And further down the page:Top Republican strategists are working on plans to protect the GOP from charges of racism or sexism in the general election, as they prepare for a presidential campaign against the first ever African-American or female Democratic nominee.
The Republican National Committee has commissioned polling and focus groups to determine the boundaries of attacking a minority or female candidate, according to people involved. The secretive effort underscores the enormous risk senior GOP operatives see for a party often criticized for its insensitivity to minorities in campaigns dating back to the 1960s.
The RNC project is viewed as so sensitive that those involved in the work were reluctant to discuss the findings in detail. But one Republican strategist, who asked that his name be withheld to speak candidly, said the research shows the daunting and delicate task ahead.
In other words, Republicans should expect a severe backlash if they say or do anything that smacks of politicizing race or gender. They didn’t need an expensive poll to learn that lesson, however.As we already know the attack on Senator Clinton; Whitewater, Travelgate, Rose Law Firm billing memos, the Vince Foster "murder", the cackling cold-hearted thespian who can cry on cue, and so on. So just how will they be attacking Senator Obama? We can see it here:
Sen. Barack Obama's refusal to wear an American flag lapel pin along with a photo of him not putting his hand over his heart during the National Anthem led conservatives on Internet and in the media to question his patriotism.And that's from the AP. Too bad it takes them 17 paragraphs to get to the truth:
It was at the singing of the National Anthem. Snopes has the whole story.Last summer, Obama was photographed by Time magazine at an event in Iowa standing with his hands folded during the national anthem. His primary rivals Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson appear beside him, with their hands on their hearts.
It has been repeatedly reported that the moment came during the Pledge of Allegiance, but that's not the case.
For a party that cheered the dishonest Swiftboat attacks, attacking the patriotism of a standing member of the United States Senate would not be too hard.
19 comments:
John K. says: Yah did you see Sen. Clinton in her rant at Obama. Chiding him to tell the truth and stop lying. She even mocked one of his campaign speeches. Then blamed it all on Karl Rove. LMAO LOL LOL man that is so funny.
"Shame on you Barack Obama"
Wow, it is desperation time for the Clinton campaign. Did anyone else laugh after hearing Hillary chide Obama for campaign mailers that were far far more tame (and accurate) than the stuff her campaign was saying about Obama in each of the primaries since New Hampshire? Despite what she said at the end of the last debate she is not going to bow out gracefully - she is going to go down in flames like the Hindenburg.
For a party that cheered the dishonest Swiftboat attacks, attacking the patriotism of a standing member of the United States Senate would not be too hard.
Repeat the progressive Narrative.
The Swiftboaters were lying.
The Duke 3 were rapists.
The Jena 6 were not thugs.
When the facts come out otherwise, say the "whole" story has not been reported.
Hair on the Throne:
Repeat the progressive Narrative.
The Swiftboaters were lying.
Ok, The Swiftboaters were lying
The Duke 3 were rapists.
No. What got raped at Duke was justice system thanks to a thoroughly dishonest District Attorney. However, the Duke players were not exactly angels either. See here
The Jena 6 were not thugs.
No, the real thugs were the racists who hung nooses from the tree. I suggest you do some historical research on lynching and its use as a weapon of terror from Reconstruction up through the first half of the 20th Century.
I'm constantly amazed at the way the inhabitants of Greater Wingnuttia continue to peddle the same old lies--lies that are easily debunked with a simple internet search. Conservatism is a failed ideology--as big a failure, in its own way, as Communism. Conservatives can no longer honestly debate the issues since their policies have been spectacular failures. All they have left is the same tired ad hominem attacks, lies, and fear-mongering.
Obama mailer badly criticize NAFTA. If it is so bad, you would think he will try to repeal it right? Wrong, check ABC news. He hits Clinton but won't axe NAFTA.
He send confused message on many issue. I don't know where he stand? And what he will try to do to fix the country? As long as I can't answer that question, I can't give him my vote.
Hillary is the only one with detail plan to improve NAFTA. NAFTA condition is 14 years old outdate, we need to improve it.
It's high time someone throw Obama's behavior into the open. He can't hide behind a nice speech forever. Don't be fool by the sweet taking people.
Wow a link from hacktacular Eric Boehlert and Media Matters.
Eric Boehlert's response--'Hey, I'm not defending the AP on this, just attacking the AP's attackers!
When will Media Matters address this from the Swiftvets?
"I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared -- seared -- in me."
As for the Duke email, the guy who wrote it was not one of those accused with the rape.
real thugs were the racists who hung nooses from the tree.
So that excuses the Jena 6 sucker-punching someone and kicking the crap out of him?
Jesus Luigi Christ! Isn't there a single Wingnut who is willing to denounce the absolute dreck that spews from the keyboards of people like John K, C.H., and Heir to the Throne?
Personally, I have trouble believing that they even believe themselves. They pack obvious logical flaws, arrogant ignorance, and outright lies into every post. Why? Do they think we are so stupid that we will change our minds and become as deranged as they are? Do they think that a significant number of fence-sitters are going to read their gorganzola on a liberal blog and vote their way? Are they really that impervious to reason?
Probably not. They probably do it just to piss off those of us who can think without prompting from Rush, Beck, and Dobson. We expect this kind of behavior from the brain-dead marionettes, but isn't there one real conservative who's willing to step up and call them on their ineffective attempts at rage-bound propaganda?
Apparently not. Shame.
It probably should not surprise anyone that conservatives today wish to focus attention on Swiftboat ads and Michelle Obama's thesis, and to debate whether the Duke rape case was more serious than the Duke Cunningham case, or whether the Jena 6 issue is more troubling than the revelations concerning Valerie Plame, or whether Bill Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky was more important than Jack Abramoff's relationship with most Republicans in D.C..
Because the last thing the Republicans want to direct attention to these days is substance. The falsehood-based attack of Iraq, and the botched occupation that has followed. The installation of religious kooks and hard-right ideologues to drive science out of government policy. The generation of monstrous deficits. The incompetent response to Hurricane Katrina. The failure to kill or apprehend Osama bin Laden. The use of un-American shortcuts such as torture and kidnapping and warrantless surveillance because the people in positions of authority at the Justice Department and the White House weren't up to the job of safeguarding our country in compliance with the Constitution.
Republicans brought us the "McCain has a black baby" campaign -- and they were using it intramurally, not only because they knew racism would sell in South Carolina but also because they preferred George W. Bush to John McCain for reasons that become more difficult to understand every day. There's a team you can get behind.
You keep cheering for Republicans, heir. Cheerleaders keep going even when their team is down nine touchdowns.
I don't have many arguments with you, Infinonymous. For example, it makes no sense to attempt to hang the Duke rape case and the Jena situation on progressives. Nor is there any legitimacy in completely ignoring the race-baiting tactic that lead to the Jena incident. And it requires a particularly warped sense of reality to conflate those unfortunate events with the completely fabricated swiftboat campaign.
But, you know, it's unrealistic to expect rats to refrain from stealing candy or to expect baboons to refrain from public masturbation.
The thing that astonishes is the fact there are one or two conservatives out there who possess a smidgen of self-respect (obviously missing in John K's amusing little bowel movements), of common sense (seldom found in C.H.'s immature and cynical posts), of conscience (notably lacking in HTTT's angry, twisted rants). If a sensible rightish person were to condemn the hateful antics of the clowns who claim to represent the conservative positiion, it would redound to the benefit of both the person and the position.
Even the best of the conservatives seem to be perfectly content to be considered in the same light as the most ludicrous, mouth-breathing troglo-rights.
Hey, I get the let's not say that Obama wasn't heart in hand for the Pledge b/c it was the national anthem, but the protocol for the national anthem is to stand, no hat, and face the flag with your hand on your heart. see protocol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star-Spangled_Banner
When will Media Matters address this from the Swiftvets?
What bullshit! What you're demanding, mein herr, is that someone prove a lie is false. The burden of proof is on the Swifties and their Wingnut supporters like you and you have all failed miserably. But then, as Stephen Colbert has noted, facts have a liberal bias.
I have yet to hear of one Wingnut with the guts to admit the Swifties were nothing but a bunch of lying partisan scumbags and I'm not holding my breath until it happens.
At sporting events, the percentage of attendees who stand, face the flag and place hand over heart approximates 25.
Whether this is attributable to a regrettable lack of awareness or respect, a less-regrettable discarding of formality, a despicable series of events that have made America less prideworthy, or some other factor, I'm not sure.
But I don't see this issue controlling the election.
Sen. Obama, on one occasion we know of, disregarded the protocol concerning conduct during the national anthem. That strikes me as less important than disregarding our protocols regarding torture, warrants, habeus corpus, refraining from attacking the wrong country, and the like.
In general, unless Sen. Obama changes course and becomes a fan of sending Americans to die and kill for nothing in Iraq, I expect his campaign to be fine.
The Swiftboaters can't all be wrong. Kerry would have made Bush look like JKK/FDR/Reagan all rolled into one.
My Blog (www.thecandidacy.com)
Obama mailer badly criticize NAFTA. If it is so bad, you would think he will try to repeal it right? Wrong, check ABC news. He hits Clinton but won't axe NAFTA.
IIRC, Dennis Kucinich was the only Democratic Presidential candidate this cycle to publicly state he would cancel NAFTA.
Over at Salon, Andrew Leonard has a good overview of both candidates on trade issues. Among other things, he found that their voting records on trade issues were identical.
Though I am still undecided between the two candidates (I was a John Edwards supporter), I think Hillary's stated positions on trade are (slightly) more progressive than Obama's which, in my view, is a point in her favor.
What the hell is wrong with you people? Hand on the heart during the "pledge"? Not wearing a flag pin? This is how we judge people's character?
For my part, I find the wearing of these pins a stupid, mindless bit of political and patriotic grandstanding, done by weak-minded political opportunists who think their sartorial display matters in some deep and abiding way...when in reality, it is nothing more than a shameless plug for their own vacuousness.
Perhaps this is why Obama is doing so well, because I'm not the only one who can see through this transparent pseudo-patriotic blather to a deeper truth.
Obama is no saint. None of the candidates are. And, in fact, I don't want a saint as President. I want someone to be a leader. And my leader doesn't have to wear anything particular in their label just to prove their bona fides.
Piltdown Man
What the hell is wrong with you people? Hand on the heart during the "pledge"? Not wearing a flag pin? This is how we judge people's character?
For my part, I find the wearing of these pins a stupid, mindless bit of political and patriotic grandstanding, done by weak-minded political opportunists who think their sartorial display matters in some deep and abiding way...when in reality, it is nothing more than a shameless plug for their own vacuousness.
Hear hear! In the Bizarro World that is the Conservative mindset, wearing an American flag lapel pin and putting a magnetic ribbon on your car is patriotic (even when the lapel pin and magnetic ribbon are made in China) but standing up for the Constitution (aside from a narrow interpretation of the Second Amendment) is not.
"Sen. Obama, on one occasion we know of, disregarded the protocol concerning conduct during the national anthem."
I thought the only protocol was to remove your hat while standing for the national anthem? I don't recall ever placing my hand over my heart during the national anthem at football or hockey games - I guess that means I'm not patriotic.
, it makes no sense to attempt to hang the Duke rape case and the Jena situation on progressives.
You do not listen to Lynn Cullen or read fem-blogs (Firedoglake/Pandagon) do you.
They harped on both of those subjects.
And F&B dave, your link does not address the Kerry's "Christmas in Cambodia" gaffe or his Winter soldiers testimony.
Imagine your actually coming back to debate, Mein Heir. And you didn't even call me a liar this time. Getting soft? Your Neocon buddies are going to disown you.
I used to listen to Lynn, but not recently. I do check in at FDL from time to time. Let me say three things about your little screed:
-- Your characterization of their attitude is warped by your inability to perceive anything in any way that fails to feed your hatred of anyone to the right of Joseph Goebbels.
-- Lynn Cullen and Jane Hamsher hardly speak for all progressives.
-- "Harping" on a situation does not make a person, let alone a group, responsible for the situation.
Why don't you stop back when you have something sensible to say? I enjoy debating with Wingnuts who want to debate facts or opinions based on fact. So far, you're batting way below the Mendoza line where it comes to fact, but very high were it comes to unfounded insult.
Post a Comment