home

The Obama Chronicles: Coming To A Right Wing Blog Near You

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 08:57:11 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The problem the Right Wing is having with Barack Obama is that he has lived in too many different places. With Bill Clinton it was easy - "The Arkansas Project" was just waiting to happen. But putting together The Obama Chronicles (see The Clinton Chronicles) is not so easy. (To be fair, we have certainly seen a version of the "Sarah Palin Chronicles" (not to be confused with the Sarah Connor Chronicles) from the Left blogs). Notwithstanding, as Kevin Drum gathers for us, the beginnings of the makings of "The Barack Obama Chronicles" is in the works:

One: Bill Ayers really wrote Obama's book, Dreams From My Father. Two: Obama had an underage, gay affair with a pedophile. Three: It's entirely possible that Obama was involved with bombing the South African rugby team while he was at Columbia in the 80s. Four: Obama, Bill Ayers, and Jeremiah Wright (via a chain of associations too Rube Goldbergesque to summarize) were engaged in a conspiracy to teach Pan-African "cultural nationalism" to Chicago schoolkids during the 90s. Five: Obama was having an affair with one of his fundraiser babes in 2004 until Michelle found out and banished the woman to a "little Caribbean island."

They're coming . . .

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< The Polls - 10/15 | BushCo Imitates The Movies: Tenet's Get Out Of Jail Free Card On Torture >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Obama Chronicles: Coming To A Right Wing Blog Near You | 69 comments (69 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    On my night table now (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 09:00:36 AM EST
    is The Hunting of the President. So yeah, this resonates.

    Now we have to ask which major media outlets will be complicit this time.

    Ugh, get ready.

    Hunting of the President (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 09:23:24 AM EST
    One of the best, and most important, political books I've ever read.


    Parent
    Also, which Republican elected officials (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 09:39:54 AM EST
    will be complicit.  I think that is the main difference.  You don't have a Tom Delay or Dick Armey out there pushing the stuff forward in the media.

    Parent
    That reminds me.. wasn't it Armey (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 09:46:10 AM EST
    who said that Clinton should be impeached around Jan. 1993---BEFORE Clinton was even inaugurated IIRC? I have tried to find a quote before, but failed. It might have been Delay.

    Parent
    Probably so (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 10:19:15 AM EST
    I saw Armey on one of the Sunday shows recently - trying to reinvent himself as an elder statesmen.  We can't let that happen. He was among the snakiest of the snakes.

    And I forgot to name Newt Gingrich above.  Knew I was leaving someone out.

    Parent

    Impeachment (none / 0) (#17)
    by eric on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 10:03:02 AM EST
    was clearly discussed very early on.  I remember seeing "Impeach Clinton" bumper stickers as early as 1993.  The seeds were planted early.

    Parent
    just Fox I think (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 09:02:30 AM EST
    Things have changed.

    Parent
    Hope you're right (5.00 / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 09:05:32 AM EST
    Other questions arise: does Obama have a Sheffield Nelson in his past? Does Richard Mellon Scaife still have the fire in his belly?

    Parent
    This is why it was a shame. . . (5.00 / 0) (#4)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 09:06:27 AM EST
    that Kenya expelled Corsi so quickly.  If they would have imprisoned him for, say, 10 or 20 years I think it would have begun to send a message to the perpetrators of this stuff that there are consequences.

    As long as there is no downside (indeed, as long as it remains profitable) for people to do this kind of stuff they will.

    It is kinda funny (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by Steve M on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 09:18:45 AM EST
    to think of all the people who were so convinced the Republican base would never work themselves into a frenzy over Obama the way they would over Hillary.

    To be fair. . . (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 10:07:08 AM EST
    I don't think the "Republican base" has worked themselves into this frenzy -- it's a subset of the base that Rumsfeld would probably refer to as the "dead-enders".  While it's politically profitable to associate their behavior with Republicans in general it ignores a movement on the other side -- the so-called "Obamacons".  While much of Obama's margin of victory will be supplied by people who considered themselves independent before this election, a not inconsiderable amount will come from newly independent thinkers who would formerly have been considered part of the Republican base.


    Parent
    Or as Buckley said..... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 10:12:24 AM EST
    "I've spent my entire lifetime separating the right from the kooks."

    This crap is strictly for the kooks...maybe it will win McCain a few votes from Bob Barr out of Obamaphobia, but I think it might push the non-kooks towards Obama.

    Parent

    I haven't forgotten the 90s (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 10:12:54 AM EST
    when "dead enders" included most Republican members of Congress, Howell Raines, and one special prosecutor essentially hand-picked by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

    Parent
    It depends on how (none / 0) (#23)
    by eric on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 10:16:08 AM EST
    one defines "Republican Base", but I identify it this way: self-identified, ideological, I'd never vote for a Democrat type Republicans.  Those people are the base, to me.  And I would submit that a good majority of them are pretty well worked into a frenzy.

    Parent
    They wont. Cause there is frenzy and then (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by bridget on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 05:50:42 PM EST
    there is frenzy. This is nothing.

    Besides

    it's the so-called liberals and Dems who got themselves into the riproaring mindbending frenzy over Hillary's run for the Presidency. On the blogs people really went completely berserk and age is no excuse.

     Moulitsas on dkos put some oil in the fire by stating that HC wasn't even a Dem anymore and he completely ruled Hillary Clinton out as a Dem candidate for US president. His progressive" followers applauded all over the  net.

    These Obamapromoting folks are not joining in this time. Obama will be defended by all those mediafolks and liberal Clinton haters who enjoyed the Hunting of the Clintons for the last 17 years or so. And still do.

    I guess you just had to be there ....

    Parent

    I remember 1992-1993 (5.00 / 6) (#12)
    by eric on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 09:32:17 AM EST
    well.  I was in college and was completely blindsided by, almost immediately after the election, the way people began to talk about Bill Clinton.  To me, he was a compromise candidate, too moderate but at least a Democrat.  On the radio and on the bumpers of pickups, Clinton was a Communist, draft dodger, pot smoker, and, on top of it all, a stupid "bubba" from Arkansas.  A bubba that went to Yale Law School?  A free trade supporting Communist?  What?

    Reality was suspended for the right the day after the election.  They would not accept Clinton.  I think that the groundwork must have been laid early on by right-wing radio because it was so coordinated in its delusion.  Remember, the interweb wasn't even around then.  This time, it's probably going to be much worse.

    underage affair with a pedophile (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by txpublicdefender on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 10:01:19 AM EST
    Two: Obama had an underage, gay affair with a pedophile.

    The last time I checked, having an affair with a pedophile when you are underage means you were molested, and a victim of sexual abuse.  So, that's now something to attack someone with politically?  That they were a victim of child sexual abuse?  Wow.  

    I believe the illogic. .. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 10:03:31 AM EST
    that the wingers are following is that given that Obama was molested (invention on their part) he must necessarily have grown up into a molester himself.

    Parent
    Even more weirdness ... (none / 0) (#31)
    by vector on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 11:17:47 AM EST
    Some of you may remember Larry Sinclair, the guy who once claimed he had a video of Michelle Obama using the term "whitey" and other anti-white racial slurs at Rev. White's church.

    Sadly, a lot of folks on the left believed Sinclair, until he came up empty-handed, with regard to the video.

    He is now claiming that, in November 1999, he had homosexual sex with Sen. Obama.  See: http://tinyurl.com/4m3fva

    The "Obama had gay sex with Larry Sinclair" story is all over every rightist wingnut website and blogs.  Just google something like: Obama homosexual larry sinclair, and you'll find more than you ever wanted to see.

    Yuck.

    Parent

    There are two Larrys out there. (none / 0) (#35)
    by tootired on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 11:29:59 AM EST
    Sinclair is the idiot claiming to have had sex with Obama. Johnson is the one who came up empty-handed with the Whitey tape.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#39)
    by eric on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 12:47:33 PM EST
    Larry Johnson is the former CIA fellow who knew Valerie Plame and for some reason, went off the deep-end when it comes to Obama.

    Parent
    All wrong (none / 0) (#49)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 01:19:42 PM EST
    Larry Sinclair claims he had sex with Obama.  He had nothing to do with any Michelle tape.

    Larry Johnson never claimed to have a tape of Michelle or even to have seen one.  He just reported he'd heard from several GOP types who said they had.

    Please, please, please be much, much more careful with stuff like this that you get it right and don't spread false rumors out of carelessness.  If you can't remember the details of what you read, don't make it up, Google it and find out.

    Ugh.

    Parent

    Larry Johnson has been pushing (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by MKS on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 01:58:38 PM EST
    the whitey tape--he is almosst the only one....He says: I talked to four Republicans whom I trust who say they've seen the tape....He then says I am just reporting what I've been told....

    What cowardly b.s.  There is no tape and yet he pushes it--hiding behing  his "merely reporting" shtick.  He argued for Hillary and against Obama in part because of the whitey tape which he was sure did exist...and which the Republicans would publish right after the Democratic Convention.

    Larry Johnson is a pathetic, lying hack. A laughing stock.....with not one shred of credibility left, if he ever had any.

    Parent

    For Obamacans nobody is credible once someone (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by bridget on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 06:31:28 PM EST
    publicly stated his/her support for Hillary during the primary. That is the pathetic part in all of this.

    Larry Johnson is hardly a laughingstock IMO. I don't read his site but I do remember how He remained a very loyal friend to Valerie Plame and her husband. He constantly was on TV speaking out against the Bush admin and in defense of Wilson and VP. Who else did that to that degree?

    Both Valerie Plane and Wilson, formerly beloved dkos idols esp. Mr. Wilson, were ridiculed and maligned once they stated their  support for HC. All of a sudden they couldn't do anything right anymore whereas before they  spoke the truth and nothing but...

    I could go on and on and on ...

    Ah yes, There was Peter Daou who is a very credible writer with plenty of integrity IMO. I used to read his stuff on Salon. Daou was ridiculed and called all kind of names on dkos when he published his posts. Dkos folks completely lost their minds when they saw his name only because he worked for the Clinton campaign and they trollrated him nonstop. One nitwit proudly trollrated Peter and then stated that it was really meant for Bill Clinton since he didn't get any other chance do to that. Now all that was plenty pathetic.

    Moulitsas' buddy Jerome Armstrong was also oh so wrong once he decided to support HC.

    I remember digby even had to close down her comment section ... writing in defense of HC which she did "very carefully" really was the hight of courage for A bloggers during the 2008 Dem primary. And for just about everybody else.

    Member of the MSM Keith Olbermann, of course, knew how to butter his bread. He became a devoted Obamacan and was turned into the most beloved dkos hero. The MSM and the "progressive" bloggers happily all on one page. Now that closing of the circle could be called a true laughing stock were it not so terribly sad and Pathetic.

     

    Parent

    Larry Johnson is a fool (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by MKS on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 07:09:34 PM EST
    not because of his support for Valerie Plame but because he spreads false gossip.  The whitey tape is not the first time.  

    He was completely sure of various indictments in the Plame scandal that never happened....Major egg on his face there....

    And it continues....but if you think he is so great where is the whitey tape?

    Parent

    Have no idea what you are talking about (none / 0) (#68)
    by bridget on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 07:49:43 PM EST
    the last thing I waste my time, energy, and free time with  is wondering if nonsense like that exists or not. Carry on, if you must, however.

    P.S. Ah yes, false gossip spreading. And Fools!!!

     Now those are subjects I know something about cause I witnessed how the "progressive" blogs have been filled with foolish gossip. Filled to the rim. Something they learned from the rating loving MSM no doubt. The more outrageous the more successful the blogowner $$$.

    Gossip spreading ... Fools. Something for later maybe. But now my computer is turned off.  

    Parent

    Come on, Larry's just gullible. (none / 0) (#55)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 02:09:37 PM EST


    Parent
    Now look. . . (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 02:21:27 PM EST


    Parent
    Or at least a bit on the gay side............... (none / 0) (#41)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 12:56:51 PM EST
    Yuck.  Disgusting.

    Interesting that McCain has said Rev. Wright, and all the other stuff, is off limits for his campaign.  I am surprised about Rev. Wright since Obama was close to him for so many years.  

    Parent

    A poster on (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by MKS on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 12:55:59 PM EST
    RedState went further.  He said that it is common for victims of pedophilia to molest their own children.  Thus, Obama's daughters are probably being molested by Obama.  He said his daughters should be rescued.  Not one word of protest from anyone at RedState.  Very sick people over there...

    And the issue with the "pedophile" at its worst merely suggested that the teacher had sex with an underage teenage girl.....

    All vicious lies based on nothing....PUMAs should take notice that the people who bash Obama are the same nuts who bashed Hillary.

    After the election, we will have a resurgence of the Black Helicopter crowd...with Palin as their Joan of Arc....They will stockpile weapons and plan for their own little revolution....

    Parent

    Black Helicopter stuff (none / 0) (#50)
    by wasabi on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 01:30:03 PM EST
    Unfortunately alot of that "Black Helicopter" stuff came true during the Bush Administration. Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

    Parent
    Black Helicopter (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by MKS on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 01:50:02 PM EST
    referred to the genre of consipiracy nuts during the Bill Clinton administration.....People knew that black helicopters from the U.S. government or the U.N. were after them....All nonsense...The militia movement picked up steam.

    And, assuming Obama does win, (and I do), it might be good for the right wingers to contemplate how reassuring it is that restrictions against wiretapping and torture etc, have been gutted....

    I hope that Hannity and O'Reilly and Limbaugh thrive under an Obama administration--I'd rather have the nutballs venting in public than go underground....

    Parent

    It is telling (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by eric on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 02:06:23 PM EST
    how it was the right wingers that were so afraid of an overreaching government.  We now know that the reason that they were afraid is that they knew what they themselves were capable of.

    It is like the thief that keeps his own stuff under lock and key - he knows what people are capable of.  I think it is called projection.

    Parent

    Yeah.... (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 01:54:49 PM EST
    checking the skies for black helicopters is bi-partisan...I've always got me eyes open and tin-foil hat firmly strapped in place:)

    And you're right, after 20 years of Bush/Clinton/Bush, we're sounding less and less crazy everyday:)

    Parent

    FYI: The Kevin Drum article linked to above... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by magster on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 10:16:15 AM EST
    ...has links to all the rightwing internet cites for each of the five allegations -- if anyone is interested in torturing themselves.

    I don't think the Dems will lie down (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by sallywally on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 10:22:51 AM EST
    this time.

    There will be lots of litigation after the election, I think, if they think they can get away with it, but the Dems aren't going to give up like they did in 2000 and 2004.

    Gore and Kerry (especially Kerry) should never have let the Repub dirty tricks stand.

    You mean our spineless wonders (none / 0) (#33)
    by nycstray on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 11:21:07 AM EST
    are suddenly going to grow a spine?! They really seem to prefer making the Republicans happy vs standing up for Dems.

    Parent
    Oh joy............ (none / 0) (#42)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 12:58:04 PM EST
    Lots of litigation.  That will help move the country forward.  <snark>  

    (Apologies to the lawyers among us.)

    Parent

    Makes me feel slightly ill (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 10:38:09 AM EST
    Usually I can't believe human beings will sink so low.  I wish I wasn't wrong so often.

    Well the NYT front pager (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by fuzzyone on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 10:58:55 AM EST
    suggests that its not working.

    What the republicans don't seem to understand is that we are in a fundamentally different political environment.  Eight years of disastrous republican rule capped off by a the economic version of a 100 year flood has made it difficult, if not impossible, to get most voters to care about this crap.

    Rovian tactics work best (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Fabian on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 03:03:58 PM EST
    to create outrage among those who are not yet outraged.  When times are good and people are mostly content, Rovian tactics are most effective.  When times are bad and people are concerned, worried, PO'd and just plain angry about their immediate and long term futures then it's hard to catch their attention with tabloid trash.

    2006 showed that.  However, while outrage may get you into office, failing to address that outrage may sweep you back out again.  In 2010, being an incumbent may not be an advantage.  My advice to the 2009 Congress is to act like it is your last term, because it probably will be for quite a few of them.

    Parent

    Man... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 11:19:52 AM EST
    ...I sure wish I had some stock in the tin-foil hat providers.  That's got to be one of the few growth industries in this economy.  

    there's more difference, BTD (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by wystler on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 11:27:30 AM EST
    The environment has changed dramatically since the plot against Clinton was hatched. Even if financing like Scaife becomes available, and a braintrust equivalent to that which formed the Arkansas Project comes together, the new factors should provide for far more pushback.

    What new factors? In no particular order:

    1. The netroots.
    2. A broad grassroots political organization (beyond the net and beyond the scope of the machine politics that existed in the early 1990s)
    3. Progressive broadcast media on the radio.
    4. Truly astute cable media: Maddow, Colbert, Stewart, and even Olbermann.

    (aw, jeebus ... i'll probably get slammed for mentioning Keith in this context)

    It's different now. Our side is organized. The depth and breadth of liberal/progressive/moderate/conservative support for good government is massive, as compared to 1992, when Clinton rode a wave of a "Read my lips" broken promise.

    Doubt me? Look at the electoral results on Capitol Hill and in the state legislatures, and compare it to 1990, 1992 & 1994.

    Another possibility is that (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by dk on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 04:48:49 PM EST
    the mainstream media and the village decided that, this time, the Democrat is their man.  

    The pushback of the netroots at al. against the nutty wingers is fine and dandy (although, in my humble opinion at least, after the way they treated Hillary and her supporters the netroots have lost all credibility), but in reality it is still the mainstream media, guided by the village, that frames the narrative.  

    The deal, of course, is that Obama has promised the village (see health care ad, bailout bill, etc.) that he is one of them and will do what they want, i.e. keep the status quo.

    Parent

    that's my take (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Salo on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 05:10:31 PM EST
    If the media want to talk about the scandal stuff they will do so. If they want to talk about something else likewise

    Parent
    the media will pen the narrative, true enough (none / 0) (#69)
    by wystler on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 10:15:23 PM EST
    ... and that narrative will wind up seeming like a Disney-fication of what's real. We don't control them. Obama doesn't control them.

    More importantly, there's a rumbling that's afoot amongst the villagers. They're not paying so much attention to Broder, and Russert's passing has taken away one of their prime central distribution points for dissemanation of their story line.

    Better for us, Matt Sludge is losing respect (that he never deserved).

    Parent

    My guess is that that pendulum (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by KeysDan on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 12:03:46 PM EST
    has swung.  Karl Rove retired just in time, after a long and dastardly, yet effective career in slime.  Moreover, Rove's successors have not mastered the intricacies of their art and, like Brownie, are doing a heckuva job.

    Sometimes They Hear, Believe and Vote Obama Anyhow (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by daring grace on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 01:07:28 PM EST
    Ben Smith at Politico had this amazing anecdotal report from a Republican consultant. RW/Repub fatigue maybe really IS setting in in swing places...

    snip:

    "Recently, he[the Republican consultant] conducted a focus group in an upper-Midwestern state, showing them the kind of ad he thought would work: A no-holds-barred attack, cut for an independent group, which hasn't aired."

    snip:

        "Reagan Dems and Independents. Call them blue-collar plus. Slightly more Target than Walmart.

        "Yes, the spot worked. Yes, they believed the charges against Obama. Yes, they actually think he's too liberal, consorts with bad people and WON'T BE A GOOD PRESIDENT...but they STILL don't give a f***. They said right out, "He won't do anything better than McCain" but they're STILL voting for Obama.

        "The two most unreal moments of my professional life of watching focus groups:

        "54 year-old white male, voted Kerry '04, Bush '00, Dole '96, hunter, NASCAR fan...hard for Obama said: "I'm gonna hate him the minute I vote for him. He's gonna be a bad president. But I won't ever vote for another god-damn Republican. I want the government to take over all of Wall Street and bankers and the car companies and Wal-Mart run this county like we used to when Reagan was President."

        "The next was a woman, late 50s, Democrat but strongly pro-life. Loved B. and H. Clinton, loved Bush in 2000. "Well, I don't know much about this terrorist group Barack used to be in with that Weather guy but I'm sick of paying for health insurance at work and that's why I'm supporting Barack."

        "I felt like I was taking crazy pills.  I sat on the other side of the glass and realized...this really is the Apocalypse. The Seventh Seal is broken and its time for eight years of pure, delicious crazy...."

    Moron independents (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by eric on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 01:13:45 PM EST
    "I want government to take over all of Wall Street...and run this country like we used to when Reagan was President."

    It makes me want to cry.

    Parent

    Anecdotally (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by CST on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 01:18:31 PM EST
    I have noticed this as well.  People are supporting Obama in the most bizarre places.  I really don't see how he can lose when he wins the "swift boat" vote (those who will believe the worst), and the "racist" vote (I have literally heard someone refer to Obama using the n-word in the same sentance where they explain how they are voting for him).

    This, more than anything else, is proof of how badly Bush is viewed today.

    Parent

    They had their chance... (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Fabian on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 02:57:22 PM EST
    Heck, the GOP would probably be in a better position now if they had pushed to impeach Bush/Cheney.  Instead they let the White House drag the GOP brand down.  I wish I could say they got what they deserved, but I think they deserve much worse.

    Parent
    More interesting (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Lena on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 03:08:27 PM EST
    (and off topic)... about half of all die-hard Democrats I know don't even LIKE Obama. They just can't stand McCain/are devoted Dems, so they're going to vote for Obama. (and these are some pretty progressive Dems who are absolutely not thrilled with Obama). More broadly, I don't think this election is about a groundswell of support for O; it's more of a disgust with the Republican party, and Obama just happens to be the beneficiary of that. But maybe I'm just stating the obvious.

    Parent
    Just read an article (none / 0) (#5)
    by Fabian on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 09:11:18 AM EST
    about the Jerry Springer show.  The only difference between the "X Chronicles" and a Springer Show is that Jerry Springer has more evidence and a larger audience.  

    The "X Chronicles" is all about generating animosity towards a target in order to keep people from actually liking and respecting the target.  Funny thing is, I can both like a person and loathe their policies and dislike their opponent but support their opponent's policies.  The "X Chronicles" are for simple people who can't grasp complex concepts.

    BTW, (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 09:16:54 AM EST
    Obama only has one hurdle IMO: the election.

    Once he actually gets to be President, the smears will only matter to the bunker and black helicopter crowd.

    Nuh? (3.50 / 2) (#10)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 09:28:39 AM EST
    Bill Clinton got elected, twice, and it only got worse and ended you know how.  He was crippled for most of his presidency.

    Chicago politics are apparently a cesspool even in comparison to Arkansas, and Obama clearly didn't have a whole lot of scruples about his associations.

    These people do not ever give up.

    Media maybe won't be as bad on Obama personally, but man, they've gotten their teeth in this Acorn nonsense and are beating it to death, even though there's really no "there" there and they know it.  They will eventually have to find a way to compensate for their Obama adoration during the campaign.


    Parent

    I have a feeling things are different (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 09:31:57 AM EST
    this time.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#30)
    by jb64 on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 11:06:17 AM EST
    An Electoral landslide has a way of changing the landscape. Clinton was an aberration in the midst of conservative acendency. The pendulum is swinging left, a pattern that began in '06 and continues in this election.

    Parent
    I see it completely differently. (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by dk on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 04:58:25 PM EST
    The reason the mainstream media and the Village furthered the ridiculous right wing smears is exactly because Clinton was such a perceived threat to them.  Universal healthcare?  Gay rights?  Lani Guinier, etc.  These were major threats to the status quo that the mainstream media and David Broder's of the world would not tolerate.  So, the attacks of obvious lunatics on the right wing fringe were given a level of credibility by the mainstream media.

    Obama, on the other hand, has promised to keep the status quo.  No bold programs, no New Deal, no universal healthcare, no HOLC, ascendancy of the Chicago School DLCers, nothing that would rock the boat.  That (and the fact that legitimate criticisms of Obama are still, at this point, lumped in with racist fueled attacks) are the reason why he's teflon.

    Parent

    Bill Clinton was not an aberration (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by bridget on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 06:55:41 PM EST
    he was a Democrat and after 12 years of rightwing rule voters just had enough of it and they really saw and believed CHANGE coming with Bill Clinton and Gore.

    Wow! The pendulum is now swinging left? I wish!!!

    For the last eight years the country is turning rightrightright. One can practically feel it in the air. Everywhere.

     And since 2006 the political landscape is progressing RIGHT with a Porsche speed. Obama is just Status Quo. He will do nothing to turn anything left IMHO. And just in case there is a misunderstanding here, I am not happy about that at all. In fact it makes me want to weep while I type this.

    Parent

    I think so too (none / 0) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 03:50:29 PM EST
    We have some tough times ahead.  I think the people attempting to grow garbage during the Obama presidency might find themselves among people seemingly intolerant of them.  Everything we are going to have to do to make this country liveable again is going to go against the conservative doctrine. If they think they are going to run horror smear campaigns against the one person who needs to lead us all through this they may not enjoy the days and the people they wake up to much.

    Parent
    I really don't think that Obama will make (none / 0) (#43)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 01:01:02 PM EST
    the same mistakes that Bill Clinton did.  Everyone knew, long before he was elected, that Clinton was a philanderer.  What no one expected was that he would continue the behavior in the White House.  

    Obama won't be so foolish.  He won't appoint Ayers Sec of Education nor will Rev. Wright be called to the White House for prayers and guidance.  

    Parent

    How much (none / 0) (#7)
    by mg7505 on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 09:17:35 AM EST
    effect will this loud fringe actually have? It seems like only the already-Republican base listens to them. And there's evidence that slime attacks hurt McCain at least as much as they help.

    Even the republican base doesn't listen to them, (none / 0) (#44)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    According to my very republican sister.  She says it's the fringe kooks, not the 45% who will vote for McCain.  

    Parent
    Obama probably killed someone to :) (none / 0) (#15)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 09:56:55 AM EST
    Or maybe it was Michelle, given the right can't figure out which one they dislike more.

    Obama is about to "Kill" McCain. (none / 0) (#20)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 10:09:06 AM EST


    Parent
    Drums, drums in the deep (none / 0) (#26)
    by blogtopus on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 10:20:48 AM EST
    Gandalf: [reading] They have taken the bridge and the second hall. We have barred the gates but cannot hold them for long. The ground shakes, drums... drums in the deep. We cannot get out. A shadow lurks in the dark. We can not get out... they are coming.

    Yeah, get ready. We'll be stuck in the middle, the reality-wonks in between the Obama-can-do-no-wrongs and the Obama-can-do-no-rights. Wheeeeee!

    thank goodness (none / 0) (#36)
    by wystler on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 11:30:24 AM EST
    there are only a few self-deluded fools who believe they alone have a grasp of reality

    Parent
    Where are they? (none / 0) (#37)
    by blogtopus on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 12:02:26 PM EST
    You'll have to point them out; I can see them from where I stand.

    Parent
    Check out this (none / 0) (#45)
    by eric on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 01:04:52 PM EST
    petition to "Impeach Obama".  LOL.

    The Obama Chronicles: Coming To A Right Wing Blog Near You | 69 comments (69 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment