Harry's Place

To my mind Obama is such a blank canvas he pretty much invites people to imbue him with their own views. His policies appear to largely be “believing in hope” and “being in favour of change”. These are so utterly vague that they appeal to anybody regardless of the insanity of their own core beliefs. Hence his appeal to Moonbats.

Obama – the first subliminal presidential candidate.

By contrast, there’s a rather appealing fairytale quality to the rise of Obama.

Careful.

Melanie Phillips has more to this story; it turns out Obama was a Muslim and so was Rev. Wright.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/765631/obama-and-the-giant-blogosphere-conspiracy.thtml

I noticed this on mel’s Blog when I was looking for the rest of the sky weather terror codes.

Whether or not Obama was born into a Muslim family, or practiced the religion, or what have you, does not concern me at all.

What worries me is that he closely associated with an acolyte of the Nation of Islam: which, despite its name, is no more ‘muslim’ than the Black Hebrews are ‘jews’.

I’m quite prepared to accept that anybody who comes up through the ranks – as Obama has – of Chicago black politics is bound to have some association with nuts. The Labour Party has always produced excellent politicians, some of whom were members of the Communist Party or odd Trot factions in their youth. So what. You leave this stuff behind you as you grow up.

Obama’s problem is that he need to work doubly hard to keep these people away from his campaign. If he doesn’t he’ll be seen as a nut, or as a man with very poor judgement.

Yeah, I just thought it was funny.

‘However, unless Obama implements procedures to keep the loons out, the Republicans will beat him with this stick until Election Day.’

I rather hope they do, as I hope McCain will win. Last time we had a fluffy, feel-good Democrat with no serious interest in foreign policy as president of the US, it meant a whole string of international disasters (Rwanda, Srebrenica, rise of the Taliban, etc.). And the international situation is more menacing today than it was in the 1990s, particularly where Russia is concerned.

Admittedly, a Democrat would be better on domestic issues, so I appreciate that comrades in the US may not feel the same way as I do.

The links to the loony blogs don’t work on my PC. Have they now been moderated out?

That is why Michael Pugelese is absolutely right to be worried about the saga of the My Barack Obama blogs.

Well, you got to be obsessed enough I guess. Obsessed enough to worry about what non-story is going to picked up by the likes of Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity. It’s at that pitiful level. Absolute trivia really.

Some have been pulled, others have not.

Er, Reagan funded the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, etc. How do you know McCain won’t be like that?

Obama is a post-Rwanda politician; I don’t think he will make those types of mistakes. In a way he is much more Blairite than Bill Clinton was.

As DavidT suggests, there wouldn’t be any problem with Obama if he had said from the start that he had had a radical youth and upbringing and had flirted with or even believed in radical nonsense when he was younger. It’s his persistent denials/”forgettings” etc etc that are cause for concern. Plus the track record of being neither what he keeps promising to be (an agent of Change We Can All Believe In) and just happening to be close to or pick advisers and mentors who, to say the least, clearly demonstrate reasons to be worried about the judgement of the potential commander in chief of the armed forces of the USA.

I rather hope they do, as I hope McCain will win.

Not particularly surprising coming from a HJS scribe. The notion of McCain/Bush being noted for fortitude in stopping the killing and bloodletting and preventing “international disasters” compared to previous presidents is almost comically absurd; I think the general level of killing, maiming and general mayhem and distress continues whomever is in the White House.

Obsessed enough to worry about what non-story is going to picked up by the likes of Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity.

Yeah.

Obama might be OK, if none of the mainstream press reports any of the negative stories about him doing the rounds. Certainly, the Wright story was pretty low profile, until it simply couldn’t be ignored. Obama dealt with it very poorly, I though: claiming his ancient grandmother was a racist to deflect blame from Wright, and then cutting Wright loose as more came out about him.

The trouble is: even without much hostile liberal press comment on these sorts of stories, they play incredibly badly with ordinary voters. They really hit Obama hard, for the reasons I’ve mentioned.

You’re probably right that these sorts of stories won’t be widely commented on in the press for some time, which itself is worrying. Can you imagine, for example, how much air time would be devoted to a John McCain website which praised the KKK, or which was filled with wild claims about black people, or which called for the creation of a fascist state, or what have you?

But the Wright saga does show that, when they break surface, these stories are incredibly damaging. Obama has GOT to do something to protect himself from this sort of thing.

There are a lot of Democrats relieved that Hillary didn’t get the nomination as a whole slew of sex and cash scandals surrounding Bill were about to “blow”

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/07/clinton200807

There are also constant rumours surrounding a tape of Michelle Obama.

As David T says, these stories are very toxic to Obama in particular due to the type of politician he is running as – “post-everything”.

If these association had come out before super Tuesday, the consensus is there is no way he would have beaten Hillary. As it is, it just crept across the finish line.

Fortunately for him, though, the situation for the Republicans this year is so bad, and McCain is so laid back and old and unable to launch the time of assault that would be needed to make hay with this stuff, that it is unlikely to stop Obama.

Tim, Vannity Fair is known for that type of thing. I don’t think it had anything to do with anything. The super delegates would have handed it to Obama even if Obama confessed to being an Islamist.

The establishment love him; the poor love Hillary.

They really hit Obama hard, for the reasons I’ve mentioned.

Obama should stick to the real issues of the economy, jobs and health care, the environment, and all those fundamental concerns. Those issues favour the Democrats. Yes, the right wing will throw all sorts of crap at him. But if he sticks to the fundamentals he will win. McCain has no real strengths apart from his so called foreign policy strengths; but thats a very risky card to play.

McCain’s greatest problem is that he will die in office.

The Michele Obama tape rumour is almost certainly false.

Benji, you’re talking about how you view it, not how these things could go down with the American people; key demographics in key states.

Liberal Hong Kong elitists like yourself won’t have a vote.

‘I think the general level of killing, maiming and general mayhem and distress continues whomever is in the White House.’

Thanks for that insightful comment, Benji. I assume your subscriptions to the ‘Morning Star’ and ‘Socialist Worker’ won’t be expiring any time soon.

“the poor love Hillary.”

The white poor Mike.
And low level of education seems to be the primary signifier.

The Michele Obama tape rumour is almost certainly false

The fact that it still hasn’t turned up tells us it either doesn’t exist, or that those evil Republicans have captured it, put in a vault, and are sitting on it until October… then… BOOM!

I’ll leave you to judge which is more likely.

McCain has the black poor vote locked up.

The white poor Mike.

And Hispanics.

Mel’s gone a little, well, mad(der than usual). I’ve never seen so many what-ifs strung together to reach a conclusion.

My favourite part is how she suggests that Obama has somehow secretly contacted the Muslim world to reassure them that he hasn’t converted, without the non-Muslim world knowing. Perhaps they have their own secret SMS network.

P.

I assume your subscriptions to the ‘Morning Star’ and ‘Socialist Worker’ won’t be expiring any time soon.

The only subscription I have is to Private Eye. I was just questioning your bizarre notion that Bush/McCain have stemmed (or will stem) killing and mayhem in the world, genocide or “international disasters”, compared to other presidents.

Is this the bit you are referring to Paul?

in the eyes of the Muslim world, Obama remains a Muslim regardless of what religion he now professes because he was born to a Muslim father. By his own admission (of Christianity) therefore, he is a Muslim apostate – a status regarded by the Muslim world as a sin to be punished by death… this would put his life in danger and undermine his initiatives towards the Muslim world. But surely the more significant point is that much of that Muslim world has actually embraced him. Indeed the Muslim Brothers of Hamas – who most certainly would regard any Muslim apostate as someone to be eliminated – actually came out publicly in support of him

That is insane.

Fair point MarkT.
The Hispanic/Black thing in US politics always baffles me,any sources anyone?

Liberal Hong Kong elitists like yourself

I do my best, mate.

But c’mon, at least Obama is nouveau riche.

Clinton, Bush, McCain are old money.
Except McCain’s old money is not actually his; it’s his wife’s.

Well, on the one hand I think there is a lot of building conspiracy theories going on to discredit Obama

(one would expect nothing less of Melanie Phillips or the sort of people who associate themselves with LGF: distasteful, disgusting, self-obsessed psychopathic paranoia being the order of the day, along with much vaguely McCarthyite attempts to insinuate guilt by association, whether direct or more remote)

I also strongly distrust and dislike Hillary Clinton (and never thought highly of Bill either: all surface, little substance, limited moral principles), and am absolutely delighted that she is out of the race (out of public life would be better still, but I fear that is yet to come)

On the other hand, it is quite true that by being of such limited experience, and being vague, woefully naive, and having had a campaign that in large part has constituted vacuous emoting about “change”, it is easy to see that Obama’s campaign has set itself up to be jumped upon by allcomers (this is rather more serious than the mismanagement of a web 2.0 type social-networking campaign feature – which, when all is said and done, is pretty much a triviality – albeit one that ought not to have occured)

In any case, it is perfectly clear, regardless even of lack of experience, that he is not of the calibre of president, and has not the capability to make the decisions in international affairs required of the most powerful temporal leader in the world – the description of him as “virtual candidate, emptied of content, for the viewer to add their own interpretation to” sounds not unfair, unfortunately. And I despise the whole identity politics thing in the USA: she is female, he is black. So what? Are they up to the job is the only question that counts? And the answer for Obama is clearly that he is not. (Hilary probably would have been up to the job, conversely)

McCain it must be

Last time we had a fluffy, feel-good Democrat with no serious interest in foreign policy as president of the US, it meant a whole string of international disasters (Rwanda, Srebrenica, rise of the Taliban, etc.).

Admittedly Clinton presided over numerous disasters, but wasn’t WJC keen on taking out Milosovic and the Bosnian Serbs in 1993, only to be persuaded to hold back by the dithering British FO (I took that to be the argument of Brendan Simm’s Unfinest Hour)? And didn’t we see swathes of the Republican Party opposing NATO intervention in Kosova based on some supposed objection to bombing a Christian country?

Agreed though, that McCain is a committed internationalist and a million miles from such right-wing isolationist Republicanism.

Admittedly Clinton presided over numerous disasters, but wasn’t WJC keen on taking out Milosovic and the Bosnian Serbs in 1993, only to be persuaded to hold back by the dithering British FO (I took that to be the argument of Brendan Simm’s Unfinest Hour)?

Certainly the Americans were keen to intervene, but I can’t recall (from the book you mention) how much of that was due to Clinton, and how much was due to Dole et cetera. Must dig it out…

Of course there is also the argument that the cock-up in Somalia tied Clinton’s hands a bit when it came to foreign interventions.

Yes, Mel is as crazed as ever. The fact that she happily quotes (apparently as credible sources) LGF and Atlas Shrugs (which, if anything, is even more far out and shouty), hardly does her any favours.

Not the best of the Spectator, methinks.

Someone ask Joshua Rosenburg to make her a nice cup of tea.

pro-Republican website, Little Green Footballs

That’s certainly one way of putting it.

Another would be pro-stupidity website or pro-paranoid bullshit hate-sheet.

The fact that she happily quotes (apparently as credible sources) LGF

Certainly a far more credible source than what one finds at the Daily Kos. Can’t think which crazed beasts quote from there…

Although I haven’t sullied myself by reading it for some time, I can’t say that LGF ever struck me as being predominately “Pro-Republican” at all, in any sense. There are unpleasant people in all parties, you know.

Yer only as asmart as the crowd you run with. Justr look at the winners Obama has put on his vice -presidential selection committee. The home mortage fixer, the Presidential pardon fixer, and the American Princess.

Gene is gonna be really out of sorts when he wakes up and sees this.

Venichka:

one would expect nothing less of Melanie Phillips or the sort of people who associate themselves with LGF: distasteful, disgusting, self-obsessed psychopathic paranoia being the order of the day, along with much vaguely McCarthyite attempts to insinuate guilt by association, whether direct or more remote)</em

You may be absolutely right, but in the case all LGF did was read Obama’s official website and link what they found. Funny, but the stuff was wiped off Obama’s site as quickly as Johnson could find it over the weekend. And it was creepy creepy stuff, as you can see for yourself at LGF. Stuff about the Jew Lobby and 9-11 “Truth.”

Simms makes the point that it was “Elite Opinion” in the US that shifted both the Republicans and the Democrats on Bosnia.

‘Admittedly Clinton presided over numerous disasters, but wasn’t WJC keen on taking out Milosovic and the Bosnian Serbs in 1993, only to be persuaded to hold back by the dithering British FO (I took that to be the argument of Brendan Simm’s Unfinest Hour)?’

He didn’t take much persuading; despite initial signs that he might favour intervention to halt Serb aggression, Clinton rapidly fell in line behind the Major government’s Bosnian policy, and then struggled for as long as he could to resist Congressional pressure to intervene to protect the Bosnians – hence the US’s failure to prevent the Srebrenica massacre. Samantha Power has described this in detail in ‘A problem from hell’.

‘And didn’t we see swathes of the Republican Party opposing NATO intervention in Kosova based on some supposed objection to bombing a Christian country?’

Yes, this is true. Also, they opposed intervention in Kosova because they blindly hated Clinton. But McCain does not belong to that wing of the Republicans. In fact, I understand that the Republican right doesn’t much like him either.

In fact, I understand that the Republican right doesn’t much like him either

They hate him from what I can gather. Didn’t Anne Coulter and some other extreme right-wing commentator like Rush Limbaugh say they’d be voting Clinton over McCain? (this was before Obama won the primary of course)

But it is clear that the association with Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright was utter poison for Obama, precisely because he appears to be fundamentally good.
Who Obama or Wright, it’s not clear? To me one is an odious black racist nutter, the other merely rather Carteresque in inclination, and just plain wrong on so many issues, especially Iraq, where he wants to capitulate in the face of victory.

Clinton H was the stronger presidential candidate for the Dems, who just don’t seem to have the pragmatism of the GOP who chose their most electable candidate.

Looking past the soft Democratically sympathetic press at the numbers I don’t see Obama with much chance against Mc Cain, and he has cross over appeal for pissed of Hillary supporters and for Regan Democrat types. The moonbats will go completely apeshit and there will be headlines about Racist America.

I’m less sure about this but I don’t think Hillary will stand as VP to Obama, I think she knows she’s onto a non starter, ‘cos he’s going to loose to Mc Cain. Besides, with a Mc Cain victory she might get another crack at the top job in 4 yrs.

I can already see the GOP ads running Clinton H’s comments about Obama’s lack of presidential credentials. I’m really looking forward to seeing an Obama – Mc Cain face off.

Hitchens closed the case on Clinton and the Balkans when he described how Bill passed on meaningful action because it was interfering with the health schemes of the Mrs.

Davit T: Whether or not Obama was born into a Muslim family, or practiced the religion, or what have you, does not concern me at all.

Maybe not, but it will worry most Americans. However, you should be worried that he has categorically denied that he ever was a Muslim or ever attended a Mosque (see Mel’s article), both of which are barefaced lies, and which he will sooner of later have to explain on air. This is not a (adjectiVe overload) Mad Mel conspiracy, Venichka, it has to be answered (and how much else?). No problem for a Muslim, just use the ol’ taquiyya. Good luck with that. What is most worrying about this man is his tenuous connection to the truth, and his tendency to say whatever he thinks will get him elected. As Mel said in another article, Change we can all believe in are the umpteen changes when Obama dumps an unpopular strategy or acquaintance.

Benji: Obama should stick to the real issues of the economy, jobs and health care, the environment, and all those fundamental concerns.

He cannot do that until an even more fundamental issue – trust – is resolved. That is going to be difficult, I reckon he’s screwed. The man is a shyster – slick uplifting words (remember Elmer Gantry?), dodgy agenda, flaky values. Another Carter. Hope McCain chooses a good VP, preferably Rudy, just in case. God help America.

What is worrying about the lack of control on the Obama blogs is that it appears as if security issues were not even considered.

The other problem is that it shows some pretty freaky and fucked up individuals who support him.

Obama clearly has way more odious support than does McCain. This may be a significant problem for Obama’s election chances if the US public think his supporters are all troofers and anti-semites.

Alcuin:
No problem for a Muslim, just use the ol’ taquiyya.

But taquiyya is only sanctioned if either one is in mortal danger or in the service of bringing others to Islam. Neither apply here. The problem with Melanie P’s article is that it tries to adopt contradictory positions simultaneously – Obama is an apostate, which makes the idea of him as an undercover Muslim preposterous.

It is Obama’s naked opportunism which is most troubling, on a scale which dwarfs that even of the Clintons. The conversion to Christianity, the Jeremiah Wright business, the Rezko partnership, were all designed to improve his electibility, and as soon as this is in danger why not sell one’s church for 20 years down the river, and one’s grandmother too while one is at it? There are going to be some almighty disappointments if Obama reaches office.

Another Carter. Hope McCain chooses a good VP, preferably Rudy, just in case

In case what, McCain dies very soon?

What is most worrying about this man is his tenuous connection to the truth, and his tendency to say whatever he thinks will get him elected.

As opposed to almost every other politician in the world ever.

Try harder

old Labour: As I read Mel’s article, the point she was making is that he is either an apostate or a fifth columnist. How would we know which? Neither position is flattering or desirable in a US president. If an apostate he is in a poor position vis a vis negotiations with Muslim states, indeed his life could be in danger. If a fifth columnist, the danger for America is obvious and serious. There is no upside to this.

Obama is a sexy little mover with no cv. He comes from the most corrupt county in the States and doesn’t get the internet, two key strikes against him.

Giuliani hasn’t been in the best of health. There are also plenty of people who are not too impressed with his management of his campaign or NYC, for that matter.

Last time we had a fluffy, feel-good Democrat with no serious interest in foreign policy as president of the US, it meant a whole string of international disasters (Rwanda, Srebrenica, rise of the Taliban, etc.).

and the last time we had a ‘compassionate’ Republican supposedly interested in Middle-Eastern politics and national defence, what did we get?

oh yeah.

what did we get?

Saddam strung up.

I don’t know about you, but I think fascist dictators getting the noose by their own people is a good thing.

I think fascist dictators getting the noose by their own people is a good thing

yup that’s right, Saddam being hung is the only thing that’s happened in Iraq during George Bush’s presidency.

And the international situation is more menacing today than it was in the 1990s, particularly where Russia is concerned.

Putin is tunelling under your house, Marko.

Americans don’t have much of a choice this time ’round.

Obama is a simpleton, and whether or not he was ever a Muslim is neither here nor there; what counts is fact the guy is incompetent.

And as for McCain?

He is a moral and mental midget (my apologies to Little People) who abandoned his wife after she became disfigured in a horrific car crash.

He dumped her like a patate chaud,and took off with some wealthy tramp, and that tramp connection is what opened up all the right doors for his political career.

McCain disgusts me. His character hasn’t any content.

Obama, though, is for ‘change’

And isn’t citing ‘change’ proof of deep thought AND character content?

Obama will be putty in the hands of powerful economic cliques who will leverage his naievté to their own advantage and to nickel and dime industrious, working class Americans to death. Under Obama the ongoing transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich ( known as immigration/multiculturalism) will continue apace, as will the evisceration of america’s manufacturing sector.

Ch-ch-ch-change.

Think I’ll just go into ‘Sleeping Beauty’ mode.

Wake me up in 2012 when serious presidential candidates appear.

Look, if America really wants to discuss whether or not Obama was/is a Muslim, and other irrelevancies, then they will just become an international laughing stock. The US has big economic, social and environmental challenges, numerous serious issues facing it. So this is a complete distraction – whether the smears are directed at McCain or Obama.

I saw a debate featuring all the Republican challengers for the nomination. They were asked whether they believed in evolution or creationism – it was perfectly absurd Monty Python moment. Tales of pastors and bizarre religious chuntering are just more of those.

Is it ironic that a guilt-by-association post saying that some loons on an Obama website raises questions about the integrity of the candidate itself attracts loons convinced that Obama is some kind of closet Muslim?

Or is it, like, just kismet for linking to LGF?

Because if David T is saying that a person allowing wankers with extreme views to post on his website raises serious questions about his integrity, we’ve got a bit of a pot/kettle situation going on here, don’t we?

I’m not running for President.

And I don’t let random passers by start their own sub-blogs on this site, branded as “My David T”

To be fair, David T isn’t running for the position of the most powerful temporal leader on earth. Being in charge of a (moderately influential in certain circles) website isn’t the same as leading a state of hundreds of millions of people and with the sort of nuclear arsenal that all your neighbours in Stokey would be jealous of

‘and the last time we had a ‘compassionate’ Republican supposedly interested in Middle-Eastern politics and national defence, what did we get?’

The liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq.

The liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Liberation, Marko? When you put it in six simple words it sounds kinda neat.

clackersack – If you have a brain the size of a pea you may see a pot/kettle situation going on.

Im not aware of anyone on this blog running for the US presidency – but I would certainly expect someone like Obama and his team to be a bit more careful. Its common sense isn’t it? (whatever your brain size). In fact, that was the point of Davids article, perhaps you should re-read the final paragraph.

More generally, thanks to whoever posted the link to the Melanie Phillips article. I wouldn’t say I share her views on that much, but I can’t see a great deal wrong with what she says on Obama.

Two weeks ago the British media spent a great deal of time talking about a candidate on The Apprentice who lied/did not lie about being jewish. I would imagine that its not unreasonable for the public to be made aware of the ‘true’ religous background of someone who is hoping to become the most powerful leader in the world; and whether or not he has lied about it…..

Perhaps people should engage brains before posting comments. As opposed to just mindlessly posting the opposite of whetever is written here (still no job Benji?)

Matt

The liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq.

milosevic was removed under Clinton, wasn’t he…?

funny how on the one hand (Bush) you only look at the positive, and on the other (Clinton) you only look at the negative, isn’t it.

whoops

other people have responded to crackersnack before me.

What a lot of good people’s time wasted on such a dimwitted comment – which i assume is why he/she posted it.

M

I’m not running for President.

Right, so the point is that it’s unacceptable for Obama to lend his name to a campaign website (that he does not run himself) which attracts lunatics, but that it’s also acceptable for you to run a website (which you do run yourself) which attracts lunatics, and no comparison between the two is valid, because he’s running for president and you’re not.

Isn’t this a tad close to that “moral relativism” you’re always on about?

‘and the last time we had a ‘compassionate’ Republican supposedly interested in Middle-Eastern politics and national defence, what did we get?’

a thousand Srebrenicas

“The Hispanic/Black thing in US politics always baffles me”
As an Englishman in the US, the whole Hispanic thing alone baffles me. The idea that ‘Hispanics’ are a group is complete nonsense, the immigrants or decendents of immigrant Cubans, Guatamalians, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans and the sixth generation Americans who were on the north side of the boarder in the US/Mexican war are a single ethnic group is nuts.

Oh dear crackerthing.

I run a website. It’s about glass recycling. It attract lots of ‘lunatics’. In fact you could have a website about knitting and it would attract them too.

Its all very well using terms like “moral relativism” , but you need to get out more.

Maybe you and Benji could go into partnership…

Isn’t this a tad close to that “moral relativism” you’re always on about?

Only if you think the judgement of someone writing a blog is as important as that of the President of the United States.

You berk.

Let’s face it, if you are a 9/11 truther, anti-semitic loon, or other kind of fanatic and you have the opportunity to get your views published on the website of one of the presidential candidates you are probably going to jump at the chance. It was naive of Obama not to anticipate this but I think it’s unfair to assume that this means that his supporters are more likely to be loons. My guess is that these people would have equally attached themselves to McCain’s site given the chance.

He should remove the offending posts, disassociate himself with these views in the strongest terms and paint it as an attempt to encourage debate and freedom of speech which sadly went wrong, which is what it is. I don’t see why it should damage his election prospects if he takes the appropriate action.

It would be a shame if the election debate was sidelined by these kinds of things. Both candidates appear to be pretty straight-up guys and I think it could be an interesting battle.

I know that many of you have formed the fixed impression that Obama is just a blank canvas on which people can project whatever they want are therefore projecting whatever ideas you want, but could somebody please present evidence for all these assertions that Obama is in real trouble because of these ‘toxic’ issues. (Highlighting potential negatives is just common sense, of course).

The election is still up for grabs, but Obama is ahead in every single poll – and well outside the margin of error in most of them*. This after one of the most ruthless (and unprincipled) election winning machines has thrown all manner of dirt at him. Plus he’s got way more money than his opponent who has the additional handicaps of being prone to senior moments and representing a party which everybody hates and which in turn hates its candidate.

It’s also worth bearing in mind a significant proportion of Americans will decide on the basis of the three presidential debates. Do you really think McCain will come out of those on top?

(For what it’s worth, I think many of you are underestimating Obama simply on the basis he can make a good speech which somehow leads to the conclusion that he therefore can’t have any policies and he clearly can’t do the nuts and bolts stuff that don’t really fall within a president’s remit already. He’s already shown a degree of foresight, astuteness and ability to confront difficult issues. His post Wright speech, for instance, showed wisdom, empathy, leadership and a Blair-esque ability to wriggle out of trouble).

* Eg ahead in the electoral college vote, but with plenty to play for.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/

By ‘partnership’ i meant a job thing….

not the other thing….

not that there is anything wrong with that….

Both candidates appear to be pretty straight-up guys

might want to have a look into McCain’s voting record and his recent policy statements…

Andrew Adams – Good points.

Anyway, back to the day job ;-)

Flying Rodent

That is the point.

Barackobama.com is Barackobama’s campaign website. He might not run them himself, but his campaign does. This isn’t some third party site. His campaign hosts these blogs.

As a result of the decision to allow Obama supporters to create their own blogs, BarackObama.com now has blogs, branded as “My Barack Obama” and entitled “Change We Can Believe In”, with the tagline:

“I’m asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington. I’m asking you to believe in yours”.

And, under that rubric, capped with a picture of Barack Obama, gazing into the middle distance, there are blogs which say precisely what they believe in: ‘I’m supporting Barack Obama because I believe that 9/11 was an inside job, because I believe that Jews were behind 9/11 and are controlling America, because I support convicted Weatherman terrorists, because I support Louis Farrakhan and the Black Panthers, because I support Jemaah Islamiyah, and because I think that Iran has a right to nuclear weapons’ and so on.

To have allowed this to happen was fabulous stupidity.

I have an open comment policy. I don’t allow people to create blogs. I allow people to post comments, and argue with each other. Comments are very different from blogs. They’re part of a discussion: not a position piece.

In particular, when people post crazy or obnoxious things in comments on this site, they don’t appear under the title:

“David T asks you to support him. And that means you got to believe in your own dreams”

And, of course, none of this matters because I’m not running for political office.

No, it doesn’t have anything to do with “moral relativism”

To have allowed this to happen was fabulous stupidity.

so fabulous that it took people at least 6 months to notice its fabulousness?

I get the impression that the Republicans have been saving this up, to dump on the heads of the Dems during the campaign.

Some of this was noticed months and months ago, though – for example, the Black Panthers Party support.

Dare I also suggest that this self-evident cock-up with regard to the blogs was probably not something Obama or his top level advisors had devoted a great deal of thought. That this is the sort of silly, and easily corrected, mis-step that every candidate will make.

Junior campaign geek hired for net savvy rather than political astuteness: And finally senator we’ve got a facility that lets supporters create their own blogs on the website. (Rambles on nerdishly mentioning netroots, connecting and other such things).

Obama: Fine. (Thinks to himself ‘at least I don’t have to read the damn things’.) What’s next?

‘milosevic was removed under Clinton, wasn’t he…?’

After Clinton spent the best part of his term in office collaborating with him.

‘funny how on the one hand (Bush) you only look at the positive, and on the other (Clinton) you only look at the negative, isn’t it.’

It’s a question of degrees, mate. Clinton’s foreign policy wasn’t all bad; the liberation of East Timor was his finest hour. But overall, Bush’s foreign policy has been less bad than Clinton’s.

Likewise, McCain’s foreign policy is likely to be less bad than Obama’s. Though it doesn’t follow from this that an Obama presidency will result in the US becoming an Islamic state and sharia law being imposed on the whole world, as some might fear… :-)

But if he sticks to the fundamentals he will win.

Might also benefit him if he sticks it to the fundamentalists – or is seen to be doing as much.

No, it doesn’t have anything to do with “moral relativism”

This is excellent news. I’ll remember that the next time the subject under debate round here is whether actions can be justifiable in some situations and not in others.

Like, how sometimes it’s appropriate to pick up non-stories from wingnut hate sites and pimp them as being politically devastating to vaguely leftish candidates, and presumably there are times when it isn’t.

To have allowed this to happen was fabulous stupidity.

Internets, innit? Daft, but I’m not about to shit my Dockers or anything.

Are you seriously suggesting that this is should affect my opinion of Obama? What, if anything, can we read into Obama’s opinions or intentions from this?

Dare I also suggest that this self-evident cock-up with regard to the blogs was probably not something Obama or his top level advisors had devoted a great deal of thought.

This is all turning into the Ron Paul fiasco mark II. Just crazy anti-semite supporters, he kept telling us, nothing to do with me! Until it became clear that in actual fact it did have rather alot to do with him.

Unfortunately, it is now abundently clear where the extremists in his campaign have migrated.

Right, so the point is that it’s unacceptable for Obama to lend his name to a campaign website (that he does not run himself) which attracts lunatics, but that it’s also acceptable for you to run a website (which you do run yourself) which attracts lunatics, and no comparison between the two is valid,

Look, David T. diligently deletes comments by people who, like Calypso Louis, claim to have been abducted by UFOs.

clackersack – If you have a brain the size of a pea you may see a pot/kettle situation going on.

With clakersack it’s rather more spliff/kettle, I think.

The liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq.M.A.H.

With respect to Iraq, how is a sharia dictatorship better than a secular dictatorship?

And how does one reconcile the brutal ethno/religious cleansing of the Chaldeans, one of the worlds oldest Christian communities, with your theme of emancipation?

Only time will tell for sure, but with Iraq I fear we’ve pulled off little more than another ‘Rhodesia’.

Melanie Phillips has more to this story

Wow. I always thought the “Mad Mel” thing was a bit of a cruel joke, but she actually is batshit insane, a foaming-mouthed wingnut crackpot conspiracy theorist. Section her now before she stabs someone up.

Look, David T. diligently deletes comments by people who, like Calypso Louis, claim to have been abducted by UFOs.

I don’t. I’m quite happy to have people claim to be abducted by UFOs.

I delete spam, and I used to go through phases of deleting Benji.

My problem with Obama is that he is a serial fence-sitter. I believe he has amassed one of the worst voting records in congress/senate. I’m not nearly so bothered about his “liberal” leanings as I am that he seems to miss every important vote. It reminds me of Gordon Broon’s evasion of cameras when signing the EU treaty; or meeting the Dalai Lama for instance.

Is he an uber-ditherer? I think he is and this would be a catastrophic characteristic for the next president of the US.

It’s his persistent denials/”forgettings” etc etc that are cause for concern
Playing Devil’s advocate here, as I leaned towards Hilary, and now to McCain (like MAH, for his foreign policy but would feel different if his domestic policy affected me) ; So:

I don’t know if Ted Heath was ever asked directly if he were gay, but if he was asked I am sure he would have denied it. UK was not ready for an out gay politician, let alone a PM. So only natural to conceal it. USA not ready for a Muslim Pres, or even an ex Muslim Pres, enough of an achievement at this point to nominate a Black man? (Except that these days it is impossible to cover tracks, so shows political stupidity to try.)

On a tangential, but faintly amusing, note, the website selling official John McCain golfing merchandise also attracted a few comments.

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/20/mccain1se9.png

I wore this gear on my last golfing trip with Jack Abramoff at St Andrews in Scotland.

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/4987/mccain2qm2.png

Highly recommended! Send one to every service member you know who will be stationed in Iraq over the next hundred years or so.

http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/458/mccain3tt0.png

For the past five years I’ve been mired in sand traps. Golfing has been one long quagmire for me. I had hoped this golf pack would finally provide some needed relief, but alas I am still stuck where I was before, except now the hole is deeper. To make matters worse, my personal finances have been completely screwed up on this wasted purchase.
I thought I’d break out of my rut, but I’m still Bush league.

Needless to say, the comments have now been removed.

http://store.johnmccain.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=FDR2583

Is he an uber-ditherer? I think he is and this would be a catastrophic characteristic for the next president of the US.

A Rhetorical question? Is Jerusalem Israel’s capital, or is it not? Obama’s opportunism and fence-sitting makes Clinton look like Cardinal Ratzinger in comparison.

USA not ready for a Muslim Pres, or even an ex Muslim Pres, enough of an achievement at this point to nominate a Black man?

More importantly, the US isn’t ready to for an atheist President. And after the Pennsylvania comment about people clinging to religion, that’s what I think he is – or, at least, an agnostic. I think the Christian stuff has been a sham – and an entirely necessary one for someone with national political ambitions in the US. Polling shows that, for all that most prejudices have broken down over the past few decades, and the overhwleming majority of Americans would be willing to vote for a candidate who’s black, female, Jewish, Mormon, etc., the majority of Americans still would not be willing to vote for a candidate who is gay or an atheist. If you’re an atheist and you want to achieve national office, or any political office in much of America, you pretty much have to lie.

I saw a news report which started:

“Polls show that 10% of Americans say that they do not believe in God”

God bless America! Seriously.

God bless America! Seriously.

That sound you hear is the founding fathers rotating in their graves.

After Clinton spent the best part of his term in office collaborating with him.

Clinton clearly failed to read the HJS report on the matter – or the executive summary.

Right, so the point is that it’s unacceptable for Obama to lend his name to a campaign website (that he does not run himself) which attracts lunatics, but that it’s also acceptable for you to run a website (which you do run yourself) which attracts lunatics, and no comparison between the two is valid, because he’s running for president and you’re not.

Isn’t this a tad close to that “moral relativism” you’re always on about?

I can’t believe how stupid some people are when it comes to appreciating the difference between a blogger – one with posting rights on a website, and a commenter – one allowed to comment on said blogger’s posts.

Dodgy comments on a blog are one thing. A pain to remove but hardly the fault of the blogger. Dodgy blogposts – they define the blog. And are the responsibility of the blog-owner as his or her permission has to be given for someone to post.

Equally – Harry’s Place is a labour of love. Obama has $100 million in campaign funds ARRIVING IN THE NEXT MONTH ALONE!!!

If he can’t use some of that filthy lucre to pay moderators to check what articles get posted ON HIS OWN WEBSITE – can you trust him to spend your $$$$ correctly?

Conversely – give David T $100 million and I’m sure the trolls could be deleted from here on sight.

‘Clinton clearly failed to read the HJS report on the matter – or the executive summary.’

Indeed; I’m afraid he was following the CND line on Milosevic.

If anybody would like to give me $100 million, I’d be very happy to demonstrate what I’d do with it.

can you trust him to spend your $$$$ correctly?

Yes

For those who think Obama is all talk and no trousers, there’s some very detailed policies positions on his website…

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

David, I think you exaggerate the damage this will do to Obama’s campaign. It’s quite obvious these noxious views are not his own. Unlike McCain with Pastor Hagee (”Hitler was fulfilling God’s will”), he didn’t seek out their endorsements. His web people seem to be doing a pretty good job of removing the offending web pages and they’ll probably impose more stringent controls on the entire process. The upside of Obama’s relatively open internet presence is a tremendous amount of grassroots involvement– fundraising, organizing, etc.– by people who never have been active in politics before.

Also I wonder how many people who repeat the “Obama is an empty suit/blank slate” mantra have actually made an effort to learn anything about him– reading his books, speeches, etc. His memoir “Dreams from my Father”– written before he thought about running for President– is remarkably candid. If you don’t like his background, fine, but please don’t pretend that it’s some great mystery– at least any more so than that of other candidates.

Timothy McVeigh thought he had been micro-chipped in one of his buttock cheeks.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/susansalas (found via putting “jewish lobby” in the blog search box there)
Micro-chip Hillary healthcare?
By La Susa – Apr 1st, 2008 at 12:19 pm EDT
Also listed in: 7 groups
Dose anyone know if Hillary’s healthcare plan involves micro-chipping people as it did in the early 90’s?

The upside of Obama’s relatively open internet presence is a tremendous amount of grassroots involvement– fundraising, organizing, etc.– by people who never have been active in politics before.

That’s an excellent point, son. His campaign has fully utilised the internet and grassroots organisation. Dean’s campaign was the dry run, Obama perfected it. He’s also implementing a 50 state strategy (or something closer to one) – and that’s good for democracy even if the electoral system discourages it. Dean just happens to be chairman of the DNC too.

I also think it’s worth pointing out that if Obama’s team had had an ultra-strict approval policy for Obama blogs, the same people criticising him now for attracting nutters would be slamming him for being authoritarian and against freedom of speech

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/emmanuelwinner/gG5j3V

Please repost, email, carry the news! The truth of John McCain: Part 1:

As a Prisoner of War, McCain was subjected to the secret sexual brainwashing techinques of the Viet Cong; day and night he was subjected to male rape, until he begged for more. this sex addiction was enhanced through the use of various narcotics, especially hashish and heroin. After his spirit had thus been broken, the VC brought in an Iranian Imam who carefully educated McCain in the ways of the cult of Islamo-Marxism, which teaches an Allah-centered faith in the necessity for global revolution led by a totalitarian elite acquiring power through long-term, dedicated subversion of opponent governments like that of America. McCain released to the US thus became an embedded mole a real Manchurian candidate, doing anything, saying anything, to become President. Once he takes the oath of office, he will devastate the economy and set up a socialist dictatorship.

Michael Pugliese, I think we’ve got your point by now. I hope you are forwarding these links to the Obama web people too.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30298_Support_for_LGF_Dismay_at_Hate_Speech_at_Official_Obama_Site
Re: what is being done????? Webmaster response requested
By Kevin from Pasadena, CA Today at 5:02 am EDT

Add me to the list of donors who are down right angry at the 9/11 “trooth” and Jewish hate groups that have infiltrated Obama’s site. Why do these sorts of people always seem to gravitate to Democratic candidates!?! We had to deal with this with both Dean AND Kerry four years ago too. Some of these groups still hold weekly protests (all ten of them) here in Pasadena California. What gives?

But Obama’s site administrators are still ignoring the problem, apparently.

Barack Obama : : Change We Can Believe In | Ernest Karhu’s Blog: Obama’s Groveling Before Israel Lobby
Barack Obama : : Change We Can Believe In | Marxists/Socialists/Communists for Obama
Barack Obama : : Change We Can Believe In | Michael Morrissey’s Blog: 9/11 Truth
Barack Obama : : Change We Can Believe In | Why is this not being discussed?: Please watch these films on 9/11
Barack Obama : : Change We Can Believe In | Dylan Hudson’s Blog: 9/11 coincidences
Barack Obama : : Change We Can Believe In | Martin Perlmutter’s Blog: Bill Ayers, Great American
Barack Obama : : Change We Can Believe In | Adam Roberts’s Blog: The Nature of the Proletariat

Michael Pugliese, I think we’ve got your point by now. I hope you are forwarding these links to the Obama web people too.

Yes, I am. Some have been yanked. Others not.

Benji:

Dean’s campaign was the dry run, Obama perfected it.

Gene:

The upside of Obama’s relatively open internet presence is a tremendous amount of grassroots involvement– fundraising, organizing, etc.– by people who never have been active in politics before.

Dean’s strategy was, I think, absolutely suicidal for him personally, and really damaging to the Democrats as a mainstream party.

Quite a few of us have been involved in politics. In the UK, I held some minor posts in my ward Labour Party, and used regularly to go to branch meetings. The people who turned up to Labour Party branch meetings fell into two categories:

(a) People who were desperately keen to see a Labour victory, because they wanted to see a socially liberal welfarist party governing Britain, rather than Thatcher’s Tories.

(b) People who were utter loons in one way or another: including members of small Trotskyite sects, people who were obsessed with conspiracies, people who had bees in their bonnets about some issue or other, and so on.

One of the reasons I stopped going to Branch meetings, was because I was tired of hearing weirdos rattling on about workers control of the means of production after the coming revolution!!

All parties are like this, incidentally. The bane of Tories lives is that their ‘rank and file’ consists of people who largely want to see flogging brought back, and the “wogs” sent home.

That’s not, however, how you win an election. You win an election by realising that you’re engaged in a battle for the middle ground, and you’re out to woo the floating voter. And that means, ensuring that your party puts out policies which people can vote for, and has an image as a mainstream and sensible organisation, which can be trusted with people’s votes.

What Howard Dean did, was harnessed the ‘netroots/Kos’ lot. Instead of focussing on the concerns of ordinary, mostly not politically active Americans, the focus was skewed towards the sort of issues which exercise bloggers. The Right wing press used this to paint Dean as a weirdo.

I’m a blogger. Successful blogging is not about tacking people’s ‘real concerns’. Its about having arguments, for fun. Its about rattling on about whatever it is you’re a little fixated about: in my case, the Left and Islamists. But you’d be an utter cretin if you think that these are issues which most people know about, let alone care about, let alone will determine more than a handful of a votes in an election.

So, who has Obama managed to get involved in grassroots activism?

My hope is that he’ll reach out to sections of the population who don’t usualy vote in large numbers. I hope that he’ll get people enthusiastic about politics, who have been depressed and disillusioned. I hope that they’ll express their involvement by raising money and turning out to vote.

But, you have to accept, that some of the people who will be energised in this way and brought on board will actually be damaging to your campaign and its image. The My Obama site is absolutely LITTERED with the crazy musings of these sorts of people.

And it isn’t just the website. I was sent something a few weeks ago about one of Obama’s Campaign HQ staff, who had a Cuban flag and a picture of Che Guevara up over their desk in the Obama HQ. How does that sort of thing play, outside the scope of, erm, University dorms?!

Now, what Obama should do is:

(a) Close down MyObama so that he doesn’t look like an amateur
(b) Have proper control over what goes up on his website
(c) Make it clear that there has been a fuckup, and that he’s not in fact happy to have the support of supporters of the New Black Panther party et. al.

Dodgy comments on a blog are one thing. A pain to remove but hardly the fault of the blogger

Of course! I imagine all these comments about how Obama’s a lying Muslim must have come from people who dropped in here to buy gardening supplies.

So if a CiF thread this week fills up with screeds about how John McCain is secretly Jewish, and you can tell he’s lying when he denies it because Jews are liars (and that’s not racist, of course, since it’s in their religion or something), David T will put up a post applauding the Graun for its open comments policy.

It won’t reveal anything about the Guardian at all, nor will it reflect the deep anti-semitic hate that riddles The Left, nor will it be the fault of the original poster. In fact, everyone at HP will defend their commitment to broad-minded debate.

Aye, right – the lot of you would be banging your little wardrums like the bloody Energiser Bunny. I’d be able to hear the MORAL OUTRAGE! from the opposite end of the solar system.

Incidentally, David, it’s not necessary to launch another campaign of concern-trolling against Obama like the one you waged against Ken Livingstone. Rather than trawling through right-wing hate sites looking for mud to throw at Obama so you can declare I wish I could support him but look at the company he keeps!, why don’t you take a leaf out of Marko Attilla Hoare’s book?

Just declare John McCain to be a moderate of the new “Post Left”, (a term which seems to mean “horrible wingnuts and their sycophants”, but also implies moral superiority) and throw your weight behind him.

Really, it’d be so much easier than checking michellemalkin.com every five minutes to see if she’s found a photo of Obama holding hands with Hugo Chavez yet.

You think this helps Obama?

I think it’s utterly irrelevant and precisely the kind of inconsequential bollocks that appeals to the kind of appalling shithead that hangs out at LGF.

I also think you’ll spend the rest of the election cycle typing “Obama scandal” into Google News so that you can eventually, “reluctantly” and “with a heavy heart”, endorse McCain. You’ve got form for this kind of thing.

I “endorsed” and voted Kerry last time round.

Do you think that it is a good idea or a bad idea for a presidential candidate to allow himself to be associated with nutjobs?

Do you think that Obama will be pleased with the person who set up a system which allows racists and freaks to explain their support for Obama in terms of their belief the Cuba is a wonderful socialist paradise, that the US can learn from?

Listen mate, I lived through decades of Tory rule, during which Labour lost election after election because nutters produced manifestos supporting such wonderful ideas as unilateral nuclear disarmament, during the Cold War!!

Labour started to win elections when these strange and marginal figures were sidelined.

A strategy which brings them centre stage is a surefire way to lose an election.

Also I wonder how many people who repeat the “Obama is an empty suit/blank slate” mantra have actually made an effort to learn anything about him– reading his books, speeches, etc.

I have, and the guy’s an empty suit!

Your support for Obama is unconditional. His race appears to be all that counts.

Were Obama white, talking such nonsense and frequenting such odious white Pastor Wrights, you’d be trashing him at every turn and never missing an occasion to juxtapose his name with terms like ‘nazi’, ‘far-right’, ‘Hitler’ etc.

Your unqualified support is a real eye-opener; it isn’t the result of a thoughtful and critical reflection on Obama’s ‘ideas, nor is it the product of cautious and considered examination of the man’s track-record, rather it is merely the offspring of a teary-eyed emotionalism that is ready to forgive all, come hell or high water.

C’est du racisme ‘molle’ que vous demontre, Gene, et rien d’autre.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-furman11-2008jun11,0,2364094.story
From the Los Angeles Times
Obama’s selection of Jason Furman as economic advisor is criticized
Labor union officials and some liberal activists say Furman is too enamored of globalization and too easy on Wal-Mart.

By Tom Hamburger
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

11:02 PM PDT, June 10, 2008

WASHINGTON — Labor union officials and some liberal activists were seething Tuesday over Barack Obama’s choice of centrist economist Jason Furman as the top economic advisor for the campaign. The critics say Furman, who was appointed to the post Monday, has overstated the potential benefits of globalization, Social Security private accounts and the low prices offered by Wal-Mart — considered a corporate pariah by the labor movement.

Officials from several labor organizations phoned the Obama campaign to complain about the appointment and circulated e-mail messages containing quotes from some of Furman’s work. Campaign officials responded that some of the quotes were inaccurate or out of context. They expressed confidence in Furman’s abilities and said that Obama would be listening to an array of advisors.

The dispute is a fresh reminder that sharp divisions on economic policy remain in the Democratic Party, even though the bruising fight for its presidential nomination has ended. Those divisions are likely to present a recurring problem for Obama, especially as he tries to ward off GOP accusations that he is too liberal.

And Obama is not the first Democratic presidential candidate to confront the problem. Sen. John F. Kerry faced it in 2004. Going farther back, liberal activists resented former President Clinton’s support for free trade, deficit reduction and other centrist policies.

Furman, 37, is linked closely to Robert Rubin, a Wall Street insider and Clinton economics aide who eventually became Treasury secretary. Rubin’s views on global trade and deficit reduction riled liberal economists and labor activists, though his presence gave the Clinton administration valuable credibility in the business and financial communities.

“We are very much taken aback that Furman has been put at the head of this team,” said Marco Trbovich, a senior aide to United Steelworkers President Leo W. Gerard, whose support is considered crucial to Obama’s success in heavily unionized areas of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Minnesota and other battleground states.

Trbovich worked with Furman during Kerry’s presidential campaign, in which Furman was also an economic advisor.

“He is a very bright fellow, but he is an unalloyed cheerleader for the trade policies that have been very destructive to manufacturing jobs in this country,” Trbovich said. “There are very serious concerns” about his appointment.

Perhaps the most enraging part of the record, according to Trbovich and others, were comments attributed to Furman on Wal-Mart.

In a paper presented in Washington, he suggested that there were some economic benefits from the company’s low prices and other policies at a time when major labor unions had launched an anti-Wal-Mart campaign.

Furman worked most recently as a budget expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington heading the Hamilton Project, an economic policy research group. It was founded by Rubin, who now chairs the executive committee of Citigroup Inc.

Lori Wallach, a lawyer and leading opponent of free-trade policies, said the appointment was jarring from a policy and a political perspective.

“Furman seems like a liability, given his anti-worker writings and statements about Wal-Mart, fair trade and other middle-class issues,” said Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s global trade watch division.

An e-mail circulated among activists, scholars and senior labor officials Tuesday included quotes that Furman had offered in academic papers and media interviews in recent years.

“I hope the lesson that Democratic candidates take from this is not to bash trade and call for protectionism, but instead to call for a robust safety net,” Furman told an NPR interviewer last year.

He was also quoted in a transcript from a CNBC interview in 2006 as suggesting openness to changes in Social Security that might include private accounts and benefit cuts.

The approach he described sounded similar in some ways to that proposed at the time by President Bush. The Bush private accounts idea was anathema to labor activists, who successfully challenged the president’s initiative.

In naming Furman as economic policy director, Obama also announced that other economists, including some from the left, would informally become part of the Obama economics team.

One economist from the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, Jared Bernstein, offered praise for Furman, saying he understood why some critics were unhappy, though he thought their fears were misplaced.

“I understand the concerns, given positions he has taken” on some issues, Bernstein said. “But I am 110% certain that it will be Barack Obama — not Jason Furman or Robert Rubin — who will be setting the policies for the Obama administration.”

Although Furman has directed think-tank work on some controversial topics, Bernstein said he would be an effective campaign staff member. “If you look at his body of work, it’s quite clear that the ultimate goal is very much the same as Obama’s,” he said.

tom.hamburger@latimes.com

__._,_.___

—–The Democratic Left List—–
To post message: DemocraticLeft@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe: DemocraticLeft-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To unsubscribe: DemocraticLeft-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
To view messages on the web: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DemocraticLeft/messages

DavidT,

Pure concern-trolling I’m afraid. The prominent disclaimer – that blogs on Obama’s campaign website are not reflective of the campaign’s opinions – really should be mentioned. For what it’s worth, Obama removed the NBP blog and rejected their endorsement as long ago as March.

And John Palubiski makes me ashamed to be Catholic.

And John Palubiski makes me ashamed to be Catholic.

My comments address the utterly myopic support for a man who has no redeeming qualities as a serious politican.

I’m not filtering my opinions about B.O. through ANY religious prism.

I’m just smart enough to see through this individual’s afro veneer and in doing so have caught sight of his mediocre intellect.

Those supporting Obama do nothing more than emote. They haven’t conquered their soft racism to the extent they’d feel confident and comfortable about criticising and examining Obama, about holding him up to same high, universal standards they’d be using to judge any white-skinned candidate.

We’re at the stable and thinking about a purchase, but no one has the guts, for fear of being labelled ‘equinophobe’, to even check the horse’s teeth.

I see nothing but deux poids/deux measures operating here.

‘Certainly, Hilary was far from flawless’.

Her sense of entitlement? Her blatant appeals to racism? The sneaky little tricks her campaign team played to portray ‘Obama as a Moslem’.

She’s more than ‘far from flawless’, David. She’s a female Richard Nixon. Thank God she got battered for her campaign.

The bane of Tories lives is that their ‘rank and file’ consists of people who largely want to see flogging brought back, and the “wogs” sent home.

I’m not a Tory (although, yes, some of my close friends are!) , but that patently isn’t remotely true. (And wasn’t even quite the case during the dark years of William “is that pound in your pocket? It’s got the QUEEN’s head on! Not like the nasty foreign Euro” Hague, nor promoted above his ability IDS, nor that chap who wouldn’t answer Paxman’s questions repeatedly). Bit of a smear, that. You’d have more of a point if you’d said it with regard to UKIP, but it’d still be a clear case of overegging the pudding.

And please, the thought of John Kerry…as President? Of which country exactly? The Gambia?

I also think you’ll spend the rest of the election cycle typing “Obama scandal” into Google News so that you can eventually, “reluctantly” and “with a heavy heart”, endorse McCain.

What a silly remark to make in a comment to a post that contains the not at all ambiguous words “I want Obama to win”.

What I think this post is about is David T being concerned about the extremist stuff being posted on Obama’s site, and the possibility of it being used against him by the Republicans. The reaons I think that’s what it’s about is because that’s what the words in it say.

I would add here re: Obama and his father’s religion, that it should be a ‘Does it matter?’ matter. But sadly, it isn’t. And that two-faced little cow Hillary tried to play on that smear.

And – incidentally – Hitch had the final word on her ‘I was being sniped in Bosnia’ lies:

http://www.slate.com/id/2187780

Nothing more to be said.

I imagine all these comments about how Obama’s a lying Muslim must have come from people who dropped in here to buy gardening supplies.

Setting aside the facts that

a) David T is not running for President – he’s just a bloke from London who puts his opinions online

and

b) he allows nutjob comments, but not nutjob articles being published with his (implicit, or otherwise) approval

(why does this keep having to be spelt out to you? It’s really not that difficult to grasp)

You say – ‘All these comments’. Are you sure?

As far as I can tell, the closest we have come to comments about Obama being a ‘lying Muslim’ is one person linking to a Mad Mel article. And then I, along with 5 or 6 others, talked about how batshit insane she is.

In short – your argument is utterly hopeless.

His race appears to be all that counts.

Right back at you John boy

I think the opening of his website to all and sundry was a huge mistake. It shows lack of foresight and judgement. It was credulous and amateurish.

But it does show something else that’s interesting. There are many extreme points of view in the USA, some proponents took up blogs on the site, and others didn’t.

In general, those who did chip in were the anti-americans, truthers, islamists.

But I have not come across any takeup by, for example the Westboro (”God hates fags”) nutters, or the pro-life or pro-choice extremists.

I think this episode has allowed us to gain an insight into which nutters are drawn towards him, and which aren’t. It does matter that they think they know him, and support his stance. Some endorsements can be quite toxic, I don’t think he was helped by the enthusiasm of Hamas. And I don’t think he has been helped by the touching confidence of some pretty vile people who reckon he is ideal.

Of course there are a lot, a majority, of non-crazy non-obsessive normal people among his supporters. But they probably don’t have much to add to his agenda, so they didn’t actually flock to his blogsite. That should have been foreseen too. He has thrown his own drawbacks into stark relief.

I’d be worried about a Republican with links to the KKK

Sigh,

Why use this comparison? The KKK, historically, is a Democrat aligned organisation.

The Republicans were the party of Lincoln and civil rights, the Democrats were the party of the Confederacy, George Wallace, Jim Crow and the KKK.

“I’d be worried about a Republican with links to the KKK”

I would, too. Know any?

The only national pol I know of with Klan links is Senator Robert Byrd, a Democratic U.S. Senator.

Clacker: So if a CiF thread this week fills up with screeds about how John McCain is secretly Jewish [...] David T will put up a post applauding the Graun for its open comments policy.

CiF comments are moderated you fucking imbecile.

Senator Robert Byrd, a Democratic U.S. Senator.

President pro tem of the senate no less, third in line to the presidency.

It seems near-certain the Dems will hold the senate this time so there will be something of a fine historical irony in play there should Obama win too.

Good to see David T educating the boy Benji about the basics of politics. It will do him good.

Clackersack really is a stupid piece of work. I still don’t think he really understands what this is about.

It isn’t David T concern-trolling. If it were, he could stick up page after page of comments AND blogposts from somewhere like DailyKos and play the guilt-by-association card (and there’s some god-awful shite there). He could also post dodgy comments from the MyBO website.

He has done neither.

He has simply shown that Barrack Obama’s official website is very badly run and has allowed people who don’t reflect his views to post as if part of his team. Not clever.

It also calls into question his internet-savvyness. Yes – brilliant to increase grass-roots participation. But the moderation system clearly wasn’t very well thought out. In fact not much of the website was very well thought out.

Here’s a comment from Michael Pugliese’s MyBO blog that sums up the problem:

The problem is that the other bloggers were not monitoring this site. If you call things to somebody’s attention, yes, they will act on it. The problem was that nobody on this site bothered to call anyone’s attention to these postings until LGF started calling attention to them. LGF also exposed some of the very poor design of this web site with its wide open directories and other problems of this sort. We owe them for this. I am personally concerned that since donations are being solicited on this site and a lot of security holes were shown to exist, that the information might fall into the “wrong hands”. I am now personally nervous about handing over my credit card data here. Yes, belatedly it has been noted that a security person is going to be hired, but that hire has not yet happened and that is locking the door after the fact. It is most disconcerting that the campaign is being implemented in such a manner. There have been too many redactions of late for my comfort. If this continues, it will call into question Mr. Obama’s administrative capabilities for this me.

Quite.

Dean’s strategy was, I think, absolutely suicidal for him personally, and really damaging to the Democrats as a mainstream party.

Blimey. What is not in dispute (or shouldn’t be) is that Dean helped formulate a model of political organising and fundraising though the internet that Obama has developed skillfully. Itsa model taht is constantly refined and adapted. This view is now increasingly universally accepted.

David T sees this as threat, but the reality is Obama’s campaign (even if he fails to get the top job) will be the subject of much study of how to run a political campaign using the new technology that is available. David T focuses on the blogging aspect, much of it obscure and irrelevant, but thats just a fraction of the picture here.

David T also posits a false dichotomy between bloggers (”weirdos”) and the general public, and the utterly bizarre notion that bloggers call the shots. Utter nonsensical. Blogging is just one tool of many that can be used by any ordinary person inexpensively, and politically campaigns that harness the fundraising and communicative power of modern communications and information technology will draw benefits.

Any democrat should welcome these developments, because it gets more folk involved. David T sneers. It’s pretty inexplicable.

I don’t think the dichotomy between bloggers and the public is particularly false, and to back up my view I’d like to call no less an authority than Benji, 2 days ago:

The Decent fantasy is that Ken was defeated because folk were pissed off because of his comments about a Muslim cleric, Jews etc etc., i.e. rather obscure cultural issues that they are interested in.

Anybody who’s ever read any political blogs will be aware (a) that the issues that most motivate bloggers aren’t what most motivate the public, Israel being the most obvious example, and (b) that bloggers come across as being a bit odd, if not obsessive and/or sectionable. I don’t think it’s stretching the imagination too much to suggest that a political campaign resembling the concerns of loud, partisan bloggers is not going to resonate all that well with centrist voters.

Yes, but blogs are also just one tool in modern communications through the internet. Bloggers do not have greater influence than anyone else. This is technical argument about fundraising, publicity and organisation. It goes well beyond notions of how it plays with centrist voter, which is petty. More powerful forces are at work: it is linked to the development of the knowledge economy and the information age.

Granted, David T may not like Dean or Obama very much, but I don’t think its particularly controversial to recognise that both have been able to harness the new media to a political campaign effectively. These methods are evolving all the time. That’s kind of what democracy is partly about: participation. That’s positive. It certainly should be to democrats. Moreover, given the development of the economy and technology, the pioneering campaigns of Dean and Obama are just the first.

My point about Ken, Wardytron, was not about bloggers. I was just stating my opinion that issues related to Jews and Muslims (related to Ken) were not major factors in the campaign.

Right back at you John boy Herman

Oh! Of course!

And you’d probably vote for a honeydew melon afixed to a broom-handle if it met the expectations of your soft racism.

And white leftists who apply low-expectation standards to a presidential candidate merely because of his race are, in fact, engaging in a kind of subtle racism, a racism that assumes that because of skin-colour, the candidate in question isn’t quite up to scratch.

They are mute racists, ‘Marcel Marceau’ racists, racists who won’t utter the “N”, but who will, through their actions, enthusiastically ‘mime’ it out!

They see Obama and then set about indulging their soft bigotry by ’squinting’ at his race.

True anti-racism has, as its cornerstone, the application of fair and objective standards to all, irregardless of their skin tone.

Had Obama been white, and had he had a similar entourage and made similar comments, the left would have sprung into action and mopped the floor with him.

And just for a bit of balance ( cuz you like ‘balance’
!), I think McCain, POW that he was, is a fickle, two-faced hypocrite for having virtually abandonned his wife ( and his child) after she was disfigured in an auto accident.

My point about Ken, Wardytron, was not about bloggers. I was just stating my opinion that issues related to Jews and Muslims (related to Ken) were not major factors in the campaign.

Yes it was, it was about some very specific bloggers you term “Decents”. And you were right, they weren’t major factors in the campaign, because bloggers, including but not limited to Decents, tend to have preoccupations that are removed from the normal bread and butter issues that decide elections. Which is why candidates are sensible to preserve some distance between themselves and their more excitable web-based advocates.

I see that Mad Mel has even admitted that one of the many tidbits her article is built on is wrong:

Update: In this entry I originally included the following quote from the American Expatriate in Indonesia blog quoted above: ‘Another of Obama’s former classmates, Emirsyah Satar, now CEO of Garuda Indonesia, has been quoted as saying: At that time, he was quite religious in Islam but after marrying Michelle, he changed his religion.’ It has been pointed out to me that comments posted on that blog claimed that this was a mistranslation, and that the quote attributed to Satar was written instead by the author of the article.

P.