Letters to the Editor
-
Vigilance
Barack Obama thinks that he's ready for whatever the "Party of Fear" has to throw at him because he's "survived" the Clinton machines "attacks."
He has no idea... but it's not really what the Party of Fear does -- it's what the MSM picks up and runs with...
The Party of Fear tosses out little bombs.
No one is forcing the media to pay attention.
And the only way to stop them from paying attention to the bombs and publicizing them is to stop paying attention to the MSM...
We do have an "off" switch.
We don't have to buy what they're selling.
But not buying and not knowing are two different things. We can't ignore what they're saying because we can't assume everyone is ignoring them.
Therefore, what Glenn and a very few others (Media Matters, Keith Olbermann to name two) do to shine a light on the lies is invaluable.
We need to scoff and mock these people.
And I'm not talking about Fox -- they're obvious.
We need to scoff at the Russerts and Mathews and Blitzers of the world. The people who've managed to convince the majority of the public that they are honest journalists.
They must be shown as the flagrant liars that they are. They aren't stupid, they know exactly what they're doing when they spread the bile and lies of the Party of Fear.
They aren't the least bit interested in the public good. They're only interested in protecting the fortunes they've amassed by pandering to the corrupt republicans who are their masters.
-
The Question for Obama
Will he fight back against the charges that he is liberal by pointing out how friendly to industry he is, or will he embrace the label and point out what it means?
There are suggestions he might do the latter. Let's hope so, because it is the only way to keep the terrorists from winning.
-
Yep, We Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet
What makes this post especially fascinating is it makes a good case that, yes, the upcoming campaign will get really really dirty--much dirtier than ever, since the smear tactics have evolved. But, to counteract that, the blogs have also evolved. That means that in the absence of a responsible mainstream media, there are necessarily more bloggers writing more accurately to a far wider readership than before. And that means there's a greater opportunity to get to the source of all these attacks in real time.
And what does that all mean?
I'm waiting to see what happens next with net neutrality.
-
Sharon Stone
I saw the same clip on Fox and immediately thought of you. I wish Dave Corn had said and asked something along these lines, "So, Mike, you think she's guilty of treason. Do you think she should be hanged? Put in jail for the rest of her life? 20 years? 10 years? What consequence should she face?"
Af for smears against Obama -- I think the machine is only just getting started. People like you are one of the best defenses.
-
@ optimacy
"If Obama doesn't follow suit, he can now be painted as the "special interest" candidate. If he does take it, his spending cap will limit his defense of these attacks."
Not necessarily. First let me say that IF Obama did pledge to run on public money, he should stick to it, but as far as I know there actually was no pledge but I could be wrong.
But anyway, based on Obama's fundraising so far, Obama could easily point to the public who've donated and say the people are his 'public interest'.
Could be a great commercial. Show off a few friendly stats of how many reg'lar folk have contributed to Obama and end with the tag line: My 'special interest' is the American People.
-
contradictory slurs?
Doesn't the "secret Communist" smear kind of undermine the "secret Islamist" smears?
Oh wait, I'm thinking too hard. Silly me, all smears are cumulative. I just hope Obama is as good a campaigner as I think he is. Whether he or Clinton is nominated, things are going to get very, very ugly.
-
Taobhan:
I'd love for Glenn or some comment posters to direct those of us who want to know toward some resources for understanding this current phenomenon.
-- Taobhan
I suggest that you bookmark Daily Howler and spend some time reading their archives.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/
-
This morning alone
Can someone point me to anything meaningful, useful, or relevant in any of these? And this is just a quick scan of the biggest violators, who knows what else is out there.
The Obama Delusion
By Robert J. Samuelson
Wednesday, February 20, 2008; Page A17
"....
But on inspection, the metaphor is a mirage. Repudiating racism is not a magic cure-all for the nation's ills. The task requires independent ideas, and Obama has few. If you examine his agenda, it is completely ordinary, highly partisan, not candid and mostly unresponsive to many pressing national problems.
By Obama's own moral standards, Obama fails. "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021902336.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
===========
To Catch a Thief
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: February 20, 2008
"Lenny and Squiggy were nowhere in sight.
But Hillary was doing her best to come across as a “Laverne & Shirley” factory girl as she headed away from not-a-chance Wisconsin and on to gotta-have Ohio.
...
The Clintons are known political cat burglars. They pilfered Republican jewels in the ’90s, and Hillary has purloined as much as she can stuff in her pantsuit from her husband and Barack Obama."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/opinion/20dowd.html?ref=opinion
=======================
The ways of Washington
By Tony Blankley
February 20, 2008
"... There is a joke going around Washington to the effect that Hillary Clinton is the senator from New York who was born in Illinois, while Mr. Obama is the senator from Illinois who was born in a manger.
It might seem useful to Mr. Obama to run as a saint in this wicked, wicked world. But the trouble with posing as a saint is that one sets oneself up to be judged by exalted saintly standards. And just as not missing even a procedural vote haunted Mr. Bennett all the days of his congressional life, so playing the part of a saint will make it politically dangerous for Mr. Obama to take those necessary, little expedient acts that politicians routinely get away with, but for which aspiring saints get disgraced and banished."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080220/EDITORIAL01/752069338/1013/EDITORIAL