffice it to say that Clinton fundamentally misapprehends the way social change happens. And, essentially, she got a free ride on that cheap shot.

UPDATE:
NYTIMES: "Ranking African American in Congress Rethinking Neutrality in SC After Clinton's Comments on Civil Rights Movement"

Here is another thoughtful response to Clinton's misstep for your consideration:



What do you think?

The Establishment Strikes Back! Now What??!!?

Striking a courageous blow for the status quo, it looks like the Establishment and the old blue hairs are going to make sure we won't have an insurgency or any real change AGAIN this year...

Has anyone been paying attention to the Clinton campaign over the last few days??!! Where's the outrage? They proved once again that the dirty, negative stuff always works. Smear, smear, smear. Willfully lie, distort, lie, distort, smear... oh, and then cynically play the victim by crying. Beautiful! Is that the kind of politic you want to embrace? Is that the kind of politic that embodies your vision of the Democratic Party? Is that the kind of politic out of which to build something new? It is one thing to fight back against the Republican attack machine, but it is another thing entirely to employ those same despicable tactics against a member of your own party. I am ashamed to be associated with a party and a candidate who will so clearly do anything to advance her own ambition... and the fact that so many so-called liberal/progressives have uncritically picked up the Clinton campaign's talking points about Obama is particularly disheartening.

It was a masterful display of our politics at their worst in NH.

What do you think? What happens from here...?

In the meantime, here is some music to lift your spirits:


Bob Marley, "Revolution"... ("It takes a revolution, to make a solution")



Wyclef Jean, "If I was President"

Obama and the "race card"?

The prospect of the nation's first African American president is exhilarating and we shouldn't underestimate its significance. The racial dynamics of Obama's candidacy, internally and externally, are myriad and fascinating. Some have debated his "authenticity" as a black man while others have argued that America is/is not ready to elect a black president. Some claim Obama's success proves we are "moving beyond race" while others claim Obama's multi-racial identity offers a new racial paradigm for a new era. Still others have criticized the Illinois senator for not being more boldly "racial" in his political rhetoric and style and both Rush Limbaugh and (strangely) many white progressives have united in criticizing Obama as a "magical negro" who doesn't threaten whites and who is around mainly to make white people feel better about themselves. And, in other places, people debate whether Obama is the first "post-civil rights" black candidate.

Regardless of how you come down on these and other important questions, I think it is important that we each think long and hard about all of the racial implications of election '08, considering what they mean not only for Obama's campaign, but also for us all as a nation.

The last day or so has brought a few interesting media tidbits on this racial front:

• Following Obama's Iowa win, Roberto Lovato from New America Media (an "ethnic media" group) asks an important question: "Is color blindness the model we want for diversity?"

• Simon Rosenberg asks if an Obama nomination and win in November might mean a welcome end to the racially divisive "southern strategy" that has propelled Republicans to dominance over the past thirty-odd years:
"On Obama, Race and the End of the Southern Strategy"

• Back in March of '07, the Los Angeles Times published an opinion piece by David Ehrenstein, an LA-based writer on Hollywood and politics, where he suggested Obama " lends himself to white America's idealized, less-than-real black man," a.k.a., "the Magic Negro." Afterward, notorious B.I.G.O.T., Rush Limbaugh, picked up the idea and created a parody song on his show, titled, "Barack the Magic Negro." Now, strangely, I've heard more than a few so-called progressive whites use the trope against Obama.

• James Carroll, of the Boston Globe, writes about the transformative possibilities of an Obama presidency in "Obama and the Ghosts of Racism"

• Over at the conservative National Review, Jonah Goldberg illustrates the racial fears lurking beneath the surface of an Obama nomination by suggesting that if Obama were the Democratic nominee and lost in the general election "certain segments of American political life will become completely unhinged," leading to "social unraveling." Over at Salon, Glen Greenwald skewers Goldberg's "ugly innuendo." Incensed by the anti-Obama slime, Amanda Marcotte, an Edwards supporter, suggests switching to Obama as a stand against the racist right's smear machine.

• Earl Ofari Hutchinson, a Hillary-lover and Obama-criticizer, reminds us that "A President Obama No Proof that America has Finally Kicked Its Racial Syndrome"

• Throughout the primary campaign a variety of nasty anti-Obama emails have been circulating that smear him in really nasty ways... some are racist. Some play off his middle name or his childhood in Indonesia to pollute the political ether with Muslim fear-mongering. Others include sexual innuendos that are laced with racial undertones. Shortly after Obama's Iowa victory, the following email began to show up in Democratic email-boxes. It is simply a small taste of what is sure to come if he continues to have success in the process... Of course, most of this ugly crap will take place in the shadowy behind-the-scenes world of politics and the formal GOP will feign shock and offense. But it ain't just the GOP. Recall that Hillary's people have been smearing Obama for weeks now, too! Here is the text of the latest hatefulness:

Did the weakest Dem candidate for the general election won tonight? I think so.

By sending forth Hussein Osama out of Iowa, Democrats have unwittingly weakened their general election prospects.

Hussein's exotic mixture of radical liberalism, Kwanzaa Socialism, antipathy towards the unborn, and weakness against his jihadi brethren will all come back to destroy him against almost any Republican opponent, even the snake-grope from Hope.

I think we as Republicans should be celebrating tonight at the coronation of Hussein, in whose presence millions of Democrat women, from elementary school teachers to journalism majors to law school grads to dykes on bikes will go weak in their knees.

As defenders of this great Republic, and of the pinnacle of Western civilization that it represents, we should all come together tonight and agree on a common strategy that will keep the White House from becoming a madrassa.

God Bless America, Land of the Free.

• And, finally, on a more rosy note, Gary Hart writes about "Obama and the Courage of Our Convictions" and Arianna Huffington explains why Obama's Iowa victory gives "every American cause to celebrate.">

Desperation! Clinton Grossly Distorting Obama's Abortion Record

Well, I'm not surprised, but this is pretty pathetic. In a desperate bid to somehow get back in the Democratic presidential race, Hillary Clinton has resorted to grossly and knowingly distorting Barack Obama's legislative record on abortion. Clearly, Clinton is trying to play the gender card by scaring young women away from Obama and into her camp. (Recall, Obama bested Clinton among women in Iowa 35%-30% and drubbed her among young women)

In a mailer sent to voters in NH over the past couple of days, the Clinton campaign claims "A woman's right to choose demands a leader who will stand up and protect it." It says Clinton has a record of fighting "far-right Republicans" to defend abortion rights, while Obama has been "unwilling to take a stand on choice." It concludes, "Seven times he had the opportunity to stand up against Republican anti-choice legislation in the Illinois state Senate. Seven times he voted present - not yes or no, but present. Being there is not enough to protect choice." The mailer, which clearly states "Paid for by Hillary Clinton for President," not too subtly suggests that Obama is not a strong advocate for abortion rights and women, in general.

I call "Bullshit!" This is totally disingenuous and cynical, not to mention false. Here is the reality, according to a fact-checking piece by Nedra Pickler posted at the Huffington Post (emphasis added):

"During his eight years in the legislature, Obama cast a number of votes on abortion and received a 100 percent rating from the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council for his support of abortion rights, family planning services and health insurance coverage for female contraceptives. He voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive, a vote that especially riled abortion opponents. He also joined other state Democrats in voting present on some bills."

That's right, folks, Obama gets a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood for the range of positions he has taken not only on abortion rights, but women's reproductive health rights, more generally. This is silly. Anyone who knows anything about how the legislature works knows that there are times when, for strategic or political reasons, certain members of a party vote "present." This is all about political maneuvering and is almost always done in conjunction with a broader party strategy.

When called to task for the distortions in the mailer, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said, in classic Clintonian fashion, "New Hampshire voters.. deserve a straightforward presentation of the facts about both candidates."

To his credit, Obama spokesman Bill Burton did not throw a chair or simply tell Hillary's campaign to "Go to hell!" when asked by reporters about the smear. Instead, in another sign of the maturity of the Obama operation, "The Clinton campaign's false negative attacks were rejected by Iowa voters, and we expect that they'll suffer the same fate here in New Hampshire."

Geesh. I hope so...

This is all about Clinton's ego and ambition run amok now that her campaign is going down in flames, not about what is best for the party or the country. It is likely Hillary will NOT be the nominee, yet she is creating a false issue with which the right-wing will surely pounce. The is all downright Karl Rovian! Shame on you Mrs. Clinton. Go down with some dignity, won't you? I guess not...

Electability: Hillary vs. Obama

Hillary Clinton has been hitting hard on the "electability" theme throughout her campaign. She has steadfastly claimed that she is more electable that Barack Obama. She has said she has been through the fires with the GOP and can stand up to them. Is this true?

First, I don't recall the Clintons standing up too significantly to the GOP in the 1990s. Rather, their entire DLC philosophy was to CAVE to the conservatives by being Republican-lite. And, during Clinton's impeachment, they didn't fight back too vigorously because BILL DID IT! So, this argument is spurrious in my mind...

Second, I'll repeat an argument I burried in a previous email: Not only does Hillary begin with a 45-47% negative rating (more than double anyother candidate in either party), it is also widely acknowledged that she, more than any other candidate, will mobilize the GOP base, which is fairly disillusioned right now. BUT, MORE IMPORTANTLY, every Democrat, even those who adore Hillary, know several other Democrats that are turned-off by the prospect of her nomination and who will be disillusioned if she gets the nod. These people, including myself, may in the end hold their nose and vote for her, but they sure won't fight for her, nor will they be energized to work on the campaign, which will not only hurt Hillary's bid, but also Democrats up and down the ballot. Be honest. Think about it. I know you know several of these Democrats! We all do and this should give all Dems serious cause for pause before throwing their support to Clinton.

As a specific example, I cite Jim Esch in Omaha. Esch(D) ran for Congress in '06 and nearly beat conservtaive GOP boob, Lee Terry. He came within a whisker and that is no small task out here in Red State America. Most thought he would run in '08 and might very well win, but Esch has decided not to give it another go. Why? Well, in making his announcement, he specificially referenced, among other things, the fact that Hillary looked like a good bet to be the party nominee at the top and that that would be the kiss of death in a state like Nebraska, where her presence on the ballot will bring out every GOPer possible. So, even the prospect of a Hillary campaign has already cost the Democrats one potential congressional pick-up!

Last, Robert Parry has an excellent piece over at Alternet about the extreme vulnerability BOTH Clintons have because of Secret Service records, which detail their every move over the last many years, and which are under the control of Republicans in the Bish Administration!

Even as Hillary Clinton's operatives were dropping hints that Republicans would exploit Barack Obama's youthful drug use, some Clinton insiders privately worried about her own vulnerability because the Bush administration possesses detailed knowledge of her movements -- and her husband's -- over the past seven years.

Because of Sen. Clinton's unique status as the first former First Lady to run for President - and because her husband was succeeded by a Republican -- she is the first candidate to have both her and her spouse be subject to regular, long-term surveillance by an Executive Branch agency controlled by the opposing political party...

Though Secret Service records are supposed to be closely held secrets, a source close to the Clintons told me that it is believed that senior Republicans have received regular briefings about movements of the Clintons that might prove embarrassing if released during the general election campaign.

The article then goes on to cite several concrete examples of the Repubs willingness to exploit this access.

Here is the full text:
"Is Hillary More Vulnerable to Republican Attacks?

And, in case you missed it, Maureen Dowd has an excellent satirical piece about Clinton's drug smear against Obama:

"Reefer Madness in Iowa"

More Dirty Tricks from Clinton!

It simply never ends with the Clintons. Really. Check out these latest examples of the Clinton campaign in full smear mode. This is how they play politics. Looks a lot like the Republican attack machine, doesn't it? Is this the type of person you want leading the country? Is this the type of candidate you think will bring us change?

"Clinton Camp Purchases Two Obama Attack Websites"

ABC News has learned that the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has registered the names of two Web sites with the express goal of attacking her chief rival, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

It's the first time this election cycle a presidential campaign has launched a Web site with the express purpose of of launching serious criticisms on a rival... The Clinton campaign intends to use these new Web sites to paint Obama as cowardly.

I think the use of the word cowardly is interesting since that can come with a lot of genedered meaning, particularly in politics. Recall election '04, when the Republican Party's main argument against John Kerry was that he was a "girly man?" You know, he was weak, undecisive, he waffled, he spoke French (you know those French are so effeminate they can't even stand up for themselves like real men; they're appeasers!!)! Schwarzenegger called him a "girly man" at the convention. The subtext of the whole campaign was that Kerry, despite being a highly decorated war veteran against a bunch of chicken hawks, was not manly enough to lead in the post-9/11 world. In essence, they tarred him with a bunch of associations that communicated that he was a "wuss" or "fem-y" or even "gay." Recall all the anti-gay ballot measures that were on state lines in '04 and recall Bush's rhetoric that he was manly and decisive and the "decider."

Now, interestingly, perhaps the first woman president has decided to paint herself as the manly warhawk and apparently attack Obama as soft and unsatisfactorily "tough" and "decisive."

Now, the clintons are famous for moving to the Right and coopting Republican issues and ideas (that is the DLC approach), so perhaps this isn't surprising. Why should they stop now, right? It's worked for them this long...

The question is, will the electorate buy what they are seeling this time around?

"Clinton Campaign Disguises Attacks on Obama Through Edwards"

Some of the first negative mail in Iowa on the Democratic side is out, and it's anti-Obama. A new direct mail piece from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) accuses that: "For those without insurance, Barack Obama's band-aid solution is no change at all"...

But, as it turns out, AFSCME is backing Clinton. In fact, even though Clinton and her campaign have been arguing for the past month that Obama's health-care plan doesn't insure everyone, Clinton's name isn't mentioned once on the flier. The Edwards quote makes it appear to be a slam by the Edwards team.

This tactic, it seems, could be intended to deflect the distaste that most voters have for direct attacks -- even those that are policy based. But those in the know might think that this new negative mail is Iowa Nice playing a little dirty.

Or, there is the recent attempt to smear Obama by suggesting he hasn't "stood up" for his principles and for working people because he sometimes voted "present" while in the Illinois legislature. If you read the article, it would be easy to come away thinking the guy ALWAYS voted "present." The reality is that he voted "present" .o325% of the time. Yep. .0325%! And, you know why he voted "present" this miniscule number of times? Most of the time he voted "present" as a part of a routine tactical or procedural move supported by party leaders. The Clintons know this. Anyone who knows how legislatures work knows this. Yet, the Establishment media (and even many liberal/progressive sites eager for a story)simply forwards this crap unexamined. For an excellent disection of this attack and the way the media flubbed it, click here:
"Reading The Pictures: Cocaine, Kindergarten -- And Now, The Hand"


Puh-lease, people, stand up to these dirty tricks! PLEASE EMAIL THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN RIGHT NOW and tell them you are disgusted and WILL NOT be voting for Hillary because of her campaign's constant use of sleaze, because of their win-at-all-costs mentality, because it has embraced the "politics of swiftboating."

Also, spread the word about this blog to other people. Have them come read about the reality of these sleazebags. Seriosuly, time is of the essence. Get to it. Now!

Andrew Young Attacks Obama; Freedom Road Fights Back (w/ a little help from our friends)!

Recently, while doing an internet-linked talk former civil rights activist Andrew Young took the opportunity to attack Barack Obama as too young to be President. (Andrew Young Attacks Obama) In making this silly argument, he went on to challenge Obama's racial authenticity, stating that "Bill Clinton is as black as Barack... and he's probably been with as many black women as Barack, too." Steamed by these lame remarks, I snapped off a missive to the SNCC (Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee) email list, of which I am a participant. SNCC was the vanguard of the Movement during the 60s. In that message, I wrote, among other things:

"Offensive isn't even strong enough a word for those lines. First, Bill ain't black. Never was, never will be. The remark plays into this ridiculous line of argument that casts doubt on Barack's authenticity as a black man because he doesn't play to the stereotypes. Second, it plays into the long-standing politics of race and sex. Third, it equates blackness and manliness with (extra-marital) sexual prowess. Fourth, it is simply sexist as hell. Young deserves to be forcefully condemned again and again for these offensive comments and the Clintons called to account, too."

Now, Young has been a sell-out for quite some time. He left the Movement behind a couple of decades ago to cash in as a corporate consultant. Most recently, he got paid big bucks to travel the country and defend Walmart from negative charges from local communities, particularly poor communities and communities of color. For more on this angle, check this out:
"Andy Young: The Shameless Son"

My hope in writing to the SNCC list was that one of its members might step forth and write a retort. Yesterday, Bob Zellner, one of the many heroic figures in SNCC's incredibly heroic history, wrote the following piece. I was humbled and gratified to get a shout-out...

WLIU COMMENTARY
December 13, 2007
Bob Zellner

Ambassador suffers from foot-in-mouth disease

Ambassador Andy Young and I go back a long ways, as many movement people do. “The Movement” is the black struggle for equal rights which began its modern phase with the Brown decision in the mid fifties when the Supreme Court outlawed segregation in public schools.

I once took my friend Andy Young to task when he said on a television program that “all the leaders of the civil rights movement were ministers.” In a public statement I asked the ambassador if that was true of Ms Ella Baker, the founder of SNCC, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee where I served as a Field Secretary. Was Fanny Lou Hammer, the leader of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, a minister? She was actually a share cropper on Senator James Eastland’s Mississippi Delta plantation.

I then listed strong women who were top leaders in the movement – Diane Nash, Ruby Doris Smith Robinson, Ms Rosa Parks, Septima Clark, Mojesica Simpkins, Dorothy Cotton, Joanne Robinson, Anne Braden, Ruby Hurley of the NAACP, the list go on and on…. Were they ministers? I asked Ambassador Young.

Andy had no answer. Well I wonder if he has an answer now after trashing the only black candidate in the presidential race - the first in history to have a serious chance of being elected.

A shill for the Clintons, Andrew “Mr. Wal-Mart” Young labeled Barack Obama as too lacking in a support network, and too young to rise to the Presidency. Hillary, however, has all the support she needs in Bill, who is “every bit as black as Barack.” And, Andy inelegantly added, “He’s probably gone with more black women than Barack.”

The fact that Mr. Young followed this with a lame disclaimer that he was only ‘clowning’ did not detract from the offensive nature of his remarks. Ambassadors, I’m sure, never joke without a purpose. I suppose Andy has a thick skin after taking the abuse he received when he took a great deal of money in exchange for trying to improve the image of the tight fisted, anti-union Wal-Mart bunch. But this is too much, Mr. Young. With friends like you can the Clintons afford any more enemies?

News reports call you a “civil rights icon” so those remaining true to the cause must call you Big Time on this one. Your remarks are sexist and disrespectful of black men – implying that manliness and blackness is proven by exhibiting extra-marital sexual prowess. Where did that stereotype originate? Is this a way for you to denigrate Barack Obama – by rejecting the stereotype, he allows you to question his authenticity as a black leader?

Continuing his tasteless comments Mr. Young slanders the history of the Black Freedom Struggle - “It’s not (only) a matter of being inexperienced. It’s a matter of being young, there’s a certain level of maturity…you’ve got to learn to take a certain amount of (bleep).”

Barack could bat that one back by citing the obvious - the civil rights movement would not have prevailed without the courage, the energy, the creativity and the sheer bodatiousness of young people. Sheyann Webb and Joanne Bland, active to this day on the front lines in Selma Alabama, were in elementary school when they became little friends of Martin Luther King marching with him for freedom. On bloody Sunday, fleeing George Wallace’s troopers and the sheriff’s horsemen, Joanne Bland shouted for Hosea Williams to put her down, “You not running fast enough,” she told the older minister.

I am Bob Zellner, and it is my opinion that this latest outrage from the good Ambassador is not about the pros and cons of Obama vs. Hillary but about the abuse of our history and legacy. Movement folk fought for women’s rights while battling for the rights of black people. Some of us are frankly undecided where our support will ultimately settle, with the woman or the black man in this race. Both Senator Barack and Senator Clinton will advance the cause of freedom at home and around the world.

The point I wish to make is best stated in an email message to the SNCC-list by my friend and fellow historian, Patrick D. Jones, Ph.D. who addressed movement leaders:

“….my interest was in alerting [the civil rights community] to another abuse of your history and legacy. ….This article went out with headlines like, ‘CIVIL RIGHTS ICON SLAMS OBAMA.' (It’s) not just about Young’s opinions, sexist, racist, in poor taste, sycophantic, corporate or otherwise. It is about marshaling the legacy of one of the greatest movements for social justice in our nation’s history to smear the lone black candidate in the race with derogatory and spurious claims. …It’s important for other civil rights activists with the kind of public clout as Young to publicly denounce him and his comments for what they are and reclaim the Movement for the true values and goals it has always stood for.”

Dr. Jones of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln ends by saying that he is “just a young Movement historian, so I do not have that kind of public cache…but you all do!"

Well we all should speak up. I am Bob Zellner and this is my opinion. What’s yours?

The Clinton Dirty Trick Machine

What'd I tell you... The smear is in effect. Yesterday, Billy Shaheen, confidante and Clinton campaign co-chair in NH, publicly attacked Obama about his well-known, already been there done that past drug use. The term "henchman" comes to mind:
Shaheen Smears Obama for Clintons

Here's what Thomas Edsall wrote on the subject:
Edsall on the Sheehan Smear

And now this morning Dark Prince of the Right, Robert Novak, who broke the story about the secret Clinton smear of Obama a week or so ago, now details the broader behind-the-scenes smear campaign that has been on-going for quite a while now, apparently. Again, the point is not the specific issue raised but rather to create the overall impression of doubt about Obama:
Novak on the Clinton Smear Campaign

Is this the kind of politics you want? As I wrote previously, this reveals a more essential truth about the Clintons than anything we've seen on the stump or in debates.

If you are reading this, I hope you will spread the word about how slimy the Clintons have turned as their desperate grasp for more power falters. I hope you will write directly to the Clinton campaign and tell them you will not vote for her BECAUSE of these dirty tricks. I hope you will write your local paper denouncing these politics of personal destruction.

Gross.

As Iowa Nears, Clinton Allies Quietly Raise Obama's Cocaine Use

This is exactly what kills it for me with the Clintons. Here they are AGAIN caught in the act of a devious, behind the scenes, seedy smear campaign. I suggest that this kind of stuff reveals a more essential truth about Hillary and Bill and what drives them than anything we've seen or heard on the stump. It is so clear that personal ambition is their driving force. Obama's been on the record about his drug use for a while now. And, the off-the-record, behind-the-scenes strategy is purposely aimed at creating a more generalized sense of doubt, or negativity, or unsteadiness, out their in the media/political ether about Obama. It is all about branding impressions and feelings toward the candidates in the electorate, in this case negative ones about Obama...






Anyway, here is the story:
Clintons Spread Coke Stories About Obama