“Obama is a Black Muslim” joins “Hillary is a Bitch” and “Edwards is a Phony”: More Media Lies

[McCamy Taylor]

Those who have read my posts here and at Salon know that when Obama supporters were talking about the “divisiveness” of their opponents---divisiveness which was really caused by corporate media lies such as “Hillary is a bitch” and “Edwards is a phony”---and when they declared that their man was immune from such media attacks because of the unifying nature of his message, I warned that their candidate was going to be targeted with “Obama is a Black Muslim.”

I don’t have crystal ball, and I don’t know anyone in the mainstream media. I am a science fiction writer, and I know how hack political writers work. The corporate media was hoping to see Obama anointed as the Democratic nominee before they began their Swiftboating. But hey, they have to start somewhere. If they let him continue his messianic candidacy too long, the majority of the American people might start to like and trust him, and then it would be too late to get a smear to stick. And then where would their Republican corporate friendly nominee---McCain or Romney or Rudi---be? It took two full years to evolve Gore is a liar . Kerry is a waffler was a rush job, and Karl Rove had to resort to blatant election theft to pull off a win in 2004.

We have been seeing little hints of the Obama is a Black Muslim narrative here and there, but today the committee of media whores has issued the equivalent of their Little Red Book of Obama Lies.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=285292746454291

At the core of the Democratic front-runner's faith — whether lapsed Muslim, new Christian or some mixture of the two — is African nativism, which raises political issues of its own.

See that word Muslim ? You might want to start counting. You will see it repeated a lot.

It encourages blacks to group together and separate from the larger American society by pooling their money, patronizing black-only businesses and backing black leaders. Such racial separatism is strangely at odds with the media's portrayal of Obama as a uniter who reaches across races.

Racial separatism? Muslim? OMG! They are talking about the Nation of Islam!

Obama's "unashamedly black" church preaches the politics of black nationalism…. Wright once traveled to Libya with black supremacist Louis Farrakhan to meet with terrorist leader Muammar Qaddafi. Last year at a Chicago gala, Wright honored his old pal Farrakhan, who's fond of calling whites "blue-eyed devils," for lifetime achievement.

It comes as little surprise then that Wright would think Israel a "racist" occupier of Palestinians, while describing the 9/11 attacks as a "wake-up call" to "white America" for ignoring the concerns of "people of color."

This is not an “I told you so” that I particularly want to write, but I told you so.

Obama's older brother still lives there. Abongo "Roy" Obama is a Luo activist and a militant Muslim who argues that the black man must "liberate himself from the poisoning influences of European culture."… If Bill Clinton was America's "first black president," would Barack Hussein Obama be our first president for Africa?

Lord help us. They aren’t content to call him an American Black Muslin. Now he is a foreign Black Muslim. An anti Semitic Black Muslim. Read on.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/7688

As far as Israel is concerned, if Obama makes it to the big house, Israel is screwed. Finished. Obama's church and Jew-hating pastor, Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., makes that evident. Israel will be on its own.

Articles like this one in the Washington Post from last November helped lay the ground work for the current overt assault, with its covert “just listing the rumors that are going around” format:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/28/AR2007112802757_pf.html

"The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the U.S. from the inside out," says one of the e-mails that was posted recently on a blog at BarackObama.com, the campaign's Web site, by an Obama supporter who warned of an attempt to "Swift Boat" the candidate. "What better way to start than at the highest level, through the President of the United States, one of their own!"
Another e-mail, on a site called Snopes.com that tracks Internet rumors, starts, "Be careful, be very careful." It notes that "Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim," and that "since it is politically expedient to be a Christian when you are seeking political office in the United States, Obama joined the United Church of Christ to help purge any notion that he is still a Muslim."

Notice all the attention the mainstream media has been paying to Kenya? That has nothing to do with a newfound interest in the health and welfare of the people of Africa. No one cared about Rwanda No, the corporate press is under orders to play up the violence and political unrest, because Obama’s family is involved in one of the feuding parties. If they can accuse an Obama relative of being a murderer or a terrorist or---best of all---guilty of genocide---they can smear Obama by association.

And convince a bunch of White voters that Blacks in positions of power in the government can lead to nothing but anarchy and violence.

So, Obama supporters, heads up. These accusations are so ridiculous, you might be tempted to ignore them, but look what happened when Kerry ignored the Swiftboat Veterans for Untruth. And Edwards and Hillary supporters, I urge you to lock shoulders and denounce this latest attack, because this one is the most vicious and reprehensible of them all. Plus, Democratic candidate solidarity is the last thing that the mainstream media will expect. It will send a powerful message.

Oh, and btw, there is a new Edwards’ narrative, which I call “Edwards is a Red.” Since there is no USSR anymore, except in the imagination of Fred Thompson, this one is a waste of time, but I mention it for grins. Here is a good summary at Media Matters:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801100009


Remember, non fiction is nothing but fiction that pretends that it is true, and what the corporate press writes is the biggest lie of all.

PS Just in case anyone tries to use this article for short term political gain by claiming that Hillary supporters planted the "Obama is a Black Muslim" story or that corporations in favor of Hillary run this on-line business rag, here is what the same publication has to say about Hillary:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=285379233705712

Her public record and career is even spottier and shorter than that of her opponent, Sen. Barack Obama. He's been in public service for 11 years, including eight in the Illinois Senate before becoming the state's junior U.S. senator. She's made a lot of speeches, but has governed nowhere at any level and has led no major organizations.

So, please, do not use this as an excuse for a circular firing squad. It is us (the Dems) versus the corporate media, and none of the Democratic candidates represents the interests of the corporate elite.

That warning giving, I am going to be merciless, if anyone starts flaming any other Democratic candidate(s) in this Solidarity zone.

[OmahaBlueDog]

1. You have to admire the inventiveness of IBD

All at once, they've managed to paint him as a) a muslim (read: terrorist), a black militant (read: someone who will use his power to stick it to whitey), a socialist (read: a dirty, stinking red!), and sort of a cult member.

Senator McCarthy would be smiling if the Devil would give him a break long enough to look up.

[robbedvoter]

2. It's always the lie that pushes the most hot buttons they go with

Whoever gets into the GE, expect this amplified to the nth time.

[Generator]

3. Obama is a Muslim is a lie

the other two are opinions. You can try to argue people out of them, but it doesn't often work. I've heard many versions from many people here on DU of that. They may sometimes make me angry, but they have a right to their opinion.

Edwards is a "red" yes, that is the right wing favorite IF he gets any traction.

[Captain Hilts]

5. THANK YOU. People need to understand the difference. nt

[McCamy Taylor]

12. All three are lies. The 2nd two have been around long enough to become "Big Lies"

We have heard them repeated so often by so many sources that we have come to accept them as inevitably true. Why would so many people say something like that which was false?

This is how Germany learned to accept the lie that Jews started all wars. It sounded pretty stupid at first---like Obama is a Black Muslim. But give the MSM time. Pretty soon, some people will say "That sounds like an opinion." And "So many people are talking about it. There must be fire where there is so much smoke."

Edwards is NOT a phony and Hillary is NOT a bitch . I am sorry if this removes an advantage that the MSM seems to have conferred to other presidential candidates (not Edwards or Hillary). But I warned the others that they would not remain untouched. The MSM simply had not gotten around to them.

Maybe if Obama and Hillary had come forward and spoken up in Edwards defense when the MSM was telling the lie "Edwards in a phony" and later when they were telling the lie about the "Two Man Race", then "Hillary is a bitch" would have been harder to sell. Maybe if the three candidates had protested "Hillary is a bitch", Obama would not find the MSM so full of confidence now that it launches its latest attack. Unfortunately, we have seen each camp stand back and enjoy the temporary advantage they have been given. Hillary and Obama never challenged their front runner status, even when it was assigned at a time when Edwards lead in Iowa. It was good for their campaigns, so they did not ask themselves the difficult moral question about why the MSM objected to Edwards populist candidacy. When the MSM officially unveiled Hillary is a Bitch in November (it was actually working on it all summer)

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/94

Obama probably cheered his own good fortune. Free publicity for him.

Well, like those who did not speak up for earlier the victims of fascist oppression, Obama is now in the cross hairs of the corporate media with mo one beside him. Hillary did not put him there. Edwards did not put him there. The corporate media put him there. It is not a fun place to be.

[rfranklin]

14. Right wing nuts are sending the viral emails on this...

With the madrassa story and claiming that he is a sleeper agent for Al Qaeda. Not to mention that he has too much melanin for them as well.

[The Wizard]

17. I got one that originated from a corporation

that will go nameless for now, probably sent by an employee using the company's computer. I copied and pasted it into an email I sent to customer relations advising them I would no longer purchase their products, and that I was ready to start an Internet chain letter telling everyone to spread the word that they were a bigoted corporation intent on bringing slavery back to America.
Remember, an unemployed bigot can't contribute to Republican campaigns.

[AtomicKitten]

4. And do we remember who was responsible for the first time the "Muslim" theme hit the press?

Anyone? Buehler?

The first salvo of this bit of nastiness came to the MSM's attention via ... drumroll ... Hillary Clinton's campaign. Three of her paid midlevel staffers got caught passing it around. That is a fact.

And Clinton surrogate Bob Kerrey added this beauty: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/12/why-did-bob-ker.html

The thought of this sh*t emanating first in this election from "our" side of the aisle is revolting. And depressing. And just plain sad.

* And regarding your warning, about flaming: This isn't JUST the MSM. This is what the Democrats were feeding them. If we don't acknowledge our complicity as a party in this crap, how can we judge the other side of the aisle?

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtomicKitten]

8. We have discussed this ad nauseam.

You've got the proof; it has been provided when you and yours have issued insincere albeit kneejerk-demanded over and over again. It is your own fault you won't/can't see it.

Shame on you and your candidate for trying to muddy the waters of this most serious issue.

[creeksneakers2]

9. Lie

[AtomicKitten]

10. Calling me a liar - twice no less - is against DU rules.

But so very you and your candidate.

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/hillary_campaign_acknowledges_that_hillary_backer_passed_along_obama_madrassa_email.php
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/12/third_clinton_v.html

[McCamy Taylor]

11. Divide and Conquer! I said I was going to point this out where ever it happened in this thread.

If you want to do the Republican Party's bidding, then go join the RNC. Or go post in one of the gazillions of threads in DU where Obama posters blame Hillary for all the evils of the world and Hillary posters blame Obama supporters for all the evils of the world.

I have no sympathy for either group--or for the Freeper mole agitators who sneak in pretending to be supporters in order to fan the flames and who do their work so well that real DUers get sucked into the internal wars.

The campaign attacks which Hillary will wage against Obama and which Obama will wage against Hillary and which everyone will wage against Edwards are as spit into a gale force wind compared to what is being done at this very moment by the corporate media against all three Democrats.

And any true supporter of any of the three candidates who thinks to him or herself "Here is my chance to portray Hillary as a bitch or Obama as an unskilled campaigner or Edwards as a phony by attributing the work of the corporate media to their campaigns" does not belong in the Democratic Party.

You were warned that this rant was coming.

:grr:

[NorthCarolina]

19. You Don't Need to Join the RNC to do That, Dem's have the DLC

which is pretty much the same thing and doesn't require you to leave the Democratic Party to forward the Republican agenda.

[John Gauger]

21. It never ends.

Those that spout this nonsense clearly do not realize that they are going to have to defend against these same smears in the GE if their target wins the nomination.

[AtomicKitten]

24. Let our candidates smear each other instead!!!!

Wow, what a bankrupt way of viewing things.

Hillary's own personal "vetting" process of smearing fellow Democrats has now been accepted as normal operating procedure.

:headpalm:

[AtomicKitten]

23. And now my response:

I find your meticulous documentation doesn't jive with your resistance to hearing the very insidious mud-slinging you are addressing is coming from OUR SIDE OF THE AISLE.

It is not only against DU rules to suggest I go Republican, it is also the very worst brown shirt attitude that exists within the party.

The truth is often resisted here and in the real world by creating a strawman to burn down hoping the ruse works. Dismiss the reality and truth of what is going on at your own peril, but don't wag your finger in my face. It is rude and boorish, plus you are so wrong it makes me want to weep for the Democratic Party.

Feel free to jump on the "anything goes" HabitTrail and in the process turning a blind eye to that which reflects on our party as a whole, but don't you dare try to lay the blame for telling the truth at the feet of those trying to cut through the fog of bullshit around here.

It is that purposeful quashing of the truth that doesn't belong within the Democratic Party. Get that part straight.

[McCamy Taylor]

25. You posted here for one reason--to blame Hillary for this corporate attack against Obama.

You can deny it now, but the net result of your post was to claim that Hillary and her people are the ones who told the world "Obama may be a Muslim" and started spreading rumors about mixed loyalties for their own political gain.

There are two political strategies behind your post: one, it furthers the narrative Hillary is a bitch which members of the Obama camp or Freeper moles pretending to be members of the Obama camp, not including Obama himself have been quick to exploit, claiming that Hillary's people will resort to any evil minded wicked witch like campaign smear in their villainous quest for power. And as all professional women know, people will tolerate anything in a professional woman except callousness, coldness and bitchiness.

Two, it brings issues of race right back to the forefront, as in Obama is the issue of a racial smear being directed from the Hillary campaign, just as we head into South Carolina. Some have claimed that Hillary is responsible for bringing race into the campaign. In fact, it was Chris Matthews on Hardball who claimed that the voters of New Hampshire were racists, within hours after the vote. And as we all know, Chris Matthews only favors male candidates--and he has also been working fervently to arrange Democrats in the circular firing squad. Unfortunately, posts like yours help him.

No skilled Democratic candidate---like Hillary--would use racial divisiveness of the kind that we have seen as a campaign tool for the simple reason that the Democratic Party base consists of people of all races and socio-economic classes and genders and sexual persuasions and religions. Such politics now will only generate anger and apathy and a "I am sitting out the general election" type attitude that will be fatal for the Democrats now as it was in 1968. The Republicans know this. That is why they are spreading race baiting and gender baiting and class baiting propaganda, to split this party at the seams and tear the alliance of the disenfranchised and dispossessed apart while the corporate masters laugh all the way to the bank .

I speak of net results of your post because obviously, I have no way to see what is going on inside your head. Maybe you are politically naive. Maybe someone whose motives are those which I describe above has been feeding you disinformation. In this case, it is your responsibility as a citizen of a democracy to become informed.

Peace, but there are some distortions that can not be allowed to go unchallenged.

[AtomicKitten]

31. You are not qualified nor are in the position to make that judgment.

Your ad hoc armchair analysis of my motivation is not only wrong but moot, and it is the latter that resonates here.

My point is that that insidious nasty race-baiting originated from OUR side of the aisle. Documented. Admitted. You appear to be purposely turning a blind eye to that factoid.

While we feel all righteous railing against the GOP tactic of voter suppression and other vile tactics, there is an alarming disconnect when one of our own is using that very same tactic.

And it is clear to most long-time Democrats (and I have been a diligent worker in the Democratic Party since I first voted in the early 1970s) that the Clintons will stop at nothing, and clearly they have demonstrated and I do mean nothing, to win.

So, please feel free to harbor a different set of values and expectations for the Democrats than you do for the Republicans, keep turning a blind eye to the vile tactics including and particularly the state by state voter suppression (see my sig line) the Clintons are engaging in at the peril of the Democratic Party.

My eyes are open.

[McCamy Taylor]

32. Divide and Conquer

"Divide and conquer—that’s what they try to do to any group trying to make social change. I call it D&C. Black people are supposed to turn against Puerto Ricans. Women are supposed to turn against their mothers and mothers-in-law. We’re all supposed to compete with each other for the favors of the ruling class. - Florynce R. Kennedy


Obama supporters who get behind his message of unity are the ones who will propel him to the White House. His candidacy has the potential to neutralize the GOP "Divide and Conquer" strategy, which is the number one strategy of the RNC. (Number two is "They all do it") It saddens me when I see people falling for the same old tricks. I realize that part of what makes his campaign so attractive to young people is that it is member driven, but someone at the top needs to exert some gentle pressure on the members to keep them on message.

[AtomicKitten]

34. Right. Unless he is run over by the Clinton Machine engaging in GOP-inspired dirty tricks.

I fully support the message of Barack's campaign that you have reiterated to me, but you'll have to pardon my concern, my genuine and not DU sarcasm concern. I am appalled by what is going on now.

I apologize if I'm getting my stridency about this on you. This stuff matters, a lot; more to me than anything has in a long, long time.

This is our time now, and the direction America moves is ours to design and orchestrate. That is not only a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, it is a solemn responsibility we have in our hands on behalf of the planet.

Cheers.

[indimuse]

16. just curious...

we know he was born muslim...when did he convert to christian??/ Do you know...

[John Gauger]

20. You cannot be "born Muslim"

You can be born to parents who are Muslim, but you cannot be born Muslim. Children are not able to make their own religious decisions. You never hear about a Marxist child, a Keynesian child, or an objectivist child, because children are not developed enough to expound an economic theory. Why then do we hear of "Jewish children, Buddhist children, or Hindu children?"

[uppityperson]

33. Which "we" do you speak of since he wasn't born muslim?

[goodhue]

6. yes, indeed

and Al Gore claimed he invented the internet

[autorank]

13. Here's my issue. His 1st major foreign policy position: ATTACK Pakistan

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801
8/1/2007

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama said on Wednesday the United States must be willing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan, adopting a tough tone after a chief rival accused him of naivete in foreign policy.

Obama's stance comes amid debate in Washington over what to do about a resurgent al Qaeda and Taliban in areas of northwest Pakistan that President Pervez Musharraf has been unable to control, and concerns that new recruits are being trained there for a September 11-style attack against the United States.

Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region.

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.

-------------------

This has nothing to do with anything messianic. It's pure arrogance. We just get to go around and attack where we feel like it. In this case, we're attacking a movement that was begun by his foreign policy adviser Brzezinski to counter the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. It's settling an old grudge. It's the arrogance of not even having power - lets just talk about invading a nation.

Good luck with the adulation. This speaks volumes. It requires no interpretation. It's fairly simple.

More imperialism, more self generated hate, less rationality, and more excuses for all those FISA and other Attucks on the Constitution. The more we do to make people hate us, the more secure we need to make the nation against the blow back of that hate. Self generated self defeat.

This type of foreign policy has generated the figures on the sig line below.

We can't afford any single one of the Republican candidates, who are totally flawed with the exception of Paul's position on the war and foreign adventures. And we've got saber rattling even before the presumed inauguration.

What's this about? Fairly obvious. The same old, same old... We're "exceptional" so we can go around invading people, killing and maiming them, or simply threatening to do that.

It's totally irrational, it's dangerous, and it's unacceptable.

To wit,

From his foreign policy adviser:

http://www.counterpunch.org/brzezinski.html

Interview of Zbigniew Brzezinski Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76*

Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs <"From the Shadows">, that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

Brzezinski: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

[happygoluckytoyou]

15. divide democrats divide...

REPUBLICANS UNITE FOR THE ELECTION... AND DIVIDE THE SPOILS AFTERWARDS
DEMOCRATS DIVIDE FOR THE ELECTION... AND HAVE NOTHING TO DIVIDE

WHAT A PACK OF FOOLS WHO WOULD PARTAKE IN THIS SNIPING...

REGISTER NOW.... REGISTER YOUR KIDS.... REGISTER YOUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS....
--IF YOU DON'T CARRY LOTS OF ID.... REGISTER TO VOTE BY MAIL...CHEAP AND EASY TO DO

DEMOCRATS REMEMBER TO VOTE ON NOVEMBER 4
REPUBLICANS, DUE TO THE LARGE TURNOUT OF VOTERS EXPECTED, WILL BE VOTING ON NOVEMBER 5

AN EDWARDS/OBAMA TICKET WOULD BE THE GREATEST--BUT I'M VOTING FOR ANYONE ON THE DEM SIDE OF THE AISLE

-----ANY REPUBLICAN WHO SUPPORTED SILENTLY FROM CONGRESS THE BASTARD IN THE WHITEHOUSE SHOULD BE VOTED OUT.... WHEN YOU ARE IN THE GOVERNMENT, SILENCE IS NOT AN EXCUSE... THE DO-NOTHING CONGRESS OF 2000-2006 WAS JUST AS EVIL AS THEIR LEADERS

[NorthCarolina]

18. Funny How When It Was "Kucinich See's Aliens"

many were OK with the media's tact and even poked a bit of fun themselves. Of course now it comes down to their candidates and all of a sudden the media's tactics become an issue to be dealt with. Maybe it's too late for that now. Maybe we should have defended ALL of our candidates against media attacks, but no...as Democrats apparently it isn't the "actions by the media" itself, but rather "who the media acts against".

[McCamy Taylor]

26. Well said!

[awaysidetraveler]

22. You know, these media smear tactics might actually help the Obama campaign.

Obama faces an inordinate number of very obvious lies. However, the media has lost its credibility. It's cried wolf, or terrorist, one too many times. No one believes it. Iowa is the proof that the media refuses to talk about.

Moreover, as Obama is black, the media's discrimination against him is viewed as more vulgar. By now, it runs contrary to the American psyche to believe in such lies. So for instance, GE's growing lawsuit against Antoin Rezko (GE owns NBC, has billions in war contracts in Iraq, and billions more in Quatar oil and gas--billions to lose to an Obama presidency) appears to be just one of a vast array of lies about Obama. After looking at the indictment, checking the prosecutor and the judge, I think that NBC meant Rezko's trial as their coup.

Is the GOP any different? Well, so far we have one Huckabee win in Iowa, which we can easily credit to his perceived integrity against Romney. Now how about New Hampshire? John McCain won there again by way of his perceived integrity, no small amount of which might be credited to his work in limiting the power of lobbyists in Washington.

Real Americans want us all to be equals in freedom, and so we're offended by the media smears. It goes against the common grain, and Iowa is our proof that America is tired of media lies.

Obama's African-American heritage may even help him weather this media assault. Hollywood and the mainstream media have, for the past thirty or so years, tried to sell America on the idea of not jumping to conclusions about African-Americans. Changing their tune now makes them sound like the very racists they taught us not to trust.

[McCamy Taylor]

27. You are correct. The MSM is a big fat stinking liar, but it is full of hack writers

who do not know what the hell they are doing. Many of their smears are ridiculously transparent, poorly conceived or timed or all three. Hillary was able to strike back against Hillary is a bitch by letting a few tears fall and allowing a little quiver to creep into her voice in a state that has a high number of Irish-American voters (and therefore a lot of people who are used to seeing women actively involved in politics). Suddenly, Hillary's defining characteristic was no longer her bitchiness. It was her "she cares about people" "she empathizes with me". All that media ink down the drain. Edwards is doing a great job of showing his sincerity during the debates. No one listening to him can doubt that he really believes in his mission.

Since Obama is running a messianic anti-establishment campaign, everyone expects the force of darkness and evil to attack him. If he strikes just the right tone (as he did in the MSNBC debate) in denying accusations that call him the anti-Christ, it only increases his mythic appeal.

But the hacks in the corporate media do not realize this. George Will hurt Obama much more (in the Democratic primary) when he wrote an article praising him. It made Obama seem less like an agent of change and more like the status quo. I don't know why Rove switched tactics all of a sudden, going for a full blown racist attack (see Rove's recent speech). I think perhaps that the corporate media is afraid that they are getting too close to the general election and if they do not do something to neutralize Obama's superstar status, the public is going to see him as a new JFK, and he really will be unstoppable. However, if they try to do a rush job, they are going to look like Pontius Pilate.

One great thing about the left and the right, the right has no good writers on their side. Creative people do not want to be told what to do by rich old farts who are in it for the money. So all the Thomas Mann's and Diego Rivera's and Albert Einstein's of the world become liberals and the right wing has only Leni Riefenstal, grand high master of propaganda to admire. That means that the right wing media conspiracy is seriously handicapped by a lack of talent. On the other hand, they have a lot of cash.

[McCamy Taylor]

28. Proof that we CAN fight back: the fall of John Solomon, author of "Edwards is a phony"

This is meant to be an inspirational talk, so gather round. Everyone knows who John Solomon is. He is the former AP and WaPo writer who likes to write about land deals and money scandals of Democrats. He is the one who wrote about Edwards' hair and his hairdresser and his house and his money a year ago, making him the primary force behind the "Edwards is a phony" narrative that I posted about at DailyKos last winter (and got 6 replies) and which is now so widespread that you will see it repeated even here at DU.

Did John Solomon's career as a journalist flourish because of this work which he did for his corporate bosses?

Hell no.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/14/solomon-wash-times/

Matt Drudge is reporting that former Associated Press reporter and current Washington Post “star” John Solomon has been named the new executive editor of the conservative Washington Times. Solomon, who joined the Post little over a year ago, will “succeed Wesley Pruden, who is retiring after 25 years in The Washington Times newsroom.”

Solomon’s reporting has been heavily criticized in the blogosphere for over hyping minor stories, omitting key facts and twisting out of context the meaning of statements. Here are a few examples of the reporting ethos Solomon will be bringing to the Times:

Being the executive editor of The Moonie Times may pay well, but it means that John Solomon has been consigned to the right wing propagandista ghetto for the rest of his career as a writer. He is a laughing stock. Worse, he can no longer serve his corporate masters, because anything he writes will be stamped Lies in the eyes of readers. The Washington Times was forced to hire him, otherwise other reporters would say "We can't write your bs propaganda about the Democrats. Look at what happened to John Solomon after he wrote those smear pieces about Edwards. His career as a journalist is over, man." John Solomon got his editor job to reassure the others that they could do propaganda and there would still be work for them. However, most of them do not want to be editors at the Moonie Times. They want to work for real papers and get Pulitzer Prizes. They want to appear on Countdown with KO.

So, when you see journalists attack the Dems, attack the journalists by name . These guys have egos. They have ambitions. They want to have futures. They do not want to have to choose between Fox and nothing.

[LittleClarkie]

29. OBAMA IS BLACK!?!

Okay that's the last straw. Muslim I could deal with, but BLACK! IEEEEEE!

[McCamy Taylor]

30. Yeah, I'm waiting for the Onion to do something with this one.

:rofl: