(from l to r) Aunt, Uncle, Grandfather, ?, ?, Grandmother, ?, Dad - ~1936
And Larry Kudlowwrites what just might be the best (unintentional) endorsement of an Obama run thus far…
Last Sunday, while stumping in New Hampshire, the senator delivered an interesting line. Attempting to explain his sudden ascendancy to the pantheon of presidential hopefuls, Obama said voters wanted a new vision: “It’s a spirit that says we are looking for something different — we want something new.â€
Trouble is, there’s nothing “new†or “different†about Obama. Behind that charm and charisma is an extremely liberal-left politician.
Just look at his record.
Obama voted against the Bush tax cuts on capital gains and dividends, justifying his anti-growth stance with the old class-warfare saw about tax cuts for the rich. Of course, these are the very same tax cuts that spurred economic expansion, created job growth and reduced the deficit as revenues flooded the Treasury.
The senator also voted against repealing the death tax. He dismissed it as a “Paris Hilton tax break†that would give “billions of dollars to billionaire heirs and heiresses.†Try telling that to the owners of farms, ranches and small businesses who are forced to sell their legacies because of this tax.
He swings a protectionist bat, too. He has voted against free trade (CAFTA) and U.S. energy independence (drilling in ANWR), and has opposed lifting a 54-cents-per-gallon tariff on Brazilian ethanol.
He’s also strongly opposed to personal retirement accounts for Social Security reform and prefers instead that the government steward your money.
The George W. Bush way has been to work toward ending the multiple taxation of savings and investment — to lower taxes and put the people’s money back in the people’s wallets. Simply put, the economy can’t grow without capital to fertilize the soil of new technologies, jobs and businesses. But Obama scoffs at such notions.
The senator voted against Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and John G. Roberts. He said no to Patriot Act wiretap extensions, despite their proven effectiveness in halting terrorist attacks. He collaborated in blocking John Bolton’s appointment to the United Nations. He opposed the Defense of Marriage Act and stood against the Federal Marriage Amendment.
Let’s remember that Democrats won their congressional majority by doing their best impersonation of Republicans. [Interesting point, Larry. Too bad the facts don’t support it.] In securing their November sweep, the Democrats captured a huge margin of independent Ross Perot voters — fiscal conservatives who favor balanced budgets, an end to deficit spending and strong national security. Obama fails these independents.
Do Democrats really want Obama to take them on a U-turn back to the left? [my emphasis]
Well, considering how you’ve laid things out here, Larry, I’d say the obvious answer is…
As I continue documenting the Barack Obama media landscape, I certainly can’t pass up mentioning the worst person in the world, Debbie Schlussel.
Schlussel wrote what any reasonable person would think to be an Ann Coulter parody…
Many months ago, readers began asking me whether Barack Obama is Muslim. Since he identifies as a Christian, I said, “no,” and responded that he was not raised by his Kenyan father.
But, then, I decided to look further into Obama’s background. His full name — as by now you have probably heard — is Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. Hussein is a Muslim name, which comes from the name of Ali’s son — Hussein Ibn Ali. And Obama is named after his late Kenyan father, the late Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., apparently a Muslim.
And while Obama may not identify as a Muslim, that’s not how the Arab and Muslim Streets see it. In Arab culture and under Islamic law, if your father is a Muslim, so are you. And once a Muslim, always a Muslim. You cannot go back. In Islamic eyes, Obama is certainly a Muslim. He may think he’s a Christian, but they do not.
You can see how all the recent mentions of “Hussein,” Jeff Greenfield’s attire “joke,” and other veiled attempts to tie Obama to Islam have been paving the way to emerge as the full-on “Obama Is the (Muslim) Manchurian Candidate” campaign.
If you have a strong stomach, you just might take sick pleasure in the monumentally deranged comments that accompany Schlussel’s post.
I can’t help but wonder about a possible backlash. Many Americans are uneasy about the Middle East and Muslims, but there’s a fundamental decency among most people in this country that, I suspect, reject the kind of hate Schlussel is espousing.
Maybe Schlussel and others like her believe they’re doing the GOP a favor by smearing Obama before he even announces his intentions, but I think it’s far more likely that they’re simply embarrassing themselves and creating a degree of sympathy for Obama. The abject stupidity of the right-wing attack machine has its limits.
It should be pointed out, however, that Ms. Schlussel’s diatribe has not been very warmly received in some conservative corners of the Web.
And speaking of Steve Benen, he’s got a good run-down on debunking the Obama/Rezko non-scandal “scandal” story…
I’ve been seeing quite a bit lately about some “questionable†real estate deal involving Barack Obama. The AP ran a story, as did the Washington Post, on top of plenty of coverage in the Chicago media. Howard Kurtz said his “sense of political dynamics†tells him the story “is about to break out of the Chicago media and go national.†Slate, earlier this week, was touting an article on “Obama’s Shady Real Estate Deal.â€
So, what’s the big scoop? Does Obama have a legitimate controversy on his hands? As Conor Clarke explained, there is no story here. If anything, the coverage of the non-scandal reflects poorly on the media, not the senator.
Barack Obama is the next generation. Or so says psifighter37 in this interesting post at MyDD and Daily Kos about Obama’s appeal to younger voters…
So why does there seem to be such an overwhelming contingency of support for Obama among younger Americans - those deemed to be not as interested in politics? Simply put, he represents a much different voice in politics than many of us are used to. I grew up during the Clinton years and have become involved in the political process during the Bush administration, and the memories I have of both are overwhelmingly negative. Granted, most of the negativity has come from the GOP and its right-wing minions, but as a 20 year-old, the rhetoric I have heard in the political arena has been near-devoid of positive thinking and optimism. Obama represents a change from the usual rhetoric, no matter how empty it may seem to those of us who wish to scrutinize his record. I recognize that much of the blogosphere has possibly had a chance to live in a time when political discourse wasn’t so hostile, but young adults like myself haven’t had a chance to experience that yet.
Another reason why many young people support Obama, aside from his relative youth to the rest of the field, is that we see, in him, the embodiment of the real America. The Senate consists 94 Caucasians and 6 minorities - Obama being one of the six. It’s obviously not reflective of the changing demographics of the country. Popular music, no matter how good or bad one thinks it may be, is populated by minority musicians. Younger Americans are the product of multiracial families. In a nation whose face is changing, Obama is the person who represents this change. Perhaps it’s a symptom of being what John Heilemann of New York Magazine calls a cipher, but in Obama, many do see the senator as someone who has the opportunity to reunite the country. But in a time where there’s a lot of despair in the country and around the world, Obama inspires hope because to people like myself, he relates much better to us than many existing politicians do.
Jamison Foser does a great job wrapping up last week’s telegraphing of the possible media themes that may follow Obama throughout the campaign season.
In late November, Republican strategist Ed Rogers began pointedly referring to “Barack Hussein Obama,” using the senator and potential Democratic presidential candidate’s middle name.
Soon, the utterly meaningless — but eminently mockable — fact that Obama’s middle name is “Hussein” was everywhere. NBC’s Mike Viqueira announced “a man named Barack Obama, whose middle name, incidentally, is Hussein, running for president.” On the December 5 edition of Fox News’ Special Report with Brit Hume, Carl Cameron told viewers: “Though he’s written two books about himself already, most people know very little about Barack Hussein Obama Junior’s uncommonly privileged life.” (In case you’re wondering: No, “John Sidney McCain” does not appear in any Fox News stories available on Nexis.)
Suddenly, Obama’s middle name has come up again and again: on Fox, on MSNBC, in newspapers, all prompted by a Republican strategist using it to take a jab at the senator.
Well, not quite. That’s the popular version — and that’s how the popular version of these things tends to go: the “mainstream” media repeat these things after they are initiated by Republican operatives or right-wing media. But, just as it was The New York Times and The Washington Post that made up a fake quote from Al Gore about Love Canal, then used the fake quote to accuse him of dishonesty, the Barack Hussein Obama story didn’t begin with Ed Rogers.
Rogers referred to “Barack Hussein Obama” during the November 28 edition of MSNBC’s Hardball. But just the day before, MSNBC’s Tucker Carlson referred to Bill Press as “a true member of the Barack Hussein Obama fan club.”
But it didn’t begin there, either. The first mention of the name as a political matter that we can find in the Nexis database comes from MSNBC’s Chris Matthews. On the November 7 edition of Hardball — three full weeks before Rogers’ comment — Matthews said: “You know, it’s interesting that Barack Obama’s middle name is Hussein. That will be interesting down the road, won’t it?” Media Mattersnoted Matthews’ comments the next day.
Did Matthews come up with that on his own, or did he hear it on one of the right-wing radio shows he favors? Or did he read it on a far-right website, or have it whispered in his ear by a Republican operative? We don’t know. But we do know that attributing the suggestion that Obama’s middle name may have negative political consequences to Rogers lets Matthews off the hook for his role in popularizing the notion. Maybe that’s why Matthews himself does it.
Foser continues on with comments about the Greenfield “joke.”
After Greenfield’s comments drew the wrath of progressives, he claimed he had simply been kidding — and lashed out at his critics, blaming the “hair-trigger instincts” of bloggers and “partisans” who “routinely assume the worst about their adversaries” and complaining about “a tendency to find malice aforethought.” Greenfield suggested that those unruly progressive bloggers should have taken a lesson from “the habits of the Mainstream Media.”
Greenfield’s lecture didn’t go over very well, and for good reason. As Bob Somerby pointed out, the “mainstream media” has peddled silly — and damaging — garbage like this for years. Indeed, Greenfield’s own piece came in the midst of widespread invocation of Obama’s middle name, as we have discussed. There was no reason to assume Greenfield was kidding — and, even if he was, there’s no reason to assume that his “joke” doesn’t perpetuate a bogus negative storyline about Obama. (And the bogus storylines are piling up; we haven’t even gotten to the right-wing blogosphere following the lead of Rush Limbaugh in misrepresenting a joking exchange between Obama and Times columnist Maureen Dowd over her reference to his “ears [that] stick out.”)
Most of all, Greenfield simply isn’t in a position to lecture anyone else about the “habits” of journalism. Not until he apologizes for his role in doctoring a video clip of Hillary Clinton to portray her as a liar. Perhaps not even then.
Foser closes…
As the recent spate of news reports highlighting Obama’s middle name, big ears, and preference to wear shirts without ties demonstrates, the elite political media are fully prepared to approach another presidential campaign by focusing on petty and absurd “looks French”-style caricatures rather than on substance and fact. Fortunately, as the reaction to Greenfield’s report shows, progressives may be ready to do something about it this time.
Newsweek has along article on Hillary and Obama that might of interest, but they left out some key polling results that arguably could have answered the question about whether America is ready to vote for a woman or a black man.
Here are the (yes, way to early to care) numbers that didn’t make it into the story…
Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Dec. 6-7, 2006. N=864 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 4
“Now I’m going to describe some different choices of candidates voters might have in the 2008 election for president. As I read each one, please tell me how you would vote if the election for president were being held today. Suppose you HAD TO CHOOSE between [see below], the Democrat, and [see below], the Republican. Who would you vote for?” If other/unsure: “As of TODAY, do you LEAN more toward [see below], the Democrat; or [see below], the Republican?”
Clinton 50%–43% McCain
Clinton 48%–47% Giuliani
McCain 45%–43% Obama
Giuliani 47%–44% Obama
RunObama.com put some great video up that documents recent Obama’s New Hampshire trip…
Nobody that I know of was suggesting that he meant it at “face value” which I guess would be that Obama and Ahmandinejad’s similar mode of dress means that they have similar political views. What I criticized was the sub-text of such remarks and how these remarks are common right wing tools used to slander, demean and trivialize their opponents. The fact that Jeanne Moos also did a “funny” riff that day on Obama’s middle name “Hussein” (that was far more revealing of people’s bigotry than anything else) what you saw was this subtle theme emerging that implies both that Obama is superficial on the one hand (look at his GQ clothes!) and also somewhat exotic and foreign — not to be trusted. Enough “jokes” like this and over time people will develop an uncomfortable feeling about Obama’s “style” and his exotic name without even knowing that they have it or where it came from. That’s how these subtle themes work.
Greenfield even mentions the Daily Howler as one of the critical bloggers — the Daily Howler that wrote the book on the trivialization and character assasination of Al Gore with the very same shallow, schoolkid nonsense that Greenfield pulled on Obama, (which Greenfield implies are completely different things.) This thesis has been rigorously explored there and in the rest of the blogosphere and its conclusion is one of the reasons why the blogosphere has exploded. Far from being a little sideline we indulge in when we need some filler, it is one of the reasons we exist.
…
Is it a sin, in and of itself, that Greenfield trivialized Barack Obama for his wardrobe and compared him to a holocaust denying psychopath? Not really. Is it a major goof for Jeanne Moos to simultaneously go out on the street and ask people if they think his “weird” middle name means that he can’t be elected? Probably not.
But you’ll have to excuse us hotheads for reacting strongly when we see these things because the last time the media decided to have “fun” and tell “jokes,†this way, enough people believed them that it ended up changing the world in the most dramatic and violent way possible. We are in this mess today at least partly because these people failed to do their duty and approached their jobs as if it were a seventh grade slumber party instead of the serious business of the most powerful nation on earth.
I don’t know what is wrong with them and their social construct that makes them so susceptible to this, or why they fail to see how this bias toward phony Republican machismo distorts political reporting, but it’s a big problem for this country. Whatever their psychological or political motivations, we cannot take the chance that these narratives will go unchallenged again.Bad things happen. Wars. Torture. Dead people. [my emphasis]
One of the points that came up was how Obama is a candidate of a new generation unburdened by past societal divisions. You’d never hear Obama asked why he got deferments during Vietnam.
Well Chris Bowers wrote a very good post last night that lays out in detail that exact point, inspired by a Paul Waldman piece from TomPaine.com. The “culture wars” of the baby boom generation just don’t apply to Obama.
The “culture wars” are simply another front in long-standing struggle over identity that has dominated American politics for some time. Identity remains by far a greater determining factor of how people will vote than other demographic indicators. Along with the struggles of Latino and Asian immigrants, and although to this point it is little understood, one of the great post-1960’s fronts in the culture wars has become the values and posited identities of the “creative class” versus other classes. I believe that it is this division that largely explains the generally wealthy, Generation X heavy, white and highly-educated demographics of the netroots, for example. It also explains the gulf online when it comes to old political arguments about competing in the south, moving to the left, right or center, and why we seem more willing to build new institutions than work with existing ones. Those were all the big fights in the Democratic Party back in the 1960’s and 1970’s, with the move toward ideological coalitions, the development of single-issue advocacy infrastructure, and with the success of the Republican “Southern Strategy.” Those are the political battles of the past, from the days before the “Creative Class” began to take over. We don’t see those old arguments as central, and we want to get past them.
I think Obama, simply in terms of his demeanor and his biography, strongly appeals to politicos from a new generation and a new socioeconomic class because he strikes them in some sort of gut, intuitive level as being from that class. Multi-ethnic, post-Vietnam, highly educated, raised in a major urban center–these are many of the cosmopolitan, self-creating, forward looking aspects of life for many younger professionals. As much as we may or may not like Bill Clinton, coming from a little town in Arkansas is not a story many Americans can relate to anymore, because we just didn’t grow up that way. Even John Edwards’s story of growing up in a mill town when the mill closed seems very, very rustic for a northeasterner such as myself, since our mills closed down sixty years ago to move to places like North Carolina. These rustic visions of America simply are not where people are at these days, especially news junkies and activists within the Democratic Party and the bluer parts of America. Those people instead look to places like Harlem, where Bill Clinton now keeps his offices. People moving into the gentrifying areas of Harlem probably like Barack Obama quite a bit, and probably feel some sort of gut-level, identity-based connection with him that they can’t even quite put their finger on at this point.
I can’t quite put my finger on it either, but the rise of Obama, I believe, is largely based on a new vision of personal identity that will inevitably come to impact our national political discourse. Whether or not his speeches and policy ideas continue to live up to that identity remains to be seen, but it does give him an edge on the rest of older, predominately Baby Boomer field that, generally speaking, will not trumpet their urban or multi-ethnic roots. If he can continue to tap into this new identity and socio-economic wave, his campaign will be difficult to defeat, especially if it is combined with strong African-American support. A coalition of African-Americans and the professional, creative class (both within the netroots and the party establishment), would be a devastating coalition in a Democratic primary that I am not sure anyone could defeat.
For four reasons, George Will thinks it just might be ObamaTime, too.
Apologies for his phrasing…
First, one can be an intriguing novelty only once…
Second, if you get the girl up on her tiptoes, you should kiss her…
Third, he has, in Hillary Clinton, the optimal opponent…
Fourth, the odds favor the Democratic nominee in 2008 because for 50 years it has been rare for a presidential nominee to extend his party’s hold on the presidency beyond eight years…
And this article in the Chicago Tribune sounds an awful lot like Obama has little doubt that he’ll be running for the nomination…
“Do I have something that is sufficiently unique to offer to the country that it is worth putting my family through a presidential campaign?” he said. “Politically, I think I would be a viable candidate. So that’s a threshold question and I wouldn’t run if I didn’t think I could win.”
…
Obama said he was not concerned about being able to compete either in fundraising or in staffing should he enter the race.
“I don’t want it to sound like raising $50 million to $60 million is easy,” he said. “It’s hard, but I think it’s something that we could do.
OBAMARAMA
In the realm of politics, U.S. Senator Barack Obama is hot stuff these days. The Illinois Democrat first drew widespread attention when he keynoted the 2004 Democratic National Convention. His hopeful rhetoric, inspiring background and charming good looks have since impressed political wags and grassroots organizers alike. When he stumped here for Bernie last spring, his talk wowed an overflow crowd. Zephyr Teachout and Neil Jensen, former Howard Dean presidential campaign staffers, gather Vermont supporters to urge Obama to declare his candidacy for a 2008 presidential run. If that sounds premature, pragmatic types may say the same of comparisons equating Obama to JFK and MLK. More than words? You decide.
For the record, I was just a lowly volunteer for Dean during the 2003-2004 primary season. My biggest claim to fame was doing the production work on the individual team raiser bats — including the special Halloween bats.
And this rather vile animation…
Newshounds has done some good work in analyzing some of the genesis of the Obama smear campaign — wrapping together Rezko, Hussein and Tom Delay’s “Marxist” gambit.
Marie Therese writes…
Barack Obama’s meteoric rise from unknown freshman Senator to bestselling author, sell-out speaker and potential Presidential candidate has the power-players in the GOP really spooked. For two days the mix-and-match hosts on FOX & Friends, FOX News’ low-rent version of Pee-wee’s Playhouse, gave us all a little preview of what will ubdoubtedly become a full-blown right-wing media assault against Senator Obama. At one point, in an unsual moment of candor, FOX News admitted that it is Tom Delay who is spearheading the anti-Obama smear campaign.
On Tuesday (December 12th) F&F aired Obama’s really clever and funny ad for Monday Night Football. However, before and after showing the clip, Doocy, Kilmeade and Carlson (sounds rather like a shady law firm, doesn’t it?) began trashing the Illinois senator.
And then goes on to provide portions of the transcript from Fox and Friends, like…
CARLSON: Well, you know what? Obama actually - Barack Obama, we should call him - made a surprise …
DOOCY: Barack Hussein Obama.
CARLSON: Oh. Right. Oh. I forgot about that.
And…
KILMEADE: …He’s got two national bestsellers and now he’s as popular as it gets, but upon further review, he has some holes - some chinks in the armor. Perhaps, his dealings, which he says he now regrets, to an indicted realtor who’s been doin’ some dicey land deals…
DOOCY: That’s an old story. Anyway, the same day that Obama closed on his place, this guy who’s been indicted, bought a big tract of land right next to Obama and then, a couple of months later, Barack decides to expand his yard a little bit and buys a sliver of the land. The guy had paid $600,000 for that land. Mr. Obama wound up payin’ for his portion a fraction of that, just about $100,000. Too cozy.
Newshounds counters…
Steve Doocy implied that Rezko was under indictment in June 2005, when the two pieces of property were purchased, and that Rezko’s purchase occurred after Obama’s purchase, neither of which is the case. Also, Doocy lied and claimed Obama only waited “a couple of months” to buy his “sliver” of land. Apparently Doocy can’t add or subtract the months of the year! Obama purchased the extra tract of land in January 2006. That is six - not two - months later.
And finally, on the Delay front…
Then Steve Doocy said something surprising.
DOOCY: “Now, one other thing. He also urger conser - Tom DeLay himself, seen here back when he used to have a key to that big building - he urged conservative bloggers to investigate Obama because he said that - uh - he condemned Barack Obama for his quote “Marxist, leftist voting record” and accused Obama of trying to hide his liberal leanings while on the campaign trail. Remember, right now, he’s not really on the campaign trail. He’s really out pushin’ a book and so, while he’s in this honeymoon phase with the media, where everywhere Barack Obama goes, they just love him. Tom DeLay says you gotta go check it out.”
Newshounds had the video…
Kevin Drum adds something to the Jeff Greenfield discussion…
Bloggers do tend to have hair-trigger instincts, but they’re largely aimed at the media, not their adversaries. Greenfield deliberately illustrated his point with a couple of conspiracy theories that didn’t get much play in the mainstream media, but the last decade has produced a hundred others that never would have crawled out from under their rocks if it weren’t for CNN, the New York Times, and other traditional mainstays promoting them. I’m no Bob Somerby, but even I flinch pretty hard when Greenfield tries to whitewash the media’s own culpability in producing the hair-trigger instincts he derides. Bloggers may overreact to this stuff sometimes, but there’s a reason for that. Maybe CNN ought to do a special about it?
I mostly mention this because in the comments on that post, I came across the intelligent and amusing comments of my old Blog for America blog pal, the notorious B.O.B., aka rmck1, who I haven’t seen around Blogsylvania for quite a while.
And J.D. Ryanhighlights the ThinkProgress report on John McCain’s efforts to the kill the free exchange of ideas on the Web.
Ryan writes…
So, all those little photos we like to use that we probably grab off Google Images and such… we’d be in big trouble. I know you’re proably expecting me to say this, but do ya think St. McCain’s proposal has something to do with the impact bloggers are starting to have on the national political climate, one that obviously doesn’t work in his favor? It’s also funny how the Repubs love to use the ‘child pornography’ excuse whenever it comes to violating our privacy on the net, like they did with that Google data grab a while back. Maybe they just want to hoard it all for themselves.
The California Supreme Court ruling that rejected the notion of visitor-generated content leading to a site owner’s liability is a strong precedent that would make a U.S. Supreme Court decision on the McCain proposal very interesting to watch. If it ever gets that far.
UPDATE: Bob Somerby has a great post today that features commentary on David Broder gushing over McCain and Giuliani. And a reflection on Jeff Greenfield’s response to the reaction that followed his Obama attire “joke.”
We’ll note the way Broder crafts pleasing nicknames for the Reps, without quite doing so for the Dems. (“Mr. 9/11?†Good God!) But note the phrase that’s used for McCain: “hero of the Straight Talk Express!†In this phrasing, Broder journeys back six years to recite McCain’s favorite slogan for him. And he elevates McCain to a striking new status—he’s now the “hero†of that much-loved Express.
For the record, it isn’t hard to see why reporters luvved McCain’s bus rides so much. As they themselves endlessly noted, he gave them lots of free, gooey doughnuts; told them about his stripper ex-girl friends; shared thoughts about “what tree would you be;†and even told scribes they were smart. In such ways, he became their “heroâ€â€”the remarkable term Broder tosses out in this morning’s column.
RE: Greenfield…
One final note to Greenfield, who is plainly one of our brighter pundits: You sat back—you rarely said boo—while your colleagues staged their lunatic war against Gore. In that way, you took part in the crackpot process which sent George Bush to the White House—and the U. S. Army to Iraq. As such, it’s a little bit late for you to start crying about high-minded journalistic practice. Start by describing what your colleagues did. Then, start to criticize us.
VDB links to Howie Kurtz’ “breaking” of a real estate deal story involving Barack Obama and a now-indicted political supporter, Tony Rezko.
P.B. differentiates this story from the “silly mud,” as he calls it, of CNN’s Jeff Greenfield’s absurd comparison of Obama’s attire, during his recent trip to New Hampshire, to that of Iranian leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The real estate deal story first broke nationally, I think, on NPR on November 16th. (Audio is here.)
But, on November 5th, the Chicago Sun-Times piece that may have started it all ends with a point-by-point Q & A with Obama on the details of the deal. To me, after reading Obama’s responses, this seems pretty much like a whole lot of silly mud, too.
One thing about mud, though, is that it matters not whether it is totally silly, or mostly silly, or demi-silly, or… you get the idea. The press will cover it nonetheless. And will likely use it to create false equivalence.
It will be interesting, in a rubber-necking kind of way, to observe how/if this story continues to circle back around.
Sadly, I won’t be surprised if a leading sentence like “Barack Obama, not untouched by accusations of scandal in his own business dealings, claims to represent a new era of ethical political leadership” to accompany any bio of him.
Or maybe we can just count on the Nedra Pickler’s of this world to ape right-wing talking points by gratuitously referring to him by his full name, Barack Hussein Obama, as she did in her AP an article on December 11th.
Or CNN to run split screens of Obama paired with bin Laden and Hussein…
SOMEWHAT RELATED UPDATE: The Carpetbagger has a very good response to Greenfield’s explanation of his ObamaWear Instant Terrorist Clothing Line piece.
Mr. Benen writes…
I like to consider myself someone with a fairly good sense of humor, and reading the transcript of Greenfield’s segment, I did not literally believe that the CNN analyst believed that Obama was going for the “Ahmadinejad look.â€
Greenfield seems to have misunderstood why many of us were annoyed with his piece in the first place.
Greenfield didn’t just make an off-hand joke during an on-air discussion, he went to the trouble of putting together a lengthy segment in which he fleshed out his joke in great detail. This may have been a valiant attempt at humor, but as with many failed jokes, there was a problem with delivery — The Situation Room is not The Onion.
There’s also the political/media context to consider. A lot of Dems have seen the media participate in some ugly smears of Democratic presidential hopefuls, and despite his generally positive press thus far, Obama’s turn to get smacked around by objective news outlets was inevitable. Some on the right have already started to revel in the similarities between “Obama†and “Osama,†coupled by the fact that the senator’s middle name is “Hussein.†Right on the heels of this nonsense, Greenfield thought it’d be funny to compare Obama’s and Ahmadinejad’s fashion choices, playing into the notion that the Democrat has a great deal in common with our Middle Eastern foes.
Barack Obama’s important announcement on Monday Night Football…
Check out Zephyr Teachout’s inaugural blog post on DraftObama.org, following the announcement that she had signed on with that effort as an advisor.
She writes…
I’ll learn a lot more in the next several months, and I hope my mind will remain open to other candidates. I have some concerns about Obama that my support of him will not stop me from raising. But, in the short term, someone who is willing to talk to a few hundred thousand evangelists about condoms is my kind of candidate, because I take that message as a challenge not just to evangelists, but to all of us, to dig our fists in the muddy world of reaching across difficult chasms and making hard, but important policy decisions — in the world where citizens of democracy belong.
And if you’re interested in helping plan how to support Obama in Vermont, please come on down to the Euro Gourmet on Main Street in Burlington, Thursday, December 14th, at 6 p.m.
