No, He Can't Because Yes, They Will

Obama's mantra, "Yes, We Can" is inspiring and heartwarming, but in the end is an empty phrase that will founder once the Republican political attack machine spins up. I realize that most Obamatons are so wedded to his vision of hope that any effort to point out the cracks in the foundation of the new Democratic Savior are met with fury and disdain.

If you think for a minute that the Republican party -- who used Willie Horton on Michael Dukakis to devastating effect, who portrayed triple amputee and veteran Max Cleland as a bosom buddy of Osama Bin Laden, and convinced many voters that decorated combat veteran John Kerry was a fraud -- will give Obama a pass come the fall then you are in serious denial.

But, unlike the attacks on Dukakis, Cleland, and Kerry, the ammunition that Obama has provided to his political foes is significant and deadly. But try telling that to Obama disciples. You get name calling and character assassination (just read the reaction to this piece). At the same time, Obama is treated with a reverence and fawning that I have never seen in my life for a political figure. What in the world was Chris Matthews talking about with his tingling leg adulation heaped on Obama:

During MSNBC's live coverage of Tuesday's primary elections, after the speech of Barack Obama aired, Chris Matthews breathlessly expressed his admiration... and extreme excitement for Barack Obama by saying "I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often."

So, while Democrats engage in self-censorship and promote the worst kind of affirmative action pandering in promoting the myth of Obama, the Republicans are keeping mum and, like Brer Rabbit, begging not to be tossed into the briar patch and face the fearsome Obama. (Want to bet how many accusations of racism I will get for referring to Brer Rabbit?)

Obama's untested achilles heel is his relationship with three men -- Tony Rezko, William Ayers, and Rashid Khalidi. These names will become shorthand for Corruption, Terrorism, and the Destruction of Israel. Oh yes, I know. I am going to extremes. Well, let me lay out the facts and explain how the Republicans will likely use these relationships to bludgeon Obama's presidential aspirations into dust. My challenge to you Obama supporters is to explain to me and other readers of this blog how Obama will defuse these issues.

The Tony Rezko Problem:

There is a growing body of material in the blogosphere on this issue (looseheadprop has an excellent overview), but the mainstream media has paid little attention and most Americans know nothing of Rezko's bribery and corruption trial. Not yet. But that will change starting February 25, when Rezko goes on trial in Chicago. The best Obama can hope for is an acquittal or mistrial. He cannot deny his longstanding friendship with Rezko. A man who has played a significant role in raising funds for his political campaigns and a man who helped Obama and his wife get the home of their dreams.

But it is highly unlikely that Rezko gets off. He just got nailed for lying to the judge about his alleged poverty and was promptly arrested for hiding millions of dollars overseas. And he is up against Patrick Fitzgerald. Pat Fitzgerald does not go to court unprepared and does not have a record of losing, particularly in Illinois. Remember, this is the guy who nailed Scooter Libby and the former Governor of Illinois. The boy plays to win.

When Rezko is convicted and, the details of the corruption and bribery charges are fleshed out and the public learns that Senator Obama got some of that dirty cash, do you really believe the public won't care that the Democratic nominee for President is involved with a convicted felon? Hell, this is a political attack ad that writes itself.

The William Ayers Problem:

William Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist, though he is normally described as a distinguished education professor. One does not necessarily rule out the other, but he himself acknowledges planting bombs in U.S. Federal buildings. There is now undeniable proof of a longstanding relationship between Barack Obama and William Ayers. We are not talking about two guys who just happened to bump into one another on the street. We are not talking about a secret admirer (Ayers) who quietly sent $200 to an aspiring politician.

No, we are talking about William Ayers hosting a fundraiser for Barack Obama and actively working with him to secure Barack's first electoral victory in Illinois. But wait, there is more. Barack and Ayers also served on the board of the Woods Fund. And they worked together to give money to some other folks, including a group with ties to the PLO.

What makes Ayers so toxic is his own written record equating U.S. Marines with terrorists. Look at the beating that John Kerry took for tossing his medals over the White House fence. Ayers did not toss medals, he threw bombs. Real ones. Bombs that exploded.

Do you think that Republicans will ignore Obama's ties to Ayers? The two were serving on the same board in 2002. We are talking less than six years ago and the record will come out showing some questionable grants by these two characters. William Ayers, in the age of terrorism, will be Barack Obama's Willie Horton.

The Problem of Rashid Khalidi:

So far, the press has paid little attention to Obama's ties to Rashid Khalidi, Middle East Professor at Columbia University and PLO activist. An article in The Jewish Week from last year offers up this tantalizing tidbit:

Khalidi, now the Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University, and head of that school's Middle East Institute, declined to comment on Abunimah's recollections. But in an interview in Tuesday's Daily News, he said he hosted the fundraiser because he and Obama were friends while the two lived in Chicago. "He never came to us and said he would do anything in terms of Palestinians," Khalidi told the paper.

Nevertheless, one Hyde Park source close to Obama, speaking only on condition of anonymity, recalled, "He often expressed general sympathy for the Palestinians -- though I don't recall him ever saying anything publicly."

Obama has made his pilgrimage to AIPAC (funny, but in his campaign against special interests and their grip on Washington he gives AIPAC a pass) and worked to position himself as a friend of Israel. But the relationship with Khalidi has not yet received the white hot media attention that tends to occur during the dog days of July and August, when the press needs a story. And guess who helped broker the appearance of Iran's Ahmadinejad last summer at Columbia University? Professor Khalidi. The New York Times had his reaction to the event:

Rashid Khalidi, a professor of Arab studies and director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia, said, "The tone from the host of an event was uncivil and uncalled for.

"The president of the university had every right to state his differences," he said. "That was more than acceptable. But I believe it was embarrassing to the university, frankly, that they should decide to invite him and then treat him in this manner."

Now, which presidential candidate is calling for talks with Iran? You do not have to be Karl Rove or Lee Atwater to figure out how to tie Obama with Ahmadinejad using Obama's friendship with Khalidi.

I don't know what else is out there on Obama. Unfortunately, the worshipful, servile attitude of many Democrats and media personalities so far has hindered a tough look at Obama's friends and associates and his judgment. But that will come. What should concern Democrats keen on taking back the White House is whether or not these issues will be fully vetted before Obama is installed as the candidate. My guess is no.

And what do Republicans think? I only have anecdotal evidence. I asked an old friend, who served in law enforcement (I'll leave the particular agency out of it) for more than thirty years, about the William Ayers era. There are a lot of Federal agents who believe that Ayers is a terrorist who got away with his crimes and still owes a debt to society. My friend wrote the following to me today:

I think many of my friends believe Obama is beatable; however they concede that Clinton can win. Therefore, the thinking goes, WE hope Obama gets the Democratic nod and THEN flood the gates with information later.

Feelings of hope and inspiration about Obama will evaporate when the commercials tying him to a convicted felon slumlord, an unrepentant terrorist who hates the troops, and a Professor of Middle Eastern Studies who has been a PLO official spouting anti-Israeli rhetoric. Oh, YES THEY WILL! YES, THEY WILL.

Comments

[PinkoAttic]

ACHILLES HEAL SCORECARD: OBAMA 3 v CLINTON 108
ENOUGH SAID.

[antaeus]

Heads up: all of those 118 are available at any local library, bound in leather and cross indexed. That's the point.

[PinkoAttic]

The point is the Repugs have had over 10 years to dig barrels full of dirt on Hillary and are now anxious because they may never get to use any of it....and I thought I'd guessed 108 achilles heals for Heallary..but you seem to have identified at least 10 more ! - well done ! ..will you be voting for McCain too if she wins ???

[BUSHsurvivor]

I realize that most Obamatons are so wedded to his vision of hope that any effort to point out the cracks in the foundation of the new Democratic Savior are met with fury and disdain.

~~~~

You said it brutha!

[Cathexis]

I agree with half your premise, Mr Johnson -- that the Republican Attack Teams (RATs) *will* go into overdrive to smear Barack Obama, should he win the Dem nomination. They will go into attack mode at WHOEVER wins the Dem nomination.

However, I don't believe this means "No, he can't." Obama has as much of a chance as anyone, given the situation. It is not rational to focus on what attacks may be leveled at him and suppose results as if such attacks will be leveled at him, alone.

As I have said repeatedly: We have two fine candidates and whichever we end up nominating will be worlds better than any GOP alternative.
(That being said, I *DO* hope that whichever wins the nominations does consider the possibility og inviting the other on the ticket as VP -- yet another reason not to do character assassination during primaries!)

[BMSstudy]

why do the Republicans have to do anything, if BO winds the Dems nomination, just use this blog, right?

[marcusdean]

No they won't because we will do it to ourselves!!!!

DEMOCRATS, in this whole process we are becoming the very thing we hate!

Larry Johnson, I have done things I regret, I have been arrested for protesting, I have worked for so-called marxists, homeland security stops me when I travel internationsally, and I have talked and debated with pro-palestinian people and groups, do you want a list of all the politicians I associate with and donate to so you can write up a hit piece?

Man, Larry Johnson, this is a terrible hit piece. The rezko thing has been talked about for ages, and it did not get traction. With Bill Ayers, Obama has spoken with the man, received a dontation from the man, and is on the board of a highly credible non-profit organization. To suggest that he his friends with him and that Ayers somehow Ayers reflects Obama's character is a ridiculous suggestion. Shame on you.

And about Professor Khalidi, so Obama has spoken with someone sympathetic to the PLO (the U.S. works with PLO). What is wrong with that? For you to suggest that Obama is sympathetic to terrorists and/or the Iranian dictator is, once again, just shameful.

I can't believe you clothe this piece as some how vetting Obama. This is a hit piece plane and simple.

[bauersox]

"The rezko thing has been talked about for ages, and it did not get traction."

It's starting to get a lot of traction now. The really widespread coverage will begin with Rezko's trial, which begins in a couple of weeks.

[LeeFromVA]

Wow, you seem pretty smart about the Rezko thing. So please tell us the crime that was committed? Or even wrong doing? Waiting...

[piezoid]

Don't you followers of The Good Shepherd require ANYTHING from him? Demand your guy address this issue and explain what POSSIBLE grounds he holds in common with these bomb-throwing ultra-radicals. I'd really like to hear his reasons explaining why he has had ANYTHING to do with KNOWN terrorists. This is all pretty creepy stuff and he'd better straighten it out. It is a short hop in people's minds from abetting violent over-throw of the United States to sympathy for the Islamic Jihad whose goals are the same.

[CanadianinNY]

Mr. Johnson, I will not even attempt to analyse your clumsy attempt at categorising Mr. Obama’s wins as “affirmative action”. I think this is a residue from your former Republican prejudices. What astonishes me is the fact that you are trying to use hysteria against anything Muslim sounding and link it to terrorism and anti-Israel. I believe that the American voter is more intelligent than to equate support for Palestinian rights and feeling compassion towards them for wanting destruction of Israel.

What your faulty argument leaves is that the Christian right which blindly support Israel and think anything Muslim is evil will never vote for a Democratic candidate. I did not think democratic candidates were hoping to garner votes among the rapturists.

[equalityofconditions]

It is shameful but true what this article posits, though I am not sure we need to necessarily put specific faces to the mud republicans will sling at any democratic presidential candidate. I am severely interested in Obama as a candidate, not only for his inspiring potential as being a president, but also at the prospects that from his appearance to his name, he is antagonizing enough to the right to bring out the ugliest bigoted republican demons from behind the shadow of Karl Rove.

[SShaw490]

If anyone is interested in the real story of Obama's home purchase, the sellers have agreed to sacrifice their own privacy to say that Obama's purchase price was the best offer they received; the accepted price was the Obama family's third offer; and that they certainly offered no discount of any kind for any reason, Rezko or not.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a_9sOMpy91Js&refer=us

So the Rezko deal didn't benefit Obama at all. Obama, as he's previously stated, probably shouldn't have been involved with Rezko, but that's as far as it goes.

As to the other charges, they are purely innuendo and guilt by association - and in context with the rest of Johnson's drivel, it's about as authoritative as the gossip in a junior high school.

[ParadiseDiva]

SShaw, I trust you have read my response to your last post on this subject (presently bumped to page 6).

[SShaw490]

I hadn't until now. But you have to admit, the whole thing about Rezko is just silly. The only mistake Obama made was to be doing any kind of business with a guy who was under indictment. Obama didn't profit by it, he just should have stayed away from Rezko. But compared to Bill Clinton's last-day-in-office "get out of jail free" card, Rezko isn't anything at all.

[LeeFromVA]

I would vote for Obama even if he were guaranteed to lose. He's the best candidate with the best judgement, and he has integrity. Luckily for us, he will win easily. Hillary on the other hand would have the hardest time of all. She would immediately energize and unite the Republicans. She would also lose the excitement that is currently in the Democratic primary due in large part to Obama. She is also going up against the one Republican that has cross-over appeal. She would probably get far fewer votes than John Kerry did.

I can not believe that Hillary still insists that her vote to give Dubya authority to go to war in Iraq, was not a mistake. Who's going to have the best judgement on day one? Go back and look at what Obama had to say about the Iraq war before it started. Everything he said was proven true. You couldn't write it better with hindsight. But even with hindsight, Hillary doesn't think her vote was a mistake.

[antaeus]

When any President of the U.S.--including a President Obama--makes a claim, it ought to be given every benefit of the doubt, until such time as that president proves to be untrustworthy. The logical extension of your argument is to make senators more responsible for a president's actions than the president himself. Would you really want Obama to sit in such a weakened Oval Office?

The most thoughtful of the war protesters acknowledge that it is unfair to hold retroactively responsible those lawmakers who were early taken in by Bush's lies, least of all reason for which is that in doing so it only serves to mitigate the responsibility of the chief culprit--Bush himself.

[LeeFromVA]

It was Bush's war and he deserves full blame for it, but he didn't need approval from Congress to start a war. The President has the authority already. The reason he wanted the resolution passed is so that he could say he had the support of Democrats. How did he know the Democrats would vote in favor of it? Because he knew they did not want to look weak on terror when re-election came around. So there are really only 2 reasons for her vote. One, she was pandering to the Repuplican vote in a general election, or two, she really was in favor of the war. The second is plausable when you consider how much campaign doantions she recieved from the Defense Industry. More than any other candidate, Dem or Rep.

[riano]

I don't know if any of these associations would be fodder enough for the Big Red Machine to derail Obama in the general election. All I know is that I feel stongly that I don't know what I don't know. I'd love to have a President during my lifetime (ok, memory) who can, like Helent Hunt's character, make us all feel like being better men; but I've been elated and then devastated too many times in the last 40 years by Democratic cadidates with great sloglans and high promise squashed like bugs after the convention primary campaign and convention europhia wears off. I wat someone wo can win and who I know - know - is tough enough. You can diss HRC for her baggage, but I don't think you can argue there's alot we don't know.

[ProgressiveNotLiberal]

Do you know that she is due in the LA Superior Court on civil fraud charges on the 21st of February? Do you know what her tax records might reveal and why she won't show them now instead of after she is the nominee?

You are dreaming if you think we know everything there is to know and that we need to know. The one thing that I know is that she voted to go to war with Iraq and refuses to accept responsibility for her vote. She voted to allow cluster bombs in civilian areas and has never been clear on what constitutes torture. As an ex military man, I don't trust her one bit.

[Lemeritus]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but... didn't the California Supreme Court uphold a lower court's decision to drop Senator Clinton as a defendant in this matter? Discovery will begin on the 21st, and HRC may be called as a witness somewhere down the line, but it isn't exactly as you paint it. Is it?

[riano]

I don't really disagree with anything you've said. I don't know what her tax records will show or if she is hiding something in them, though I doubt it since she is used to be scrutinized so carefully. She did vote to give the President the power to go to war in Iraq, which I thought was wrong but understand why she did it. It is inexcusable that she has continued to support that war instead of admitting she was wrong (and lied to) and standing up to Bush.

I don't dislike Obama, I'm just indifferent to him. I don't love Clinton, I just don't hate her. I don't understand why she is the lightening rod she is. But I accept that it's true, so I want the candidate who will delivery universal heealthcare, get us out of Iraq and who can take the oath of office with a straight face and has perhaps even read the Constitution and might care to defend it. I'll gladly vote for Obama if he is the candidate. Hell, I'll support him now if I was sure he'd beat McCain and Clinton wouldn't. But I'm just not sure.

[ProgressiveNotLiberal]

Another Clintonite apologist. You all are making me sick to the core. Half the crap you just blogged are lies and misrepresentations of the truth.

If there is no substance to judge, then why did Hillary's economic plan get a C and Obama's an A- from the Washington Post?

You don't see the substance because you don't want to. You know how bad it actually would make Hillary look.

You are a Clintonite ditto-head and a pretty bad one at that.

[ParadiseDiva]

I believe you have just proved Mr. Johnson's point.

[BJMS]

Wow...the Republicans can attack Obama on 3 things. Hillary only has...can anyone even count them??? Can anyone even imagine how many more there have been over the past 7 years??? What a ridiculous argument. I think I'll "roll the dice!"

[SethBLiNK]

When voters love a candidate, it doesn't really matter what kind of mud you sling. Gore and Kerry were good men but poor candidates who did not inspire love.

Bill Clinton inspired love and look at all the accusations (some of them true) that did no harm. He got elected twice.

People love Barack Obama. Love, love, love, with a capital L.

So bring it on.

A bunch of rumors vs. 100 more years in Iraq. No contest.

[WomanInOrangeSweater]

This is just more innuendo...no substance. I'm still waiting for some real substance from Obama...but I'd settle for some substance from supposed writers who can't be bothered to research the crap they're putting out there. If there's something clearly dodgy with these associations, then do some research and get back to us.
And this goes for supporters of BOTH candidates.

[anywho]

Johnson's comments are just racist, and pro war mongering. This is clearly part of a concerted effort by the GOP to have Hillary as the Democratic nom. Just see it for what it is and then Ignore him.

[WomanInOrangeSweater]

I think the article is crap. But why don't you explain why it's racist or war-mongering, because I'm not seeing that. Sounds like you're using the tried and true soundbytes without knowing their meaning.

[Kyuzo]

Help me understand this...you're saying that nominating Obama is a bad idea because of all the things the Republicans will smear him with?

And somehow nominating Hillary is a better option in that regard?