Sunday, March 23, 2008

Why the general smeared Bill Clinton

Prominent supporters of Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama on Sunday both faulted Obama's campaign for allowing a retired general and backer of the Illinois senator to equate comments by Clinton's husband -- which appeared to question Obama's patriotism -- to McCarthyism.
[. . .]

Asked whether Obama's campaign was being too negative in accusing former President Clinton of McCarthyism, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a Clinton supporter, said, "Of course ... the Obama campaign tries to have it both ways," he said.
Rendell said Bill Clinton was saying what many people think, that the campaign should focus on the economy, health care and the candidates' experience, for example, and not on race and other distractions.
"And instead they launch this all-out attack trying to take an inference out of President Clinton's words that no fair person could take," Rendell said. "It's an example of the negativity that Governor Richardson is talking about.
"If they want to tone it down, don't accuse someone of McCarthyism," Rendell said.

The above is from AP's "Obama camp faulted for criticism of former president." Why would they accuse Bill Clinton of McCarthyism? Why are the dogs barking?

The Obama camp is smearing Bill Clinton because the super delegates are becoming aware of exactly who's fueling Obama's campaign -- closeted Communists and mongrels who were kicked off their little perches in the Democratic Party. The Obama campaign (privately) is an uproar over that. And they think they can scream "McCarthyism!" and influence the super delegates, make them think, "Oh, remember when . . ." It's not McCarthyism. And it's not being fueled by Bill or Hillary Clinton.

As one who is lobbying super delegates, I know exactly where it's coming from because it's the most frequent question asked, why are all these closeted Communists pretending to be Democrats and smearing Hillary to get Barack Obama the nomination?

The real question is why a full grown adult, especially in middle age or the golden years, has to hide who they are politically?

My opinion (and that of this community) is there's nothing wrong with being a Communist, a Socialist, a Democrat, a Republican, a Green, what have you. There is something very wrong about hiding what you are and pretending to be a Democrat.

They've steered an ugly campaign that a lot of people thought they could stand back from. But as it got uglier, people started noticing, "These people ripping apart Hillary aren't Democrats. These people endorsing Obama aren't Democrats."

The general's remark was hoped to stem the loss of super delegates. It was hoped that by tarring Bill Clinton a "McCarthyite," they could float the issue they dare not mention and that people would think, "Oh, it is like McCarthyism."

It's nothing like McCarthyism. McCarthyism attempted to destroy the left, attempted to destroy the Communist (and Socialist) Party in the United States of America. All that's going on among super delegates is that they are noticing that Barack's loudest supporters are not Democrats and they're offended that these closeted types are passing themselves off as such and smearing Hillary.

It's a natural offense. If you're having a block meeting and a group comes in, stirs up trouble and passes themselves off people living on the block, you're going to be offended when you find out they live in another neighborhood.

It's the same offense super delegates would be taking were Newt Gingrich attempting to pass himself off as a Democrat or any Republican. It's not about "Bad Communism!" It's about the fact that these people aren't Democrats and they have nearly controlled the Democratic Party race for the presidential nomination.

You don't have to look too far, just to the rejects of Panhandle Media, cretins who couldn't work in Real Media because they have no ethics and they have unsavory histories.

Despite the fact that Obama ran "Be a Democrat for a Day" campaigns in many states, the campaign played like they didn't. But when Rush supposedly endorsed Hillary in the leadup to the Texas and Ohio votes, the Obama camp was screaming "foul!" Then they were claiming that the Democratic Party primary belongs to Democrats.

It's the same thing at work with the super delegates. They're noticing that non-Democrats have fueled Obama's campaign, have offered non-stop smears against Hillary and they're sick of it because it still is the Democratic Party. It's not the Democratic Party Plus Closeted Communists.

Panhandle Media thought they could pose as Democrats and steer a Democratic Primary. It's not happening. (Although there is talk of real retaliation in the next Congress at those who receive government funding. Yes, Pacifica Radio, that would include you.) Look at KPFA. No one in DC connected to the power structure mistakes the people behind the scenes at KPFA or on air as Democrats. And they certainly didn't, in 2000 for example, attempt to present themselves as such. But they have this election cycle. You had a two hour post-debate 'discussion' of Hillary and Barack's performances and it has not gone unnoticed by those who will be voting on future public radio funding that KPFA elected to stack the deck by inviting on only Barack Obama supporters, those who had endorsed Barack Obama, and not identifying them as such on air. It's not gone unnoticed that all the 'leading' magazines have columnist after columnist (most who are not Democrats) who have attacked Hillary non-stop and praised Bambi endlessly.

It's also not gone unnoticed that the mongrels of the Democratic Party, the ones who were long ago rejected for various reasons are part of the movement. Here's a hint, if post-divorce you couldn't even get elected mayor of a city, you have no power. And you have no power because you're not wanted. You're not wanted because your ideas are considered crackpot and insane. You pen your books and you grab a few lectures and you think, "One day I'll be back on top!" You won't be. You were knocked down for a reason.

When the Obama camp attacked Geraldine Ferraro falsely as a racist, that was an attempt to move the public. It had the opposite effect among super delegates who grasped that Ferraro hadn't said anything that media critics hadn't already said or that Barack Obama hadn't already said. Jeff Zeleny (then with the Chicago Tribune) in June of 2005:

Obama acknowledges, with no small irony, that he benefits from his race.
If he were white, he once bluntly noted, he would simply be one of nine freshmen senators, almost certainly without a multimillion-dollar book deal and a shred of celebrity. Or would he have been elected at all?

He was termed a "rock star" by the press when he'd done nothing. Like the media hype dubbing John McCain a "straight talker," the hype of "rock star" and all the cover's of 'men's' magazines he racked up were part of the hype. He's still done nothing. But he used to be able to admit the truth. Geraldine Ferraro rightly notes he wouldn't get the press he gets without being seen as an 'exotic' flower, and suddenly she's being clobbered by the campaign as a racist.

That was done to appeal to the public because the campaign really doesn't know how to run itself (strip away Panhandle Media and the contest would have been John Edwards and Hillary Clinton competing for the nomination). They had no grasp of how that attack on Ferraro would be received by the super delegates. They only made it worse last Tuesday when Obama, after claiming he didn't think Ferraro was a racist days prior, lumps her in with Jeremiah Wright.

It was in the responses to Jeremiah Wright that most of his media supporters revealed themselves. They (a) ignored it, (b) wrote crackpot columns on Hillary's religion or (c) justified the damning the America. There is no justification for damning America among Democrats and certainly not among the Democratic Party power structure.

Panhandle Media sensed their candidate was seriously wounded (it may be a mortal wound after his Tuesday speech) and they came back out with more of their nonsense that only further demonstrated how these people are not Democrats. The past histories of these people were already known. But when they started, for example, trashing Hillary Clinton for belonging to a women's prayer group (a detail she writes about in her own autobiography), it really became obvious.

If those people wanted to start their own little "Communists for Obama," no one would bat an eye. But the Democratic Party structure is offended that these people are passing themselves off as Democrats and, from their political closets, trying to influence a Democratic primary.

They overplayed their hand. Victory was in sight, it would be Mother Russia in no time! Finally!

It's not happening. Get over it.

The Democratic Party is not going to turn itself over into a front group for Communists. The Democratic Party is not going to allow closeted Communists and mongrels they kicked to the curb to try to steer a party election.

Like all party structures, it is inherently conservative. That's only news if you're an idiot. Anyone who achieves power, maintains the power. You don't see bold moves. You don't see bold moves from NARAL, you don't see it from the Democratic Party.

The created 'sizzle' around Obama always puzzled the party structure because we're talking about a Senator in his first term who has no accomplishments to point to. (As Ava and I noted, his groupies pimp that he was president of a college publication and the man's over forty. That's how minuscule his credentials are.) His associations with some people who attempted to tear the Democratic Party down in the past doesn't go over well with the power structure who fully know the relationships are far deeper than the press has reported.

They are fully aware that the campaign is using the same technique that was used to elect a governor in Mass. and they're fully aware of what a problem that created when a non-qualified candidate made it into office. One super delegate made it very clear to Ava and I that the Democratic Party can afford to lose a presidential election, they have before, but it takes decades to recover from winning an election that installs someone unqualified to be president. It hurts the party for years and years.

It's why former presidents in the party have rarely been big fundraisers. Bill Clinton has been. Bill Clinton will continue to be. Those funds help elect Democrats to Congress from all over the country. It is not a minor thing. It is not a minor thing for the Democrats to have a former president who is willing to be trotted out and is wildly popular.

It was not a minor thing for the Obama campaign to lie and smear him as a racist. While the press has played dumb, the party structure has noted that the only thing the Obama campaign has to go to is racism and when they went after Ferraro the message to super delegates (and the Obama campaign wasn't trying to send that message, they just didn't grasp how it would play) was: "Install Obama or we'll call you a racist too." Super delegates aren't going to be bullied.

And they are worried about how much damage the smear has done to Ferraro and Clinton's abilities to raise money for the party because Ferraro was a dependable fundraiser. It wasn't "rock star level" but she consistently performed, she consistently brought in money. They think Bill's Teflon coated and he can withstand any smears that Obama's camp tosses at him. But they don't appreciate that fundraisers who have been there for the party are being ripped apart.

These people are Democrats. They're not closeted Communists. They're not focused on pushing some secret agenda or having some show trial in the Senate. They're worried about the future of the Democratic Party and all they're seeing from the Obama camp is a slash and burn campaign that has divided the Democratic Party at a time when it should be united.

Stupid Oprah Winfrey (whose latest weight gain is again being lied about and we're all supposed to believe she's in love with Steadman -- yeah, we're all that stupid) gave a speech that was supposed to be "rousing" (she actually gave it repeatedly) and it probably plays to her shut-in crowd that thinks she is an angel. Oprah The Communicator knew that Bambi had no credentials and had no experience. So what did she do? She gave her "people say he has to wait to his turn . . ." speech.

Guess what? People do have to wait their turn. You go into a deli, you're going to have to wait your turn. (Oprah has a problem with that concept, remember her meltdown when a Paris store refused to open after hours so she could shop.) Go to the DMV, you're going to have to wait your turn.

Orpah's nonsense was her usual nonsense that had the shut-ins cheering as it always does. But though she tried to 'flip it,' she only underscored that someone who had just finished his second year in the US Senate, someone with no record, wanted to run for president.

That's fine, anyone can run for president but the super delegates are noting that there are people in the party who have paid their dues and stepped aside for less to preserve the party structure. Not slash and burn Obama. A sense of entitlement is the phrase most often used to describe him these days.

He is bleeding super delegates and the campaign knows it which is why they're rushing their "Wrap it up! The nomination must be given! Hillary must drop out!" nonsense. And the campaign is becoming aware that the same closeted Communists who used their perches to promote him to the people are a liability with the power structure.

Obama's not a Communist (closeted or otherwise) or a Socialist. But the Democratic Party is a party for Democrats. And super delegates aren't in the mood to have a bunch of closeted Communists dictate to them who their nominee will be.

The general launched his attack thinking it would frighten the power structure. Bill Clinton had said nothing to deserve the smear but it wasn't about him, it was about attempting to frighten the power structure. Hoping that they would say, "We really don't want to go back to McCarthyism." Reality is that some of them believe that if Communists won't disclose for themselves while trying to influence a Democratic election, then maybe they should be forced out in the open.

That belief by some isn't about smearing or Red baiting. It's about the fact that closeted types can vote for whomever they want a general election because a general election is for all; however, a Democratic Party primary is for Democrats.

Obama's sheen is off because his wife has those awful photos (that everyone knows about and most super delegates have seen) that did not look like a First Lady. Oprah may have loved seeing Michelle Obama's sideboob, but no one else found it White House behavior. That wasn't enough for Michelle, she had to state on the record that if Hillary was the nominee she wasn't sure she could vote for her. That doesn't indicate that a woman who wants to get into the White House as First Lady is a Democrat. It indicates she's in it for herself. Then came her statement that she was proud of the country for the first time because Barack was doing well in the campaign. That's not First Lady talk. Active or hidden away, the First Lady is supposed to be a cheerleader for the country. Not only can she not sing the praises of the country, she won't support the Democratic Party. That's before you get into the low class remarks that her brother offered on television about Hillary.

Then there's Obama whom the press keeps telling you isn't thought to be guilty of any wrong doing in his dealings with Antoin Rezko. It doesn't matter whether he's guilty or not of a crime, Rezko is unsavory, he is an influence peddler and Obama chose to associate with him and clearly sought out his influence. Obama wouldn't have a mansion today if Rezko hadn't assisted him. Whether there's any crime there or not, you don't expose yourself to that if you want to be president. (The mansion, for a senator just elected to the US Senate, is especially cited by those dubbing Michelle Obama "Michelle I Wanna More!")

Then there's his friend, his family, Jeremiah Wright. Jeremiah Wright damned the United States of America and that's not allowed. A lot in Panhandle Media share that sentiment so it's nothing to them. It is something to the Democratic Party structure and when Obama gave that dumb speech Tuesday where he refused to confront that head on and state that damning the United States was unacceptable, to break publicly with Wright and to apologize for his appalling lack of judgement for making that man a part of his inner circle, it sent a message to the Democratic Party structure.

While the (real) press takes whatever the Obama camp feeds them and prints it as 'truth,' the reality is that the electoral college will decide the 2008 presidential vote and Obama's performances in primaries and (if you're generous) caucses indicate that he can't win the presidency via the electoral college. The numbers are being crunched over and over and no matter how you crunch them, he can't win. Many super delegates are talking about just the primary wins and tossing out the caucuses because, obviously, there are no caucuses in the general election. If you do that, it becomes even more obvious that Obama's not currently winning on the electoral college map.

He has no record, his campaign has practiced slash and burn and not just at his other candidates (though there is real offense to the way he treated John Edwards in one debate after the other and in one smear ad campaign after another and a feeling that Edwards should have taken off the gloves) but at the very people the party depends upon to bring in the cash to run the races year after year, his sheen is off and the realities of who has been driving the Hillary Hatred and pimping Bambi is setting in.

That's why the general made his remarks. He didn't go "off script" and no super delegate I've spoken to on the phone believes he has. They believe firmly that he's attempting to address the issue of closeted Communist support and tell the super delegates, "Ignore that! You don't want McCarthyism again!" The message didn't work and the super delegates are not going to rush to his side this week.

I'd stated in the round-robin I was only doing one entry on Sunday. This isn't it. But the article is all anyone calling is talking about. The above is the reality the press won't tell you because they (a) they don't want to rush out on the limb, they want to take you there slowly and (b) the press isn't as powerful as they think they are. The most likely outcome is that, with Barack and Hillary tied nationally, the super delegates will decide this on the convention floor. Ignore the super delegates who endorse either candidate. When it reaches the floor, the endorsements are off. What's happening is a realingment behind Hillary and that's what the general was attempting to stop with his comments. He was not successful. (And only the Panhandle types would think he could be. The Democratic Party still has Cold War warriors. It took a Panhandle type or an Ivy leaguer to come up with the general's 'strategy.')

The e-mail address for this site is