Tags: Barack Obama, Melanie Phillips
For those of you who haven’t been paying attention, let’s go over this one last time. The ‘change’ Barack Obama believes in isn’t just a syrupy by-word for Bambiesque ‘ideals’ like diplomacy, resisting the urge to torture prisoners & restoring Habeas Corpus; rather, it’s a black-powered Marxist death cult determined to enslave ‘whitey’ and hasten the arrival of the End Times. At least, that’s what anyone who’s read Melanie Phillips’ blog over the past few months would be forgiven for believing.
Unable to get too excited about John McCain (she’s written more about Sarah Palin than the Straight Talkin’ One), Mel decided to focus her blogging prowess on uncovering all there is to know about the slippery Illinois Senator, speculating about Obama’s ‘Muslim roots’, the ‘Muslim roots’ of his ex Pastor, Jeremiah Wright, and the ‘Muslim roots’ of shamed former associate, Antoin Rezko. Having done the whole ‘the Muslims are coming!’ thing to death, she’s tried a new tack in recent weeks, reminding her readers about his association with the ‘radical’ Saul Alinsky, the ‘radical terrorist’ William Ayers, and now the ‘radical, black Communist’ Frank Marshall Davis. So what’s this black Senator doing with all these radicals then? Well, obviously because he shares their agenda:
the agenda indeed of Gramsci/Alinsky: patron saints of community organisers, apostles of deeply underground mole-like revolutionary Marxism, architects of the wildly successful undermining of western morality and society in America and Britain — and now poised to embed itself in the White House, epicentre of the oppressive global capitalist regime, itself.
Join up the dots.
You can bet she felt very smug writing that part. Progressives don’t have anything to fear from the allegations made in Mel’s mega-series; most are second-hand recitations of long-debunked smears (she insists on citing 9/11 conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi despite the fact his book couldn’t even get the date of Barack & Michelle’s wedding correct), whilst the rest rely on the Guilt by Association fallacy. What does baffle me, however, is why she continues to do it. Does she not know that the sources for her smears are discredited? Is she aware they’re discredited but still believe them to be true? Or, worse, does she just not care whether the information she uses is sound or not? To illustrate, let’s look at the credentials of three men credited with the information in Mel’s last post:
Trevor Loudon: An ex-Vice President of New Zealand’s right-wing ACT Party, Loudon is a student of Zenith Applied Philosophy, a small Scientology spin-off founded by a guy who calls himself ‘John Ultimate’ and believes his home to be the centre of the universe. ZAP has attracted some controversy over its reported links with fascist organisations. When he’s not busy suggesting Obama is a Communist, Loudon can occasionally be found comparing cabinet ministers to Himmler.
Cliff Kincaid: Cliff is president of ‘UN watchdog group’ America’s Survival and editor of Accuracy In Media. Once funded by philanthropist of the far-right, Richard Mellon Scaife, AIM achieved notoriety in 2001 by ‘proving’ Bill Clinton had ordered the murder of Vince Foster, despite three independent investigations (including one by Kenneth Starr) finding no evidence for it. Ever eager to jump on a non-story to slime his enemies, in 07 Kincaid pronounced that the ‘Hillary is a lesbian’ lie was ‘as explosive’ as the lie about Obama being raised as a Muslim. Just for laughs, Kincaid also happens to believe that you can stop being gay as easily as you can quit smoking.
Herbert Romerstein: A lower-profile hatchet man than the others. Romerstein’s life’s work has been smearing people as unpatriotic, from his work investigating Un-American Activities in Congress, through to a line of books on the matter. He smeared the writer I.F. Stone as a Communist despite being the sole source for the accusation, and was described by decorated US attorney Martin Garbus as ‘utterly untrustworthy’.
These are the people Melanie Phillips cites, uncritically, to build her latest case against Barack Obama. Not exactly Woodward & Bernstein, is it? I have no idea whether Phillips’ continually clumsy hatchet job on Obama is due to laziness, naivety, delusion or just plain old partisan cynicism. But the last time I checked, there were still some standards of honesty & accuracy in the journalistic profession, and if Phillips can’t adhere to even the most basic of those standards, then perhaps she’d be better off resigning from her posts, taking up blogging full time, and retiring to the world of the hackneyed hard-right, where every conservative is virtuous, every liberal is evil and where nothing they say or write is ever, ever wrong.
Tags: Barack Obama, John McCain
Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen – who was about as pro-McCain as press corps could get – unloads on his former crush for abandoning every last shred of integrity with his campaign’s incessant lies:
What impressed me most about McCain was the effect he had on his audiences, particularly young people. When he talked about service to a cause greater than oneself, he struck a chord. He expressed his message in words, but he packaged it in the McCain story — that man, beaten to a pulp, who chose honor over freedom. This had nothing to do with access. It had to do with integrity.
McCain has soiled all that. His opportunistic and irresponsible choice of Sarah Palin as his political heir — the person in whose hands he would leave the country — is a form of personal treason, a betrayal of all he once stood for. Palin, no matter what her other attributes, is shockingly unprepared to become president. McCain knows that. He means to win, which is all right; he means to win at all costs, which is not.
This is becoming a general trend, though it’s still uncertain whether the criticism he’s been receiving in the mainstream media will filter down to the American people & knock a few percentage points off his approval ratings. What is true, however, is that it was incredibly early in the campaign for McCain to go negative, and there’s only so long you can keep it up before it becomes a drag on your reputation.
Tags: Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John McCain, Sarah Palin
That’s how Republican pundit Pat Buchanan describes John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate. Palin’s executive experience amounts to a year and a half as Governor of Alaska, which should render McCain’s ‘Obama is inexperienced’ jibe as rather useless. Her foreign policy experience is also non-existent, which will make for an interesting debate when she goes up against Joe Biden.
From the same Politico article linked to above, here are some of the supposed advantages of having Palin on the ticket:
In her short political career, Palin has become known – at least in Alaska — as a reformer. Long before the ethical problems of the Alaska GOP were front-page news in Washington, she was working to clean up the state’s government and her own party.
As a member of Alaska’s Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, Palin pushed an investigation that ultimately led to the state’s GOP party chairman to resign from the commission. Earlier this month, she endorsed Sean Parnell, who is still waiting to hear whether he has defeated ethically challenged Rep. Don Young in Tuesday’s GOP primary.
So in picking Palin, McCain accepts the framing of this election as being about change, and picks a genuine outsider who – superficially, at least – appears to offer a tough approach on ethics reform.
Anyway, enough from me. Here are some media/blogosphere reactions:
Biggest political gamble I believe just about in American political history…that is not hyberbole. I can think of no choice of VP that approaches this.
Joe Scarborough (Republican host on MSNBC):
I can’t imagine a woman that’s been a governor for a year and a half, but to debate Joe Biden on Georgia, a remerging Russia, an emerging China and India, on the Middle East, my God, how does she do that?
Eric Martin at Obsidian Wings:
One thing it will offer the McCain campaign is a sense of historical importance – something they need in the face of Obama’s groundbreaking run. Further, it offers something “new” from a Republican Party that is rightly viewed as musty and bankrupt of fresh ideas. It will also serve as a bid to attract the dead ender clique of Hillary supporters (though I think entirely too much has been made of their clout in terms of actual numbers).
One major drawback: How can McCain’s main line of critique be Obama’s putative lack of experience, yet his pick for vice president is a 44 year old politician who has only been in the Alaska state house for little over a year. Before that, she was mayor of Wasilla, Alasksa: population 8,000. This is the person that will be one heartbeat away from the presidency – a consideration of particular importance considering that McCain, if elected, would be the oldest president ever to be sworn in for his first term.
This could, of course, turn out to be an enormous debacle if she isn’t ready for prime time. But for now, Sarah Palin looks like a perfect face for the sort of Republican Party I want to support: She’s a pro-life working mom; she’s tough on corruption and government waste without being a doctrinaire Norquistian on taxes; she’s more supportive of gay rights than the current GOP orthodoxy (while stopping short of backing same-sex marriage); she has a more conservationist record than your typical GOP pol, but supports drilling in ANWR; she’s an evangelical but she isn’t a southern evangelical … and if McCain loses, she can run at the top of a Palin-Jindal ticket in 2012!
It’s striking listening to the commentary about why this is a smart pick for John McCain that the arguments are all about how this will help him politically — attract women voters, get attention, disrupt Barack Obama’s “change” message, etc. What I haven’t seen is any conservatives making arguments about why Sarah Palin will help President McCain govern. He’ll call on her insights about . . . what?
It’s a daring pick but I think a very weak pick. I’m perfectly happy with it. Palin is in the midst of a reasonably serious scandal in her home state. Her brother-in-law is a state trooper who is in the midst of an ugly custody battle with her sister. And she’s accused of getting the state police to fire him. Recently she was forced to admit that one of her aides had done this, though she insists she didn’t know.
The first criterion for a veep – and I’m simply repeating a truism here – is that they are ready to take over at a moment’s notice. That’s especially true when you have a candidate as old as McCain. That’s more than especially true when we are at war, in an era of astonishingly difficult challenges, when the next president could be grappling with war in the Middle East or a catastrophic terror attack at home. Under those circumstances, we could have a former Miss Alaska with two terms under her belt as governor. Now compare McCain’s pick with Obama’s: a man with solid foreign policy experience, six terms in Washington and real relationships with leaders across the globe.
I really can’t decide yet whether this pick is genius or insanity, but it’s certainly very, very bold.
Tags: Barack Obama, Michael Moore, Politics
With Bush on his way out, Democrats controlling both houses of Congress and soon (touch wood) the White House, Michael Moore struggles to remain relevant by producing a six point guide for Democrats who just can’t quit their losing habits. Overbearing narcissist that he is, point no. 6 is all about… Michael Moore:
Obama, at some point, might be asked this question: “Michael Moore has endorsed you. But he recently said (fill in the blank with some outrageously offensive line taken out of context). Will you still accept his endorsement, or do you denounce him?”
And he better denounce me, or they will tear him to shreds. He had better back away not only from me but from anyone and everyone who veers a bit too far to the left of where his advisers have told him is the sweet spot for all those red-state voters. I won’t take it personally. After all, I’m not the guy who married him or baptized his kids. I’m just the idiot who went to the same terrorist, Muslim school of flag-pin desecrators he went to.
I remember poor John Kerry not even being able to admit, when asked by Larry King, if he had seen Fahrenheit 9/11. “No,” he said, “I haven’t. . . . I don’t plan to, right now.” But he had indeed seen it. I sat there watching him say this, and I just felt sorry for him and for the election he was about to lose.
We can’t take four more years of this madness, Barack. We need you to be a candidate who will fight back every time they attack you. Actually, don’t even wait till you have to fight back. Fight first! Show some vision and courage and smoke them out. Keep asking why these lobbyists are McCain’s best friends. Let’s finally have a Democrat who’s got the balls to fire first.
So Barack, by denouncing me, you can help McCain get elected. Because when you denounce me, it’s not really me you’re distancing yourself from — it’s the millions upon millions of people who feel the same way about things as I do. And many of them are the kind of crazy voters who have no problem voting for a Nader just to prove a point.
Actually, I don’t think Moore goes far enough. If Barack Obama denounces Michael Moore, he’ll not just lose the election – he’ll have single-handedly destroyed FDR’s legacy, ensured the Yankees never win another world series, killed John Lennon and ended all human progress for a generation.
What an egocentric prat.
Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain
It’s been a while since we checked-in with our hyper-literate friends at Clinton Supporters For John McCain, and my how they’ve grown. Sure, the website still has the headache-inducing design of someone who dropped-out of a web development course in the late ’90s and now spends his spare time producing Metallica appreciation pages, but look beneath the clunky exterior and you’ll find hard-hitting Youtube videos, biting satire and even their own internet radio station, streaming Barack-baiting commentary 24 hours a day.
Sadly lacking from the old site was a forum for fans to come together, share their anger at Hillary’s defeat and remind anyone who didn’t already know that Barry has the middle name of a terrorist. Thankfully, our prayers have been answered and the great unwashed now have the opportunity to spread the word. First, a shocking new revelation that could capsize his campaign:
huessin obama makes me sick!! He is a liar and his wife is a compltete racist! Hillary deserves the nomination, I can’t beleive that the dnc got away with this!! She was winning all the states in the final weeks and all of the sudden this disgusting ant-american wins the nomination? What a joke! (emphasis mine)
An ant-american? Why isn’t this news all over the internets? Say ‘NO!’ to six-legged insects in 08!!
Elsewhere, we hit-upon the disastrous catch-22 of Obama winning the nomination. First, the fact he’ll turn the White House into a mosque if he wins:
One you’re a muslim you’re always a muslim. Hussein Obama is a muslim and our country is in serious danger. I am sure all muslims in the world are laughing at us and sending money to hussein obama to be elected president. What’s wrong with those voters who are voting for him? Are they Americans? Do they love their country? Are they blind? We need to save our country. This could be the end of the USA. Barak Hussein Obama is a trojan horse.
The problem is ; not many people think he is a Muslim. They look at you like you are nuts for even suggesting that. I think he is a Muslim, in fact, I am sure of it. He always defends the Muslims. How can we talk about this very important issue without looking like we are crazy?
Well, ideally you need to get on the payroll of the Spectator. So we’ve already established that a victory for this ‘trojan horse’ will turn America over to Islamic fanaticism, but there’s an equally terrifying prospect if he loses – the blacks will go bonkers:
CBS reported that blacks will riot if Obama is not the next president. Now we have to do what blacks say or they will riot if it doesn’t get their way. I am not racist but I think we are pampering blacks too much. Everyone is afraid to say something about blacks because they willplay the race cards as OBama does. We’re all Americans and we should vote according to who is best qualified and not just because of the same race. Blacks are the racist now.
Which is all the provocation some people for their own Civil War reenactment.
Just let them come to my door or my town, I might go down fighting but at least I will know what I am protecting. My freedom. My 2 brothers already died in WW2 fighting for us and I will do the same .
I say let them riot the whites just need to buy more bullets… who do they think they are anyway… so should the whites riot if mccain don’t get in !!!!
After this election is over and this site loses all its relevance, there’ll be a lot of people on this forum with nowhere to go. I wonder if they’ve heard of Stormfront…
Tags: Barack Obama, Jesse Jackson
So Obama ‘talks down to black people’ so much that Jesse Jackson wants to ‘cut his nuts off‘. Yes, MLK is dead all right. It also puts the secret service in a bit of a predicament – should they object if Obama finds himself seated next to Jackson at a fundraising dinner where there’d be a range of cutlery with which to carry out his threat? Should they intervene if Jackson reaches for a butter knife?
It’s a sad, odd little comment and because Fox is (perhaps wisely) holding back the rest of the tape, it’s difficult to know the exact context behind what was said. What we do know is that Jackson made the comment after a segment that touched upon Obama’s Fathers Day speech, wherein he implored black fathers to stop abandoning their kids and start taking responsibility for their own lives. The Guardian suggests that Jackson believed “Obama should have assigned blame to government and public policy for the breakdown of some black families”, which is perfectly understandable except for the fact that blame is almost always backwards-looking and governments don’t have the ability to keep families together.
His outburst is also a bit weird because the content of Obama’s Fathers Day speech wasn’t much different from speeches made by the like of Al Sharpton, Jackson himself, and countless other leaders in black communities. How come they can condemn family breakdown and urge people to act more responsibly but Obama can’t? Like I said, a sad and divisive outburst and as good a sign as any that Civil Rights-era figures like Jackson have had their day.
Update: I forgot to mention that this isn’t the first time Jesse Jackson’s questioned Obama’s authenticity on matters of race. He seems to carry an arrogance that says if you don’t agree with him on such things, then you’re either inauthentic or a traitor to the cause. Which, in stark contrast to the Senator, is an attitude that alienates far more people than it inspires.
Tags: Barack Obama, Class, David Cameron, Race
His policy prescriptions – more autonomy at the bottom of public services, more accountability within the public sector, a gentle tax incentive for marriage – are more in line with traditional conservatism than wage subsidies, for example. And there’s an Obamaite tinge to Cameron as well: a young, eloquent, inexperienced and culturally modern individual emerging to replace a period of rule by the other party. One similarity: both are gay inclusive. One Cameron difference: he, like any Tory should, places more emphasis on environmentalism than Obama does.
What Obama is to race in America Cameron is to class in Britain: cultural game-changers. (emphasis mine)
So America gets a black man to usher in a postracial future and Britain gets an old Etonian to usher in a post-class future? Great. It’s a wonder there are no Cameron murals in Barnsley.
Policy-wise, there are sure to be some similarities between Obama & Cameron. As a community-organiser, Obama has experienced what can be achieved by empowering people at a local level and the way America was devised means it’s very difficult to have the kind of large, centralised delivery of public services we have in Britain. If elected, both men would find their hands tied somewhat by our countries’ respective borrowing and budget deficits.
But I think Sullivan continually overstates the symbolic value of a Cameron premiership. Sure, a postracial America could only emerge with something as symbolic as a black man being elected President. By the same measure, Britain isn’t going to overcome class antipathy by electing yet another Prime Minister who attended Eton. If you look at the two men’s biographies, Obama mixed race and multiracial upbringing meant he was able to identify the antipathies and resentments that exist between black and white Americans – as a result, his campaign has made overcoming these divisions a key theme. Cameron, on the other hand, was reared in great privilege and has spent his entire life amongst wealthy conservatives who resent that their taxes go to such undeserving lowlifes as single parents and the unemployed. Until becoming leader of the Tories, he’s never been anywhere near the deprived side of Britain and can’t hope to speak of it without sounding like a dillettante.
Maybe Cameron is sincere, the Tories are serious about helping the poor and they all honestly believe this is best achieved through localism and decentralisation; only time will tell whether this is a real change or just ‘back to basics’ with superior presentation. But you won’t see a postclass Britain by electing someone for whom class has brought nothing but benefits; it’ll be by electing someone as Prime Minister who, like Obama, had to break a great many barriers just to get there
Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Melissa McEwan, sexism
In a medium that allows for infinite interpretations of reality, we can’t be surprised that the internet has facilitated some wildly different representations of politicians. At the beginning of the Democratic Primary, Barack Obama was either a wide-eyed, hope-mongering idealist, or a Bambi-esque neophyte without the strength or experience to be President. In turn, Hillary Clinton was either a smart and savvy politician running a flawless campaign or a power-hungry, say-nothing centrist who couldn’t articulate why she wanted to be President.
However diverse these portrayals were and however removed they might have been from reality, it’s important to remember that they weren’t just invented out of thin air; they were constructed by columnists, talking-heads and bloggers who built their own realities based on what they saw of the primary contest.
It’s a shame, then, that part one of Melissa McEwan and Maureen McCluskey’s CiF piece on the ‘destroying’ of Hillary Clinton in the liberal blogosphere doesn’t provide any background to indicate where this loathing came from. Even before her campaign for President, Clinton was never a popular figure: she was a leading member of the uber-centrist DLC, she voted for the war, she took money from special interests and her staff included union-busters and corporate shills. As her campaign began to smell defeat, she then started making statements that seemed unbecoming of a Democrat. She argued only herself and Senator McCain were qualified to become Commander-in-Chief. She fell short of confirming that Obama wasn’t a Muslim. She repeated the right-wing theme that her opponent was an ‘elitist’ – in spite all the years he’d spent working in poor parts of Chicago. Finally, in one of her last arguments about electability, she claimed the nomination should go to her because she won the votes of more white folks.
These actions prompted a smorgasbord of vicious, dehumanising and frequently sexist tit-for-tat responses, and McEwan recorded these diligently during the primary. But by ignoring the fact that genuine grievances existed, McEwan & McCluskey give the impression, whether intentionally or otherwise, that the prime motivation for attacking Clinton was sexism. Instead, I think the prime motivation was the poor conduct of her campaign, which incited a lot of anger and recrimination and all too frequently mutated into sexist attacks.
If I were them, I would’ve argued that even with genuine points of disagreement and disgust with the Clinton campaign, some previously upstanding members of the blogosphere still sank into the swamp of sexism, and that when seemingly decent, progressive people can still do that, there remains a long way to go before gender equality is achieved.
Image by Flickr user sskennel (Creative Commons)
Tags: Barack Obama, Islam, Politics
The art of speechmaking has a deeply symbolic role in American poltics. For each era you’ll find a speech that either speaks to the national mood or offers a portent of things to come: Roosevelt’s ‘fear istelf‘, Johnson’s ‘great society‘, King’s ‘dream’ or Kennedy’s call to public service. In the eloquent visions they offer, the idealism they inspire and the unity & resolve they provoke, the great political speeches are wedded to American history almost as much as events themselves, and serve as a point of reference for those who choose the path of public service.
Because of this, the podium from which these political speeches are made has taken on a symbolism of its own. In this image-obsessed media age, great care is taken to ensure the slogans are bold and visionary, that the stage is showered with symbols of patriotism and that the audience reflects the rich diversity of the country. Though it is a cynical and manufactured process, nothing reflects the breadth and depth of the coalition Barack Obama’s campaign has built than the crowds who attend his speeches: young and old, black, white and hispanic all sat side-by-side to insist on a change in the way the country is governed.
But there is one face, quite depressingly, that’s seldom seen at the rallies, in the campaign literature or on the television commercials to support his candidacy. On Wednesday the Politico reported that two Muslim women dressed in hijabs had been barred from sitting behind the podium at an Obama rally in Detroit, Michigan.
“I was coming to support him, and I felt like I was discriminated against by the very person who was supposed to be bringing this change, who I could really relate to,” said Hebba Aref, a 25-year-old lawyer who lives in the Detroit suburb of Bloomfield Hills. “The message that I thought was delivered to us was that they do not want him associated with Muslims or Muslim supporters.”
Now, I should point out that the Obama campaign has apologised personally to the women involved; they insist the actions were taken independently by over-zealous staffers and are anaethema to the type of campaign the Illinois Senator wants to run. I happen to believe them, but that doesn’t make the news any less distressing.
For one, it’s just a missed opportunity. In the city with the largest Arab population in the US, there was an opportunity for two Muslim women in traditional dress to share a stage with a Democrat who is committed to women’s rights, gay rights, religious freedom and equality of opportunity. The symbolism would’ve been huge – sending a statement to folks at home that Muslim American are Americans too, and showing the rest of the world that for all its faults, there are few places as diverse, inclusive and, yes, tolerant, as the United States of America.
Secondly, this incident puts a human face on an unease with the Obama campaign that’s lingered for some time: namely, the aggressiveness it exerts in refuting the ‘smear’ that the Senator is a Muslim. Now, running for President is difficult enough when you’re a white, middle-aged war hero, let alone a black man whose middle name is Hussein, and it’s only right that his campaign pushes back against rumours being peddled by racists. But, as Naomi Klein argues, “what is disturbing about the campaign’s response is that it leaves unchallenged the disgraceful and racist premise behind the entire “Muslim smear”: that being Muslim is de facto a source of shame.”
As difficult as it may be, Obama needs to find a way to address this tension or else risk alienating a religious and ethnic group that has been demonised for far too long. He needs to state plainly that whilst he is a devout Christian, there is nothing wrong with being a Muslim, and that those spreading these lies do so not simply to demonise him, but every other American who practices Islam. Ezra Klein has a sensible suggestion:
The bigger move would be to invite them to the sit-down, and then make a speech forthrightly addressing not only the rumors, but the ugly undertone of the rumors, which implies that the religion of millions of Americans and over a billion people worldwide somehow renders them dangerously “other.”
Sure, it would be safer politically just to keep batting the rumours away with the same aggressiveness shown so far, but – as we’ve seen with the Reverend Wright scandal and on many other occasions – Obama is at his best when taking those risks inherent in doing the right thing.
If nothing else, it might stop a few of his anxious staffers from freaking out at the sight of a Muslim woman who merely wants to watch him take to the podium and speak of the next great moment in American history.
Photo #1 taken by Flickr user (ahem!) Barack Obama (Creative Commons)
Photo #2 taken by Flickr user jetheriot (Creative Commons)
Tags: Barack Obama, Melanie Phillips
Or an ally of racists? Or merely a discredited hack who’s spent so long slurping at the septic tank of the far right that everything she says, everything she writes and everything she thinks is a slush of gangrenous bile?
Enquiring minds have a right to know!
Under the banner of Truth! Justice! and The Endless Pursuit of Fear-mongering Smears!, Ms Phillips reheats the old lie that a certain candidate for President of the United States of America is/was a Muslim. Uncritically citing one source that’s been debunked and dumped, and another by a blogger whose greatest hits include – get this – advocating bombing the US State Department, Ms Phillips suggests that Obama has been less than truthful about his filthy Muslim past and that his ‘conversion’ to Christianity over two decades ago might have been nothing but a ploy to help get himself elected:
We are entitled therefore to ask whether the Muslim world supports him because it believes he is still a Muslim. We are entitled to ask precisely when he stopped being a Muslim, and why. Did Obama embrace Christianity as a tactical manoeuvre to get himself elected?
Yep, she’s asking you to believe that Obama was planning a run for President 20 years ago!
Now, I’m not going to waste my time debunking that which has already been discredited over and over again, but if anyone’s still anxious about it, the truth is no more than eight clicks away. What I will say, however, is that it’s astonishing that a mainstream British commentator is uncritically parroting a smear that’s only being made by people on the outermost fringes of American politics.
Let’s return to our questions.
Is Melanie Phillips a racist? No. She may sensationalise the scale of the threat from radical Islam, and her work may be quoted by people who are racist, but that doesn’t mean she shares their views.
Is she an ally of racists? Not intentionally, but by spreading such smears under the guise of ‘I’m just asking in the public interest’, she inevitably helps reinforce a narrative being framed by bigots.
Is she “a discredited hack who’s spent so long slurping at the septic tank of the far right that everything she says, everything she writes and everything she thinks is a slush of gangrenous bile?”
Well, I’ll let you make up your own minds.
Tags: Barack Obama, Crappest Website Ever, Hillary Clinton, Humour, John McCain
Now that the concession speeches have been made, the campaign obituaries have been printed, the lawn signs have been removed and her staff has started shopping around for new jobs, where to now for those hurt, angry and betrayed Clintonistas who yelped and wailed for Hillary to the bitter end and can’t bring themselves to side with the big-eared Islamist who performs terrorist fist-jabs in public?
Via Wonkette, such is the devotion of her supporters, they have conspired to build the Crappest Website Ever – an online abortion of clashing colours, cheap flashing gifs, spelling mistakes and a tourettes-like tendency to press Caps Lock. It’s on this online sanctuary – looking something like an amateur’s Warcraft Appreciation Page from 1998 – that Hillary supporters can gather for emotional support and to organise to defeat the brown-skinned bully who stole votes that were rightfully hers:
Take that, you filthy Muslims! Our use of flashing lettering, Obama ‘jokes’ and migrane-inducing colours will beat your cunning conspiracy back to the deserts of Arabialand! [note: you may have to avoid the online poll section which shows a majority of respondents would actually vote for Obama over McCain - there's clearly been some kind of tampering].
The site was apparently started by a sole malcontent to rail against The Bosses who nominated Obama, but has now built into a well-oiled, 35,000 strong machine, as shown by some of the glowing testimonials from Real Life White Americans:
The ‘truth’ about Obama:
Thank you for making this web-sight. It is very well done, you must be some kind of computer genius. I would like to do one too but I just learned about the upper/lower case key.
Can you verify the following which I heard in the last day or two:
1. Obama is now wearing a Palestine Liberation flag on his lapel?
2. Obama gave a speech to a group called “AIPAC” last week, which I was told was the Al Queda Political Action Committee. He vowed to let Iran build a nuclear bomb and suggested that the Israelis could move to Florida?
3. What is this with he and his wife doing some kind of terrorist message – on stage here in America.
4. Please don’t let Obama go to Iraq I am afraid he will radio the enemy our positions or something.
Thank you for keeping people like me who try to stay up to day in the know.
Thelma in Dover.
A global conspiracy and an oedipus complex:
Is it a coincidence that the “world domination” Bilderberg meeting occurred the SAME WEEK Hillary left the race. Obviously the male dominated leaders of Europe – our new masters – have sent the orders out.
I also think they have done everything they can to make that menace Bill Clinton do things to harm his wonderful, loving wife.
Let us all be glad for what Hillary did for us. Like kittens who eternally look to their human masters as their mother, we can always look to Hillary as our mother AND MASTER!
NEVER VOTE FOR OBAMA!!!
And a Muslim plot to destroy the United States that can only be foiled by THE INDISCRIMINATE USE OF CAPS LOCK:
Thank you for providing this valuable site, a site which will help to do justice to Hillary, her own party campaigned against her. This sexist, corrupted, dishonest, unjust party STOLE HILLARY’S nomination and gave it to an inexperienced, questionable, inexperienced HUSSEIN OBAMA and his terrorist friends.
If they wanted to go by the rules they should have respected the first rule ‘THE PEOPLES SACRED VOTE’, respect the will of the people. HILLARY IS THE PEOPLES CHOICE, THE PEOPLES WILL!
Obama may be the nominee by FRAUD but he will never reach the White House neither will give a chance for muslim nations and antiamerians to celebrate. GOD BLESS AMERICA!
On this evidence, it seems that all professional web developers must support Obama. Prepare yourselves, people; when McCain wins the White House, all web sites will one day look like this.
Tags: AIPAC, Barack Obama, Israel
The reasons are many. Israelis instinctively fear charismatic leaders whipping up distant audiences. Or is it that Obama is tapping a pure strain of optimism that, as he told some young people after his speech, should make cynicism seem negotiable? When the Israeli press repeats, again and again, how “inexperienced” Obama is, this is code for their fears, the saddest of which is the fear of hoping for peace again.
In the back of their minds they fear that two generations of special pleading—about how Israel’s occupation should be rationalized as the Jews’ special need to (how does Prof. Yehezkel Dror put it?) “subordinate morality to survival”—may not quite work on Obama, much the way it did not work on Kissinger. Obama has heard Jabotinsky-like apologetics for victim exceptionalism from the Sharptons—indeed, from the Wrights—for two generations. It takes one to know one. The most frightening question is this: if democracy makes a black man a mainstream American, can it also make an Arab a mainstream Israeli?
So there is a peculiarly Israeli condescension for Obama just now, which I predict will dissipate as he grows in stature, and the world he is sketching feels more imminent. It is the same condescension most have, since Oslo, for people who trusted Arabs, or still trust politicians, or stop for pedestrians, or think voters are not just selfish. It is the condescension people in the peace movement endure day in, day out. The thing is, Obama is not a graying professor at a Van Leer Institute seminar. He is quite possibly the next president of the United States.
Mr Avishai also goes on to assess how his speech to AIPAC was received and how it might go some way to reassuring his sceptics. For that, you should go read the whole thing.
Image by Flickr user threecee (Creative Commons)
Tags: Barack Obama, Hamas, Yes I Am Being Sarcastic
If you haven’t heard by now that the next President of the United States will be a coke-snortin’, jew-hatin’ Islamoid who despises American traditions and intends to swear the oath of office on the Koran/Hustler, then you’ve clearly been hypnotised by the Big Media Lie Machine.
Just two short months ago, crazed Islamomurderers Hamas endorsed Barack HUSSEIN Obama as their candidate for Destroyer of Civilisation, knowing that his messages of ‘change’ and ‘hope’ were actually code for rising the price of oil to $3,000 a barrel and passing laws that allow gay Iranians to fornicate on street corners.
But it seems these crazy keffiyehs are so stupid they’ll even turn on one of their own! Whilst no true freedom-lover is fooled by Hussein’s insipid sloganeering, it seems these devilish despots are disillusioned by his promise not to kill any Christians:
“Obama’s comments have confirmed that there will be no change in the U.S. administration’s foreign policy on the Arab-Israeli conflict,” Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri told Reuters in Gaza.
“The Democratic and Republican parties support totally the Israeli occupation at the expense of the interests and rights of Arabs and Palestinians,” he said.
“Hamas does not differentiate between the two presidential candidates, Obama and Mccain, because their policies regarding the Arab-Israel conflict are the same and are hostile to us, therefore we do have no preference and are not wishing for either of them to win,” Zuhri said.
Whoop with delight, McCain supporters! The ‘inspiring one’ is already losing his electoral base! Victory is nigh!
Tags: Associated Press, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Politics
Insert caption here
That’s what the AP is reporting.
WASHINGTON – Hillary Rodham Clinton will concede Tuesday night that Barack Obama has the delegates to secure the Democratic nomination, campaign officials said, effectively ending her bid to be the nation’s first female president.
The former first lady will stop short of formally suspending or ending her race in her speech in New York City. She will pledge to continue to speak out on issues like health care. But for all intents and purposes, the two senior officials said, the campaign is over.
Most campaign staff will be let go and will be paid through June 15, said the officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to divulge her plans.
In case you’re wondering, yes, this entire post is just an excuse for me to link to this picture. I have no shame.
Barack Obama effectively clinched the Democratic presidential nomination Tuesday, based on an Associated Press tally of convention delegates, becoming the first black candidate ever to lead his party into a fall campaign for the White House.
Campaigning on an insistent call for change, Obama outlasted former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton in a historic race that sparked record turnout in primary after primary, yet exposed deep racial divisions within the party.
The AP tally was based on public commitments from delegates as well as more than a dozen private commitments. It also included a minimum number of delegates Obama was guaranteed even if he lost the final two primaries in South Dakota and Montana later in the day.
The end is blissfully near
Tags: Barack Obama, Robert Byrd
In an endorsement rich with symbolism, Senator Robert Bryd of West Virginia (a state that went overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton) has endorsed Barack Obama for President:
“After a great deal of thought, consideration and prayer over the situation in Iraq, I have decided that, as a superdelegate to the Democratic National Convention, I will cast my vote for Senator Barack Obama for President. Both Senators Clinton and Obama are extraordinary individuals, whose integrity, honor, love for this country and strong belief in our Constitution I deeply respect.”
“I believe that Barack Obama is a shining young statesman, who possesses the personal temperament and courage necessary to extricate our country from this costly misadventure in Iraq, and to lead our nation at this challenging time in history. Barack Obama is a noble-hearted patriot and humble Christian, and he has my full faith and support.”
Why so rich in symbolism? Well, as a young man, Senator Byrd was a leader of a local chapter of the Klu Klux Klan. For one man to make the long journey from being the member of a murderous gang to a Senator who was resistant to the civil rights movement and finally reach the embers of his life as an old man endorsing a young black man for President shows just how much progress a country can make in a short space of time.