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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I find it very telling that Mr. Johnson accuses Obama supporters of disdain and pandering in an essay full of contemptuous and condescending tones towards them.
Pot, meet kettle.
Truth hurts
I think Rush Limbaugh's recent airing of the song "Barack the Magic Negro" on his show is an example of the depths to which the right will stoop.
I'm a Hillary voter, but Barack Obama is a great statesman and orator and a tremendous boon to the democratic party; a purveyor of young democratic voters for the future and an asset to the American people for years to come.
Right wing attacks on his former public life, Rezko, etc. are within the boundaries of fair criticism. But what Mr Limbaugh is attempting is vile, disgusting and should be unacceptable to the public.
The people are well aware of the Rovian tactics employed in every Bush election from governorship of Texas to the presidential elections, and have hopefully had enough.
John McCain should denounce Limbaugh immediately for his appeal to the southern strategy.
Limbaugh should be sued by every A.A. organization that can wield a hammer, and be yanked off the air finally for his asinine actions. C'mon Sharpton!
When is this drug using brat going to get his comeuppance?
And what about Peter Yaro, Noel Stookey and Mary Travers?
I think a law suit for "usage" would hit Mr Limbaugh right where it hurts him the most, his fat assed wallet.
If Obama can see the injustice in the treatment of the Palestinian people, then he is the right person for president. The Israeli government has gotten away with human rights abuse for way too long. I hope that this story is true, we need someone who can help the palestinian people. Hopefully Obama is that person.
In LA yesterday, the call in radio show devoted itself to how much Obama supporters are bothering people on the job, etc. Caller after caller dialed up with personal stories of just how unreasonable the Obama supporters are and how much like religious proseletying this has become.
I was surprised that this insane worship is obviously not just in the internet world of blogging. It really is a part of the supporter mentality.
That has made a lot of people uncomfortable as heck.
Interestimg how the supporters cannot discuss these ties of Obamas.
It's looking more and more cult-like daily.
a true "Cult of Personality"
We are resembling our CRAZY brothers and their Right Wing Talking Heads more and more each day?
Sad.
...sorry that should be CRAZY brothers on the other side of the aisle.
I have been thinking about possible Clinton problems. To be specific, is there not currently one of her large contributors in jail with no bond for fraud?
I do not remeber his name but I know he is of Asian decent. Can we therefore assume my remarks will be construed as racist? I don't think so.
Do any of our Clinton supporters think this will not be used?
I doubt much of this stuff is true but for the people who haven't followed the campaign, this will be the FIRST bits of information they get about Obama. As you all know, you don't get a second chance to make a first impression. Obama needs to make sure he has a top notch team of spokespersons ready to counterpunch the republicans when they start releasing this garbage.
My comment on your assertions that Obama has some skeletons would be too long to read, so.
I would remind you of about a hundred things that show skeletens in the Clinton storage building of unsavory connections.
Even John McCain has skeletons, which will show up in time for the election against fear and smear.
Unfortunately you, like Karl Rove are one of those agents of hate and fear.
I will be voting for Obama in my state primary and will vote for the Democratic nominee in our general election.
You usefull time on earth apparantly is coming to an end in November after we make you and your kind obsolete!
So, Obama supporters should write off Obama's chances and candidacy based on what may come to pass in the campaign? They're supposed to quake in fear that Rezko can be made into something bigger with regard to Obama's campaign than to Clinton's despite Rezko's ties to both? Fear that other associations from Obama's past, not anything in Clinton's 35+ years of past, will be used as effectively by presumed opposing campaign strategists should dictate they support Obama's rival? The argument is to have energized enthusiastic voters switch to supporting Clinton out of fear of the unknown(s)?
Good luck selling that. You're going to need it.
Far from being a "newcomer to the political world," I've been involved in national campaigns since 1960 -- and so I know meretricious allegations when I see them. Johnson offers no evidence that Obama has had any personal interaction of any significance with the two university professors, and the Rezko allegation has already been so well combed-over by the press that it would have halted Obama's momentum by now if it had had merit; do you think the Clintons would have hesitated to continue to harp on it, if there were more to it? My suggestion to you is that you pay attention to the substance and not the hyperbole and melodrama of allegations like Johnson's. Most genuinely popular political candidates are eventually smeared like this. That's what's happening.
That sounds awfully like whistling past the graveyard. The latter two charges might be "meretricious," but the Rezko charge is about self-enrichment through sleaze, which is always an attention grabber with the public. Getting a house you can't afford through the friendship of a crook is a narrative that will play well in November, and one that that the public understands. Will Obama have to give a "Checkers" speech? Nixon survived his own early sleaze allegation, although in that case what's past did turn out to be prologue.
All the links are vague and tenuous.
Aside from the real estate deal (old news) there isn't the slightest hint of wrongdoing on Obama's part in any of this.
We have nothing to fear but fear itself.
The only people dismissing the Rezko affair as "old news" are Obama supporters.
As Rezko goes to trial, what's old will become new again, even for Obama supporters.
And it will make perfect material for any Republican attack ad. Obama and Michelle are living in a house worth $1,400,000, which Rezko helped them buy with a $300,000 'gift' -and Rezko's 'gift' came from money defrauded from the federal lost-cost housing program.
flashlight - I think you have failed to understand. It's not about legal wrongdoing. It's about judgement.
For example, it there was possibly no legal wrongdoing on Obama's part in the Rezko affair, "CNN showed buildings that Rezko had developed with public funds solicited for him by Obama, where the tenants were left heatless while Rezko's donations continued to Obama"
http://www
Think of the ad showing the Obama's in their fine house bought with the help of a $300,000+ 'gift' from Rezko and contrast this with scenes from the slums Rezko got federal money to build or fix, and didn't.
Something doesn't have to be illegal to be wrong. And just because a person didn't cross some fine line between legal and illegal doesn't mean they have sound judgement.
Obama - Present.
Hillary - President!
Larry, you believe that mere association with these people you listed is enough to derail Obama. You are extremely naive. Rashid Khalidi, while I disagree with him frequently, is a well-respected professor and writer at Columbia University. He is a frequent guest on the Charlie Rose show and his views are pro-Palestinian but not extreme.
With Rezko we have no way of knowing if there is any evidence that will be brought up at his trial on February 25 which will hurt Obama. The fact you mention that Fitzgerald is trying it and that such means the government will be ready indicates the extent to which you fail to realize that most AUSAs are well-prepared and that the Feds don't usually indict unless the case is very strong.
cheforacle - You may be right that an association with Khalidi may not derail Obama in his quest for the Democratic nomination, Obama will need more that Democratic partisans to win a general election for President.
Even where Obama claims superiority, he's weak.
In October 2002, when there was a strong feeling in Chicago against the war, Obama made an anti-war speech and posted it on his website. As the war started, and Bush was riding high in the polls, the speech disappeared from Obama's website, and Obama said the his position was not so different from Bush's. Obama subsequently voted to fund the war. Now, having taken every position possible on the war, Obama can use his record to support his next flip-flop, whatever this may be.
And the 'Yes We Can!' Man, Obama, who is supposed to be something NEW and DIFFERENT: well, it turns out that Obama gives fine speeches, but now it seems that even these are just rewrites of Deval Patrick's 2006 speeches, including his 'Just words..' speech. AND...
"The "Yes we can!" refrain that Barack Obama trumpeted in his concession speech was actually the campaign theme adopted by Deval Patrick, Deval Patrick is a top Obama supporter who rode the slogan to the Massachusetts governorship in 2006." www.taylor
Obama - Present.
Hillary - President!
Maybe these are the reasons Edwards has not endorsed anyone. (yet)
He is stuck between the anger and dissapointment to his base support if he chooses Hillary?
and
Endorsing OBAMA knowing that a republican firestorm is heading this way?
Yeah, let's avoid the Republican firestorm by nominating Hillary Clinton. Great idea. Let's nominate the person with more dirty laundry, more sleazy connections, more bad political history than anyone in Washington outside the Bush cabal. Let's avoid the Republican firestorm by nominating a person who has the highest negatives of any candidate - a person who consistently polls 45% to 50% of Americans saying they will not vote for her under any circumstances. Let's nominate someone who can only be elected if the election turnout is one of the lowest in history because all those people decided to stay home rather than vote for McCain because they don't like Hillary.
Go ahead an nominate her. When you lose the White House and Congress - when America takes out its frustration with having a person offered to them that they have consistently say they reject on all Democrats, don't whine about it. I remember Barack Obama talking about the vote to authorize the Iraq war on a Charlie Rose interview, and he said, "I think our party should have stood our ground and taken our licks if that's what it came to, rather than do what Democrats often do, which is to cave in and then whine about it later. Which makes us look not only weak, but also petty."
I wish people could understand that Larry Johnson and Joe Wilson are committed to getting Hillary nominated. They don't care what happens after the nomination process - their theory is, "First you kill the elephant, then you figure out how to eat it." Larry Johnson knows Hillary has sleaze galore in her background, stuff that makes these accusations look like kindergarten stuff. But he doesn't care about that. You kill the elephant first, then worry about how you're going to eat it.
Whats worse is a majority of Dem Voters will learn about these skeletons and won't care. After a decade of peace and prosperity and Clinton worship they are ready to elect an empty suit over the Clintons. HUH?
Sorry Larry. Read your article with an open mind and wasn't convinced. There is no "there" there. Any politician by definition will have a laundry list of "friends" or "contributors" that are questionable in their character or affiliations.
Again to paraphrase many of the above commentors, the Clintons and McCain aren't 'sparkling' when it comes to this area either.
To somehow suggest that meer association is enough to blow Obama out of the water seems rather weak to me (unless the candidate has done something specifically illegal).
This isn't 2004. America (hopefully) has had its fill of Rovian politics and fearmongering. Any candidate the Dems field will have mud slung at them and questions raised about their associations (or pardons or shady business deals)... yet as you yourself have stated in the prelude to your 'argument' those that support Obama are quick to dismiss these things... because he does not have a reputation that would allow these connection
Bill's pardon of Marc Rich is enough to trump everything Obama ever did in his life. Maybe it's not fair, but Bill Clinton's past is beyond the pale for America. And if you think Hillary didn't know anything about any of that, you're nuts.
In your profile picture, why are you wearing a Robin mask? Were you out fighting crime with Adam West?
You're not supposed to do the Republicans' opposition research for them. We're exercising a lot of restraint on our part... we'd be happy to explain the multitudes of scandals and exactly why Hillary Rodham Clinton should never get her greedy hands anywhere near the presidency. But we won't, unless absolutely necessary, because we don't want the Republicans to find out from us. We're not going to do their dirty work for them.
You better delete this erroneous bullshit before John McCain finds it. They'd need a room full of monkeys to produce this load. Even then, would they be willing to go that far?
Karl Rove is a monkey?
Rove is like the lion waiting in the grass...
...for his supper!
(looking for the weakest of the herd!)
"We're exercising a lot of restraint on our part... we'd be happy to explain the multitudes of scandals and exactly why Hillary Rodham Clinton should never..."
Who are "we"? If you're referring to Obama supporters, a perusal of the multitude of comments on this site will show that the airing of the Clintons' laundry is being handled quite nicely by "them".
"Even then, would they be willing to go that far? "
Is this satire?
OUCH....wh
been waiting for the dust up and it looks like this could be a prelude to whats in store...
nice research Larry...
is it Timeforach
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
