Intro If you haven’t read Hunter S. Thompson’s
Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail ’72 do so. While you are reading, keep in mind that Thompson wrote and published his installments for
The Rolling Stone as events were unfolding that year, so he did not know the reason for the strange, bizarre, catastrophic occurrences that befell the Democratic Party. Whenever he sensed that anything was wrong, he blamed it on Humphrey—-the way that Pat Buchanan, Dick Nixon and CREEP wanted him to.
From Pat Buchanan’s dirty trick handbook, strategy number one:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/stories/buchananmemo.htm The preparation of attacks on one Democrat by another
If you do not have time for that, here is a short document that lists the attacks that CREEP launched against Muskie in 1972 to force him out of the primary. Note that it includes forging documents in which he smears his opponents, uses slurs against key voting blocks. It is likely that the drug use which Thompson describes is from drugs that CREEP secretly slipped to him. CREEP did not simply make him cry. They committed a series of crimes against him that sent Segretti to jail.
http://www.woodstockjournal.com/elections.htmlHere are list of players in Nixon's 1972 campaign. Note that Karl Rove studied under Lee Atawater:
http://www.gopdirtytricks.blogspot.com/Now that you are in the proper mind frame---scared, paranoid, filled with dread because an observer as astute as the Great Doctor Gonzo could not see what was happening around him---now you can go on and read this journal.
It is easier to see what is happening this time, because Karl Rove does not think of his own ideas. He is no Pat Buchanan. He is a magpie, who thieves from others. Faced with the need to steal yet another election,
he decided to use the 1972 strategy. The plan is simple. Use dirty tricks involving his old buddies in the press to drive out the Muskie—-Edwards—and pit the McGovern---Obama and the Humphrey---Hillary---at each others throats while keeping them neck and neck, neither of them with the necessary number of delegates needed to lock up the nomination before the convention. Using the GOP machine in Florida to deprive the Democrats of Florida’s delegation was a stroke of genius, since it meant no one would have enough votes. At the convention,
the supporters of the last two candidates standing are supposed to be so infuriated by all of the dirty tricks that Rove’s operatives have played---smears against one candidate that have been attributed by the press to the opponent---that they will tear each other into a bloody pulp. The Republican nominee will find it easy to dispatch whatever is left over from the conflict.
That is what happened in 1972. That is what the RNC hopes to see happen again.
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0811,374100,374100,2.html/1In
Hillary and the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy: The strange case of conservative pundits and their love for Barack Obama Wayne Barrett records the political columnists and pundits---George Will, Bill Kristol, Rush Limbaugh among others---who, inexplicably spent much of last year lauding Obama. Why would they do that? He has been ranked the “most liberal Senator” by the
National Journal . Maybe it is just that they hate Hillary? If that is so, why did their unrelenting praise turn to criticism early this year as Obama’s star began to rise. Time after time, Barrett documents this same pattern, without drawing any conclusion, except to say that the praise by conservative pundits probably helped Obama get some Republican votes in early primaries and the recent change may help Hillary.
The pattern he describes is consistent with my theory. When Obama was down in the polls, he needed support to build him up as a contender. When he surpassed Hillary and appeared to be on the verge of winning the race before the convention---
bye, bye Brokered Democratic Convention---the right wing had to scramble to cut him back down to the size of the artificially reduced Hillary. In my journals about the biased election coverage at MSNBC you can see the same trend. The very day that Obama passed Hillary in delegates, Chris Matthews suddenly began cheering for her to make a come back.
Complicating the picture is the fact that McCain was not supposed to be the Republican nominee. Rudi was the man---until his devil’s pact with Roger Aisles was revealed. Since he had sold his soul to NewsCorp, he was suddenly unacceptable to the rest of the corporate media which sank his campaign faster than the Titanic. While Rudi was a good match up for Obama---he would not hesitate to use dirty campaign tricks to exploit Obama’s weaknesses and Rudi didn’t vote for the war either---McCain and Obama may not be the GOP’s ideal match up. McCain is not good at dirty tricks. They rebound on him. And McCain is particularly vulnerable on the war---Obama’s strongest point. Therefore, even though Rove obviously selected Obama to be his McGovern last year, this year, he may be having a little buyer’s remorse. We will have to see.
Ok, on to the good (or bad) stuff. The dirty tricks. Note. My second journal in this series will document all the really nasty stuff that people like Rush and Savage and O'Reilly have been saying. So, if that is what you are looking for, you will have to wait. This one covers the attempt to disrupt the 2008 Democratic Primary, which I consider the dirtiest trick of all. You expect your opponent to slime you in the general. You do not expect the opposition to slime you in the primary--and blame the other Democrat. But it happened in 1972, and it is happening again this year.
I. Operation Attack Obama and Blame Hillary The recipe for this dirty trick is very simple. Have some right wing tool like Bob Novak announce that he knows for a fact that Hillary Clinton has dirt on Obama. Then have some right wing propaganda site say something libelous about Obama---and claim that Hillary made them do it. Then sit back while the corporate media gives the story weeks of overblown exposure---not because they believe that there is anything wrong with Obama. Oh no! They just want to find out why Hillary is spreading these awful stories!
There is an almost mythic quality to these attacks. Or a ritual quality, like Black Magic.
Step One: The Warning:http://mediamatters.org/items/200612190010 “On the December 17 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources, San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra Saunders claimed the "Clinton machine" would sling "mud" at Obama:
SAUNDERS: I think the other thing that people are waiting for is they're wondering what kind of mud the Clinton machine is going to churn out on Barack Obama, and they're waiting to see -- for the mud fight. That's what I'm waiting to watch.”
http://mediamatters.org/items/200701030007Bay Buchanan on CNN 1-2007 makes similar “warning”
http://mediamatters.org/items/200701040011
NOVAK: Well, I think every reasonable person has to suspect. I don't have any evidence of this; I'd like to have some. It would be a very good story.
But I will tell you this, that people in the Democratic Party say that if, as he begins to really be a serious threat to Senator Clinton -- and I think Senator Obama is definitely going to run. All my sources in Illinois said that decision has been made. If he looks like he is a serious threat to her, watch out below, because the Clintons will do anything to win this nomination.
Step Two: The Smear http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Obama_2.htm Hillary's team has questions about Obama's Muslim background
Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage?
This is the question Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s camp is asking about Sen. Barack Obama.
The problem with this story is that
Insight is a Moonie owned journal, and we all know which party the Moonies support. Also, there is nothing in the article that could not have been gleaned from Obama’s own autobiographies, internet articles like this one in Salon from 2004 by Scott Turow
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/03/30/obama/index.htmlfrom 2004
The new face of the Democratic Party -- and America
Barack Obama has come to graceful terms with his mixed-race heritage. Now, as he runs for the U.S. Senate in Illinois, he's connecting with voters across the color spectrum.
By Scott Turow
His parents met as college students in 1960. His father, also named Barack Obama, was from Kenya's Luo tribe, the first African exchange student at the University of Hawaii. His mother, Anna, had gone to Hawaii from Kansas with her parents. Even in Hawaii's polyglot culture a black and white couple remained at best an oddity in 1961, when Obama was born; at the time miscegenation was still a crime in many states. Nor was Obama Sr.'s marriage welcomed in Kenya. Under those pressures, Obama's father departed when Barack was 2 to pursue his Ph.D. at Harvard, leaving his son with mother and grandparents. When Obama was 6, Anna remarried. Her new husband was Lolo, an Indonesian oil company manager, and the new family moved to Djakarta, where Obama's sister Maya was born. (Obama describes her looks as those "of a Latin queen.")
After two years in a Muslim school,
And the liberal application of lies that turned “two years in a Muslim school” into four years in a madrassa.
Note that this right wing smear piece by Debbie Schlussel appeared
before the Insight story and contained much of the same information (except that she does not turn 2 years into 4 years), making it a more likely source for the story.
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2006/12/barack_hussein.html Here is what wikipedia says about
Insight and the madrassa smear, in which the MSM kept asking the question
Is Obama a Muslim? and stating as certainty
Hillary is a Bitch who used dirty trick! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insight_(magazine)
Insight (formerly Insight on the News) is an American conservative Internet magazine owned by News World Communications, identified by Columbia Journalism Review as "the media arm of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church"
“On January 17, 2007, Insight published what would quickly come to be known among journalists and media experts as "the first anonymous smear" of the 2008 U.S. presidential election campaign, and as a "double smear" on two of its candidates.”
“Ten days after the Insight story broke, ABC News quoted Norman Ornstein of the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute saying "There's now almost a predictable process here. People have learned how to get things covered, even when they shouldn't be covered...You either start with a revelation in the Drudge Report or Insight magazine, then that gets picked up by the New York Post or The Wall Street Journal and Fox News and by the blogs, and before long there's enough noise out there and enough buzz that comes from it that everybody from The New York Times to The Washington Post to the network news broadcasts decide they have to cover it. And it doesn't matter if it's true or not."
Here is the Media Matters summary of the madrassa smear story.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200701300007 Step 3. The Phony Resolution The Corporate Press eventually backs off, admitting that the smear against Obama was a lie but leaving open the possibility that Hillary the Bitch really planted the story in the right wing site.
Here are a bunch of links you can check out if you want to be offended:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200701200003http://mediamatters.org/items/200701220002http://mediamatters.org/items/200701250001http://mediamatters.org/items/200701250006ABC Jake Tapper at it again.
On the morning of January 25, on the front page of ABC News' website, a headline read: "Madrassa Madness: Was Hillary Behind Obama Smear?" below pictures of Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY) and Barack Obama (IL), despite the fact that the article to which the headline links notes that the accusation that Clinton is responsible for the smear "remains unproven and unsubstantiated."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200701260014Excellent summary of the MSM’s attempts to paint Obama as a Muslim Terrorist—and blame Hillary the Bitch as of the end of January 2007. Pattern among reporters is to bring up the issue of his middle name or his father’s religion and then ask who is bringing it up, is it his political opponents etc.
In recent interviews, CNN host Anderson Cooper and NBC News chief White House correspondent David Gregory both asked presumptive 2008 presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) how his political "opponents" or "enemies" would attempt to use his middle name, Hussein, against him. Cooper also asked how Obama's "opponents" would use Obama's "father's religious background." Additionally, Cooper, Gregory, and CNN host Soledad O'Brien all asked Obama about the discredited smear that as a child Obama attended a madrassa -- a radical Muslim school. In their questions, Cooper, Gregory, and O'Brien did not name any of these "opponents." Indeed, by framing the questions in terms of political "opponents," they ignored the role of the media -- including CNN and MSNBC -- in promoting these story lines and, in cases, even originating them.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200702070013This story just goes on and on. It will be revived later.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200706130008It is summer and Insight is now claiming that it never said Obama attended a madrassa. It now says it was saying that
Hillary was doing research to show that he went to a madrassa and that the LA Time and the New York Sun confirmed this—but they did not.
For an excellent summary of the many right wing attacks on Obama in just the first three months of 2007, check out this Media Matters article:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703200011 In recent months, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) has been the target of attacks, smears, and innuendo throughout the media. He has been called a Muslim who attended a madrassa and has heard his Christian church in Chicago accused of having a "separatist" doctrine that "contradicts the basic tenets of Christianity"; he has been accused of lying about issues he first addressed in 1995; the media have misrepresented or ignored his past statements to accuse him of dishonesty; he has fended off baseless accusations of scandals; and he has heard playground insults mocking his name and has even listened to media figures question his racial identity.
It is a huge list. As I mention above, some of the worst mainstream media attacks have come in the form of repeated mentions of the debunked “madrassa” story which the press kept resurrecting under the pretense of asking “who wrote it”. Duh! Insight wrote it. The Moonies wrote it! It smeared both Democratic front runners very effectively. I am sure that Insight’s editors’ bosses gave them big bonuses.
II. Operation Attack Obama and Blame Hillary Redux Fall was in the air in November, 2007. Time for Bob Novak to start spouting off again.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200711200001Bob Novak wrote a column linked here
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23467 and then appeared of Fox claiming that
a neutral Democrat was told by someone in the Clinton campaign that Hillary has scandalous info on Obama but wasn’t going to release it yet. If you believe that, I have some used FEMA trailers to sell you real cheap.
From the November 19 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
STEVE DOOCY (co-host): Thanks for joining us on this Monday morning. Is Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign hiding damaging dirt about Barack Obama? A recent column got quite a reaction, even from Obama himself.
BRIAN KILMEADE (co-host): We now have an exclusive interview with the man who wrote that article, syndicated columnist and Fox News contributor Robert Novak. Bob, welcome back. Again, controversy surrounding -- surrounding one of your columns -- which is good -- using one of your sources. What did you write, and what caused such a reaction?
NOVAK: I wrote that the Clinton campaign had injected into the Democratic political bloodstream a report that they had derogatory, scandalous information about Barack Obama, but were not going to put it out because it would hurt the Democratic Party and probably hurt Senator Clinton if that information was out. But they thought my source, who is a well-known Democrat, but neutral so far, but they thought he should know about this information. I then checked with another source who is neutral and said he had heard the same thing from Clinton -- Clinton people.
This is – this is very similar to the kind of tricks that Richard Nixon used to pull, where he would say, "I know some very bad information about the Communist-supporting <1972 Democratic presidential candidate> George McGovern, but I can't put that out because it wouldn't be right, but I'm just too good of a guy." Now, what -- whether there is any such scandalous information, I don't know. But what I know is I'm confident in my sources, who I trust, were told this by Clinton people that there was such information out.
From the November 19 edition of Fox News' America's Pulse:
HILL: There is trouble on the campaign trail after a report surfaced in Robert Novak's column that said that team Hillary had some, quote, "scandalous information" on her rival, Barack Obama, but wasn't releasing it -- yet. Obama is calling on Clinton to come clean about it, but her team is denying the charge, saying Obama is falling victim to a right-wing trick.
Major Garrett is live in Knoxville, Iowa. Major, Obama's impression might leave some -- reaction, that is, might leave some with the impression that he might, perhaps, could have something to hide. I mean, if you're coming out that strongly instead of just sort of blowing it off and saying, "What is she talking about?" is that a risk?
Bob Novak is a disgrace to the name of journalist. He makes up gossip and then sits back to watch the sparks fly. What is Obama supposed to do. Novak as good as said “Obama has a skeleton in his closet.”
Actually, Obama should have confronted Novak about the story—or else ignored it as right wing divide and conquer politics. Blaming Hillary in front of the MSM was exactly the kind of response that Karl Rove and the RNC were looking for. It showed them that the Obama campaign—which had resisted the impulse to blame Hillary for the Insight smear the year before---was now primed to react the way that the McGovern campaign acted to CREEP’s dirty tricks in 1972. They would blame them all on their Democratic opponents, either out of political inexperience or paranoia—it should be noted that one Clinton volunteer had been fired for forwarding an email about Obama’s possibly Muslim ties in Iowa--- or through a short sighted opportunism since they were now in the primary season.
This signaled that it was time to start full scale operations.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200711200006CNN’s Beck changed Novak’s story—said Novak’s story came from Hillary’s campaign
He also highlighted Obama’s angry response.
Remember how I said that Insights madrassa story would never die?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/28/AR2007112802757.html?hpid=topnews ON THE DEMOCRATIC FRONT
Foes Use Obama's Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him
By Perry Bacon Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 29, 2007; Page A01
In his speeches and often on the Internet, the part of Sen. Barack Obama's biography that gets the most attention is not his race but his connections to the Muslim world.
Since declaring his candidacy for president in February, Obama, a member of a congregation of the United Church of Christ in Chicago, has had to address assertions that he is a Muslim or that he had received training in Islam in Indonesia, where he lived from ages 6 to 10. While his father was an atheist and his mother did not practice religion, Obama's stepfather did occasionally attend services at a mosque there.
Despite his denials, rumors and e-mails circulating on the Internet continue to allege that Obama (D-Ill.) is a Muslim, a "Muslim plant" in a conspiracy against America, and that, if elected president, he would take the oath of office using a Koran, rather than a Bible, as did Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), the only Muslim in Congress, when he was sworn in earlier this year.
Note the title. It bashes Hillary and Obama. This is no hit piece planted by Hillary.
Here is the Media Matters debunking of the story:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200711290005 In a November 29 front-page article on how Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) "has had to address assertions that he is a Muslim or that he had received training in Islam in Indonesia, where he lived from ages 6 to 10," Washington Post staff writer Perry Bacon Jr. reported that an "early rumor about Obama's faith came from Insight, a conservative online magazine. The Insight article said Obama had 'spent at least four years in a so-called madrassa, or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia' " . But rather than citing the investigative reports by CNN, the Associated Press, and ABC News conclusively debunking the smear, or providing his own reporting on whether the school Obama attended was, in fact, a madrassa, Bacon reported only that "Obama denied the rumor." CBSNews.com featured the Post article as the top story on its home page during the afternoon of November 29. Beneath a picture of Obama, the headline read "Obama Dogged By Muslim Rumors," with the accompanying text: "Washington Post: Foes Use Candidate's Muslim Ties To Fuel Speculation About His Faith."
Obama has been slimed again, this time near the start of the primaries. And, because of Novak and Beck, Hillary Clinton has been blamed for the slime. No doubt countless members of the left wing of the Democratic Party were convinced that the information which Hillary had was this recycled garbage from January. Since Iowa voters
hate dirty tricks, the immediate result would be to damage Hillary before the caucuses and boost Obama. The long term result would be to damage Obama in the general election by making a large number of voters familiar or comfortable with the Big Lie
Obama is Muslim Terrorist And we all know what happens when you repeat a lie often enough.
III. Operation Attack Obama and Blame Hillary Let’s Do It Again! Here is something that I will bet that few of you remember. A solid year before Billy Shaheen said a word about drugs, the Washington Post printed this smear piece about Obama around the same time that Insight was smearing him about the madrassa. It was also about the same time John Solomon was doing his
John Edwards is a phony series about the hair, house and money, so I can see how people forgot it. But I just think we ought to be clear about who actually started this campaign of innuendo culled from Obama's book about his past drug experimentation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/02/AR2007010201359.html Effect of Obama's Candor Remains to Be Seen
Senator Admitted Trying Cocaine in a Memoir Written 11 Years Ago
By Lois Romano
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 3, 2007; Page A01
Long before the national media spotlight began to shine on every twist and turn of his life's journey, Barack Obama had this to say about himself: "Junkie. Pothead. That's where I'd been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man. . . . I got high push questions of who I was out of my mind."
Snip
In the book, Obama acknowledges that he used cocaine as a high school student but rejected heroin. "Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though," he says.
That same day Same Jan 3, 2007 Fox Hannity and Colmes take the story to TV to discuss his drug use in a round about way—by claiming Hillary broke the story—without proof.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200701040011 HANNITY: Hang on a second. The Clinton-Obama -- well, but the timing is interesting, that this was highlighted. You know, the Clinton-Obama differences show up yesterday. Today, it's Obama's past can be a big issue. Why do I suspect, Bob Novak, although I have no proof whatsoever, that dirty political tricks, leaking damaging information at a time where he is ascending quite rapidly? Do you suspect that might be possible?
NOVAK: Well, I think every reasonable person has to suspect. I don't have any evidence of this; I'd like to have some. It would be a very good story.
But I will tell you this, that people in the Democratic Party say that if, as he begins to really be a serious threat to Senator Clinton -- and I think Senator Obama is definitely going to run. All my sources in Illinois said that decision has been made. If he looks like he is a serious threat to her, watch out below, because the Clintons will do anything to win this nomination.
Is this what passes for journalism in this country? “It would be a very good story.” “I don’t have any evidence.. I will run my mouth off just so I can spread rumors about Obama snorting coke and Hillary being a bitch.” As you can see, using material that was obtained from Obama’s own best selling autobiography, the MSM put together a story package that they used for another combined Obama/Hillary hit back in January, 2007.
OK, back to the fall of 2007 and primary season .
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/12/post_235.htmlThe press was on a roll. When the husband of former New Hampshire governor and U.S. Senate candidate Jeanne Shaheen, Clinton campaign New Hampshire co-chairman Billy Shaheen did the unforgivable and suggested that her campaign explore his history of drug use which he described freely in his best selling autobiographies, he was swiftly booted from the campaign and his remarks were rejected as not reflecting Clinton policy.
That did not stop the MSM from seizing upon this opportunity to talk about something that they had long wanted to rant about----Obama’s history of drug use. Those who think that Clinton taught Machiavelli everything he knows will say that she did it deliberately, knowing that the press would use it as an excuse to talk about his drug history for weeks on end. However, a cunning campaigner would attribute the smear to some one else--the way that Rove is doing. And how on earth could Hillary force some one like the husband of a former governor and current senate candidate to put his wife’s political career in jeopardy by making a statement in order to play agent provocateur? A nameless campaign aid, maybe. Not Mr. Jeanne Shaheen.
Chris Tweety Matthews was the corporate whore who sprang to action to turn this isolated incident into a major offensive in the RNC’s war on the Democratic Primary. I guess he just couldn’t wait to have an “All Obama, All Coke” show during which he repeated things like “Do things go better with Coke?” and repeatedly asked guests Axelrod, Penn and Trippi to speculate about Obama’s drug use, did he sell drugs, did he share drugs. Media matters has the transcript of his interview with Penn. Matthews kept attempting to question Penn about Obama’s drug use, a topic Penn obviously did not want to discuss but which Matthews was not about to let go. Finally, instead of “drugs”, Penn says “cocaine” (Obama’s autobiography mentions cocaine) and Trippi gets mad---if you watch the interview it sort of seems like he is more mad at Matthews for making them talk about a stupid topic like Obama’s youthful drug experimentation when they could be spending the time talking about the issues.
But later, Tweety and then the whole line up at MSNBC concocts a smear that Penn came onto the show and out of nowhere, like someone suffering from a weird form of Tourettes, just blurts out “cocaine” and begins smearing Obama. Never mind that Tweety invited all three guys on the show and would let them talk about nothing but Obama and drugs. In the world according to Matthews, Penn came onto his show and introduced the Big Lie
Obama uses Drugs http://mediamatters.org/items/200712140011 Here O’Donnell participates in the Big Lie (and Media Matters explains it). Transcript of the line of questioning that Penn endured before he said the fateful word is included.
The New York Times repeated the distortion/smear against Penn
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/14/us/politics/14clinton.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=politics&adxnnlx=1205338199-dcsbT+i/GUKY+11y+mfplA&oref=sloginhttp://mediamatters.org/items/200712170004Tweety used the previous day’s drug fest and the use of the word Cocaine (twice by Penn, many more times by him) as an excuse to say the word cocaine again and again and talk about (the RNC approved Big Lies)
Obama’s drug use and
Hillary’s dirty trick. Graphic had title “Low Blow?” In this way, he was able to take what should have been a passing thing and turn it into a major issue---before Matthews was through every American was going to associate Barack Obama with “cocaine”.
This video is recommended viewing! “Matthews also further distorted Penn's remarks, claiming that Penn "says, 'Barack Obama called my candidate disingenuous, so I'll suggest he's a drug dealer. That's not exactly even-steven." But Penn never used the term "drug dealer" during the December 13 Hardball, and his reference to drugs came directly in response to Matthews' question about whether "going after his perhaps youthful drug use" is an "appropriate shot[] at the opponent or ... below the belt."’
Have your outrage handy as Matthews and Scarborough attempt a Divide and Conquer Tour du Force. Or Farce. http://mediamatters.org/items/200712220005 Summary: Chris Matthews introduced the "Hot Topic" for the December 20 edition of Hardball: "Is the Hillary Clinton campaign trying to obliterate Obama's candidacy? Not just beat it, but strangle it in the crib before there's any chance he catches on?" Matthews used imagery of Clinton murdering an infant Obama several times during the show, including saying that "the goal is to smother the young senator in his crib."
MATTHEWS:. Let's talk about this fight here. My conjecture here, which I opened the show with, was the Clintons believe they've got to stop Obama early. They want sudden infant crib death, is what they want. They want this guy to die before Iowa. And they are unleashing everybody they've got, everybody who wants -- every meal ticket they've got, everybody that wants to be a cabinet member, a VP, a staffer. They're all out there -- Bob Kerrey , Vilsack, Billy Shaheen, Mark Penn, Phil Singer.
Everybody's got a job in mind, and they're willing to put the knife in this guy in the crib to get that job. Is that too strong a language, Joe Scarborough?
JOE SCARBOROUGH (MSNBC anchor): No, it's not, because if she wins Iowa, she walks toward the nomination. The problem is, they're trying too hard. I can't help but go back -- and I know you were there, too, Chris -- in 2004 in Iowa, and you had all these people shipped in from out of state and it ended up making the Iowans just roll their eyes and toss Howard Dean to the side and go with John Kerry.
No, I think actually the person who is damaged goods right now is Hillary Clinton. If you look at the latest NBC poll, which shows that Obama does much better in general election match-ups, and Hillary's negatives are above her positives now.
MATTHEWS: Let me go to the question of tactics here. She is using things like having AFSCME -- the union, the federal, the state and county employees -- put out a letter that looked like it came from John Edwards, apparently, attacking Obama, so that she gets the knife into Obama without her fingerprints on it.
<...>
MATTHEWS: Will she continue -- Andrea, you first. Will she continue to have surrogates drop these little poison pills in the public reservoir of public opinion?
MITCHELL: Absolutely.
MATTHEWS: Hussein, Muslim, blah, blah, blah, coke, all kinds of stuff. Will they continue to drop these poisons in the water?
MITCHELL: I think it will continue to be this kind of tough, nasty campaign
You got that, right? Hillary is a
bitch. And Obama is a cokehead Muslim terrorist but he is also a baby who can not take care of himself. Of course, in the Democratic Iowa primary, all they will care about is the dirty politics that Hillary stands accused of, so this kind of talk helps prop up Obama (the Brokered Democratic Convention strategy) while softening him up for the general, where issues like drug use and religion actually matter to the voters.
Jonathan Alter also repeated the Matthews lie about how Penn brought up Obama’s drug use by saying “cocaine” on
Hardball . Matthews brought it up later when he lied that three Clinton staffers had used the word “cocaine”---only Penn used the word, and he did not bring up the subject. Shaheen who brought up the subject, did not use the word. And BET founder Robert Johnson was never a staffer, and billionaire endorsers are notoriously hard to rein in. David Schuster had the audacity to lie about it to Penn’s face in an interview.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200802070002When Tweety finally got his comeuppance no one noticed. Please watch.http://mediamatters.org/items/200801240011Tweety rambled on with his lies, talking about how the Clintons were putting Obama back in the streets. He seemed to be referring to Pat Buchanan’s theory about ghettoizing Obama (which you can read here
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/ghettoizing_barack.html but you really shouldn’t, because Buchanan is the reason we are in this mess in the first place) a nasty piece of Divide and Conquer propaganda. He repeats his tired old lie about how three Clinton surrogates have used the words cocaine.
Note that the guest tells Tweety that he was the one who was harping on cocaine on that first show. Saying things like “Do things go better with coke?” The guest is obviously implying that Matthews is full of it and Tweety says at the end of the interview:
MATTHEWS: Yeah, you're right. You're right. You caught me there.Priceless.
If Pat Buchanan is the Lord of Lies, Chris Matthews is the Devil’s Little Helper.
IV. Operation Interject Race into the Race: Tweety Did It First MSNBC’s Chris Matthews is a trend setter among mainstream media pundits.
According to Media Matters MSNBC host Chris Matthews -- not a Republican operative -- was apparently the first to mention Obama's middle name as a possible political issue. On the November 7, 2006, edition of MSNBC's Hardball, Matthews said:
"You know, it's interesting that Barack Obama's middle name is Hussein. That will be interesting down the road, won't it?"And in the wake of Obama’s loss to Clinton in New Hampshire, Matthews is the one who precipitated the equivalent of a political race riot with his (in my opinion) deliberately Divide and Conquer comments.
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2008/01/10/matthews-lectures-forked-tongue-paleface-bigots-new-england Matthews declared he thought this was over in 2006: "I thought white voters had stopped being what they want to be. And you know what it tells me? People aren't proud of who they are." Host Joe Scarborough, asking Matthews to address the alleged bigotry in New England, drew out Matthews, the former top aide to Boston-area Rep. Tip O’Neill, to denounce the whole Boston area: "There's different kinds of prejudice, as you know, in the north than there is in the south, but it exists. It may not be ‘I think I'm better than you,’ but it might be ‘I don't want to live next door to you.’"
He said this on national television repeatedly, so that as many people as possible could hear him. He created quite a stir at DU, where people drank the kool aid and accused New Hampshire citizens of being racists. He also hinted broadly that the vote in that state had been hacked----prompting Kucinich to call for a recount that further increase the hostility between the Obama and Clinton camps.
Here is why I think that Matthews—and his mentor Buchanan---were full of shit. Like me, they come from Irish-American families. Now, I have never been to New England, being a southern gal, but when I saw the results in New Hampshire, I thought
Irish American Matriarchy There are a lot of Irish in New Hampshire. Irish women are strong and they like strong women. Not only will they be inclined to vote for another strong woman, they will be disinclined to trust a male politician with their reproductive freedom, since men have probably sold them out before for the sake of political expediency. If given the choice between a man who may bargain away their rights for some cause he feels is more important and a woman for whom reproductive rights is of the utmost importance, an Irish American Democratic woman is going to choose the woman.
Tweety and Buchanan know politics better than I do. I am an observer, a hobbyist. They have worked in the field. If it was obvious to me, it was double obvious to them. Tweety was lying through his teeth.
And boy did the lie catch on.
Here is a must read article from Media Matters that documents the way that the corporate media committed one of its atrocities---changing Bill Clinton’s comment about Obama’s war policy to a comment about his campaign. They did this in order to propel two lies that the right wing wanted spread One,
Obama is incompetent and of course the timeless classic
Hillary is a bitch .
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801120001Included in the Media Matters above is a critique of this Bob Herbert Divide and Conquer piece below that uses the stealth approach of “Hillary said it” to get out the message that
”Obama is an incompetent cokehead Muslim”.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/opinion/12herbert.html?ex=1357880400&en=822a8b22f6498a64&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink Op-Ed Columnist
Of Hope and Politics
By BOB HERBERT
Published: January 12, 2008
I could also sense how hard the Clinton camp was working to undermine Senator Obama’s main theme, that a campaign based on hope and healing could unify, rather than further polarize, the country.
So there was the former president chastising the press for the way it was covering the Obama campaign and saying of Mr. Obama’s effort: “The whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.”
And there was Mrs. Clinton telling the country we don’t need “false hopes,” and taking cheap shots at, of all people, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
We’d already seen Clinton surrogates trying to implant the false idea that Mr. Obama might be a Muslim, and perhaps a drug dealer to boot. It struck me that the prediction of so many commentators that Senator Obama was about to run away with the nomination, and bury the Clintons in the process, was the real fairy tale.
Only this is what Clinton said was a fairy tale:
"Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, enumerating the years and never got asked one time, not once, 'Well, how could you say that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your Web site in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since.'
Give me a break.
"This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."Now, unless someone wants to claim that Obama is running for “the president of I didn’t vote for the war” the way that Rudi was running for “the president of 9/11”, I do not think that Clinton called his campaign a fairy tale. But the MSM spread that rumor just as hard and as fast as it could—and called it racist, even though fairy tales come from Europe.
Notice that MSNBC could not wait to propel the Big Lie “Obama is Incompetent.” Here is Howard Fineman saying something much worse that what the press claimed Clinton said:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801160014 During MSNBC's coverage following the January 15 Democratic presidential candidates debate in Las Vegas, Newsweek chief political correspondent Howard Fineman asserted, "What saves Obama is that he's such a likable guy that even when he's admitting that he can't manage his way out of a paper bag while he's running for president of the United States, everybody likes him." In fact, while Obama did discuss a statement he made that appeared in a January 14 Reno Gazette-Journal article in which he said that he is "not an operating officer," he did not "admit" during the debate that he "can't manage his way out of a paper bag."
It makes you wonder why the Obama camp does not attack the corporate media with the same ferocity that they attack the Clinton camp. The MSM is wildly unpopular with the Democratic Party. A few swift jabs at some of these SOBs would show that Obama is a fighter who knows whom the true enemy of the people is. If he is worried that he will make the press dislike him, it is too late. The press is already engaged in a major smear operation. More on that in the next journal, but let's just say that the so called "liberal press" is already favoring McCain over him at every turn.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/is-bill-clinton.htmlHere is ABC trying to stir up trouble asking Obama in public if Bill Clinton is “getting inside his head claiming Obama lost his cool (he did not). The implication again is
Obama is incompetent. He is a novice who can not handle the Big Dog. Be sure to watch the video. Obama puts the reporter in his place without ever losing his cool. Obama can handle himself just fine. However, the press is the one that is starting to lose it. They are showing their true colors.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801250008 Summary: On CNN's The Situation Room, Wolf Blitzer and correspondent Brian Todd aired a video clip of Michelle Obama's August 16, 2007, comment, "So our view is that if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House," falsely suggesting that she had recently made the comment in the context of exchanges between the presidential campaigns of Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton. The remark, Blitzer suggested, showed Michelle Obama going "toe to toe with the former President Bill Clinton."
This is a common tactic from the tabloid press that the MSM has begun to use. Take some old news and recycle it if the real men and women will not do what you want them to do. The Obama camp is not getting hysterical enough about the engineered “feud”? Then make them look angry. Make Michelle Obama look like someone who would sling mud.
In my journals about Hillary Clinton I document how the New York Times and others repeatedly misquoted Hillary’s remarks about JFK and LBJ to make it appear that she was comparing herself to MLK Jr when she was really comparing herself to LBJ and Obama to JFK (no racial overtones there). Again, another media lie used to fuel the war which helped Obama mobilize African-American support in South Carolina---important for the Rovian plan in light of Hillary’s win in New Hampshire. Obama had be propelled forward and making him appear to be the target of a racial smear and Hillary appear to be the victim was the perfect way to even up the contest for the RNC. Obama himself could not accomplish anything like this---no Democrat has this kind of control over the media. Only the Bush administration, with the power of the FCC can influence journalists to this degree. And I have not even mentioned what the right wing media was up to during all this----that will be discussed in part two of this journal.
After Hillary’s win in California, Bob Novak jumped in again to claim that the Bradley effect was to blame for Obama’s loss. He also tried to incite a little Black-Hispanic anger.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200802110009 V. Operation Hillary Put Obama in a Dress Will it never end? Drudge shows a picture of Obama wearing some African Tribal garments. Drudge says that Hillary made them do it. Obama says the equivalent of “Damn you Hillary!” The MSM rubs its hands in glee. The Republican Party is as pleased as punch.
Just another wild and crazy episode of the 2008 Democratic Primary. It would funny if the lives of our soldiers and millions of Iraqi civilians were not on the line. As the Democratic candidates’ reputations take a beating, John McCain eases that much closer to the White House.
Here is a link:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=518585&in_page_id=1811We have Rush Limbaugh pouring oil on the fire:
We had Michelle Obama, who was in Zanesville, Ohio, talking to a bunch of people that live there. The income, average income, is below the national average. So is the education level. And Michelle Obama is telling them, don't go into corporate America. Don't be -- she specified two things: Don't become a corporate lawyer and don't become a hedge-fund operator.
Now, Hillary was a corporate lawyer, and Chelsea is in the hedge-fund business. I think that Michelle Obama is seething over the attacks that the Clintons have made against her husband with that photo with, you know, the -- Obama looking like Ayman
Zawahiri, all of this talk about his middle name and so forth.
I think this was Michelle Obama with a womb-to-womb frontal attack on Hillary Clinton, and I think Hillary Clinton's seething. I think she knows this. I know most men probably would not pick this up, but this is juicy. It is -- it is just too good.Can we get some sanity?
VI. Operation If You Want to Know Obama’s Religious Beliefs Ask Hillary Seriously, why are people even asking her? How would she know? Here is Media Matters attempting to be the voice of reason. However, as plenty of Obama supporters have shown, “as far as I know” is now the new, officially accepted slang for “yes” all across America. I am guessing they will update the on-line dictionaries soon.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200803040012Actually, we all know that Hillary answered the question “Of course not”. When she was badgered (asked the question the second time as if the interviewer was asking her for proof), she replied “No, no” The “as far as I know” was not a coy nudge, nudge wink wink comment. It was an aggressive chin squared, eyes opened wide and staring straight ahead confrontational response.
You are just going to have to take me at my word, Why do you keep questioning me? comment. Her final comment which is so often cut out was
No, not at all. I mean, obviously, I've been the subject of scurrilous rumors for years, and, you know, it's hard to get them to go away and they, you know, they just keep coming back. And you know, I really sympathize with Senator Obama. It is -- it's -- you know, it's disturbing to turn around and see this all the time. And, you know, obviously, I hope that people get beyond it and ignore it.
This is offered as her reason for not believing the rumors.
Hillary knows all about the right wing conspiracy and the way that it smears Democrats. She knows better than to believe what she reads on Drudge.
Unfortunately, some people do not have her years of experience. And some who have years of experience like Howard Fineman, will pretend to believe anything. He calls Hillary Nixonian. It is positively---Nixonian.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200803050001I hope I have demonstrated the pattern. Some right wing figure announces the coming of the smear. Usually it is Bob Novak. I guess that makes him the Fallen Angel Gabriel who got kicked out of Heaven for drunkenness. Then the smear arrives on Drudge or some Moonie owned paper. So Drudge is the Great Whore of Babylon and the smear is the AntiChrist if we want to keep up the mythic motif. The corporate media begins talking about the Baby Smear incessantly. Since the smear is the Son of the Lord of Lies, it feeds on rumor and distortion---MSM specialties--so it grows until it is a great big Behemoth Smear that everyone in the country has heard about. The press always assumes that Hillary the Bitch must have spread it--
just because. Not proof is ever required. If it is a matter of interpretation of the nuance of some remark, anyone---a blind, deaf non English speaking septuagenarian in Tibet can declare that it is a slur for poorly articulated reasons---and everyone in the press will exclaim in unison "It is a smear. Hallelujah!" Whether or not the contents of the smear about Obama are deemed true, the press discusses those details endlessly so that the public is left with the impression that there must be some story there. The smear is usually about some issue that will hurt him more in the general than in the primary---drugs, religion, things like that. Note that whenever the two sides declare a truce, someone at CNN or MSNBC will pull up an interview that was recorded before the truce or an article from months ago and print or air it in order to give the appearance that the truce has been broken again.
This is how you cause chaos and panic in the Democratic primary. Obama’s camp lives under the awful fear that they are under attack by the more politically savvy Clinton camp. The Clinton camp is scornful that the Obama camp does not understand the true nature of the attacks----or maybe the Clinton camp suspects that the Obama camp is pretending to be offended in order to portray itself as the victim to get more votes. This makes the Clinton camp angry and fearful. Both sides hate each others guts. Formerly sane left wing journalists are writing crap (see my fourth "Press v. Hillary Clinton" journal) in which they cite "smears" by Hillary against Obama that were debunked months ago. Anyone who remembers 1972 recognizes the pattern, the way that CREEP had Democrats fighting among themselves so fiercely that many of them considered Humphrey a greater evil than Richard Nixon.
Humphrey a greater evil than Nixon!----
"But Hillary really
is worse than Nixon", some Democrats are thinking in response.
Meanwhile, Karl Rove and the RNC are laughing all the way to their own primary.
Note that the above lies and smears are just a tiny fraction of the stories that have been circulating about Obama over the course of the last year. Most of the real dirt has been pushed by the right wing media to its Republican listeners. Part II of The Press v. Obama will cover the general election smears which the right wing corporate media (and sometimes the MSM) has been waging against him in parallel with the campaign I describe above.
Remember, Divide and Conquer is the RNC's number one strategy, and Solidarity is our strength. Either we stand together or we die together.
Great thanks as usual to Media Matters, the voice of sanity in the insane world of gossip and propaganda that calls itself journalism in America.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
