I wonder if Booman and other non-OFB Obama supporters will acknowledge this?

You know, this is Patrick Fitzgerald, that makes it like, serious.

The Tribue article is from January 20, I think. But that there aren't the talking points to take this apart immediately.... Well, prima facie case that the vetting has not been done.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Please visit RezkoWatch for more.

I posted a polite comment on MyDD asking why Obama supporters, whose candidate preaches unity, can't be civil when defending their candidate.

I was immediately called a "fucking moron".

Sorry if my quote twists the server.

If any Obama fan can explain this, please do.

but I can tell you that under no circumstances is any questioning that might be remotely critical of The Anointed One is allowed. Period.

He's uplifting/inspiring/motivational/wonderful/use your own adjective and how dare you ruin everyone's mellow by asking questions! /snark

I did so in the context of "what does this mean for the general election campaign -- and potentially, for an Obama presidency." LHP presented the 'bare-bones' of what will doubtless be the basis of a major right-wing smear job done on Obama, not as an attack, but as a warning.

This is the kind of stuff that the right-wing has at the ready to attack Obama with -- and lest we forget, Obama does have a political record that is absolutely acceptable for Democratic voters (i.e. stuff that no Democrat would attack him on), but that also provides fertile ground for the right-wing attack machine.

Present? Not an acceptable vote. Not acceptable at all.

I haven't researched this, but someone should -- percentage of ACTUAL Fauxbama votes NOT in the interest of contributors/supporters. I suspect a rather low proportion.

And I'm proud if I get put on his enemies list. One way or another -- he'd probably put me in the camps first -- I might as well be a voice in the wilderness.

And btw -- could the Fauxbamabots have responded any other way? No facts are allowed in Fauxbamaland in support of or in refutation of anything.

And also btw, I read months ago that the chosen one's early money came from the swift boat crowd. Someone should research this too.

Oh, and I've copyrighted "fauxbama" but you may use it with my compliments.

All the corporate media has to do is show the reality behind his empty rhetoric--his voting record as a IL and US senator (especially on Iraq), shady corporate lobbyist ties, dishonest and misleading campaign (e.g., health care), etc.--and I'm afraid it'll be more than enough to puncture the bubble of Obamania, which is the basis of his campaign.

Such feverish, blind devotion is most vulnerable to intense feelings of disillusionment and betrayal once he's exposed as the (gasp!) status quo politician he is. For years, people have been misled to believe he's "different"--even "transformational"--and when they find out the truth, I doubt there'll be enough time for him to rally the troops.

With Clinton, we don't have that risk since we already know she's flawed and people vote for her on the issues, her competence which inspires great confidence, and her fighting rhetoric against the right.

Am I the only one who doesn't have a link on "Obama and Rezko." I'll go over to Fire Dog Lake and try to find the article.

Remind me never to post after midnight...

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

"Political record" isn't the same as voting record, as Paul no doubt well knew when he wrote the words.

There's plenty of stuff in Obama's record to attack him with. And I happen to think the "present" votes in the Illinois legislature are pretty thin gruel.

(The absence of hearings from Obama in the Senate subcommittee he was chair of, and had jurisdiction over Iraq, is a different story.)

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

And I happen to think the “present” votes in the Illinois legislature are pretty thin gruel.

I dunno, they are more substantive then earth tones or sighing. It's not like the GOP attack machine needs anything.

A few more months and this will be over ahd we will have our nominee.

indicates chicken shit for blood. its pretty serious -- maybe thin gruel for the repubs attack machine, but pretty thick for my taste. stinky. failure to attend/preside at committee meetings is just more of the same. contempt for the process. contempt for us. just like gwb.

I'm with Paul on this; it's about what use the right-wing can make of this in the general election, and that has nothing to do with the substance of why Obama's name is there, except that he's damn lucky it's Fitzpatrick, because at least his staff won't be flogging this for political ends, one assumes.

The entire Whitewater so-called scandal, which was cloned by the right and the media into a multitude of scandals within scandals, none of which were scandalous, as has been proved beyond any sane standard, although that doesn't stop the SCLM from making insane references to it as if there was still something, anything, unexplained - well, all that started with a set referrals that were aimed at the Clintons and some of their associates by an employee of the RTC who was a self-appointed right-wing Republican mole, who violated every aspect of the non-political, non-partisan civil service code she was pledged to adhere to, and didn't.

It was her testimony to the staff of Jim Leach's Judiciary committee, after the Republicans had taken congress in '94, which provided the basis for the hour long speech Leach gave on the floor of the house charging both Clintons with the arrogance of power for,in Leach's view, having flagrantly kept open Jim MacDougall's Savings & Loan, and any number of other charges made in that speech, none of which turned out to be remotely true, but the fact that it was Leach, a moderate Republican made "liberals" like Mark Shields intone that this "had to be taken seriously," and shake his head at the general stench left by the Clintons.

In the public hearings this female operative was exposed as a fraud by Democrats, one who had lied under oath repeatedly, but the Republicans, including Leach continued to defend her, by launching a tirade against the Democrats' politics of personal destruction. Cute, no?

I'll say it again, not a single charge against either Clinton associated with any of the cluster of various charges that were made under the rubric of "Whitewater," has been shown to have a sliver of truth to it. Oh, and neither Jim Leach nor Mark Shields has ever offered anything that remotely resembles an apology to either Clinton.

Innocence will not be enough to protect Obama, so, as I said, I hope his campaign is ready.

It doesn't matter whether the mention of Obama has any substantive questions about his own behavior, his presence in some sort of legal tangle is sufficient.

Since Obama has been willing to use some of the hoariest right-wing memes about personal corruption against both Clintons, one does hope, smart politico that he is, that he is aware that they are just that, political lies dressed up as moral truths, and that he's prepared to deal with it when those big dirty wind machines are powered up and pointed in his direction.

I agree with Lambert, the "present" votes are thin gruel; they made sense in terms for the way the Ill legislature is set up. Details matter.

Remember, the Clintons are quite capable of playing the political game, too, of latching onto a seeming fact and deliberately keeping the focus narrow so context disappears. Both sides do this; I think its a function of both sides being guided by contemporary political operatives who've made an art of this kind of spin.

You present a narrative in which Obama supporters are glassy eyed zombies and Clinton supporters are mature rational serious people, and people who use terms like "fauxbama" applaud. Wonderful.

As the author of the Kos story, I responded to your critique there, but you ignored it. Your "only one point" critique appears to be nothing more than a distraction. LHP's story is defective because his frame, that Obama had suspiciously chosen to work for Rezko "indirectly" via this "ethically spotty" obscure law firm, is counter to empirical facts.

Present
Submitted by anonymous coward (not verified) on Fri, 2008-02-08 13:17.

indicates chicken shit for blood. its pretty serious — maybe thin gruel for the repubs attack machine, but pretty thick for my taste. stinky. failure to attend/preside at committee meetings is just more of the same. contempt for the process. contempt for us. just like gwb.

So this is the mature, thoughtful, incisive critique of Obama we're supposed to contrast to the nutty fanboy behavior of the Obama supporters?

I'm seeing rather routine and dull snark, but then one has to take the rough with the smooth in this world, particularly with an open commenting policy.

But I'm not seeing the commenter compare Obama to, say, the anti-Christ. That would be the inverse of the "nutty fanboy behavior" that treats a presidential candidate as an object of ritual devotion -- like MLK, or, God save the mark, a boddhisattva (no, I kid you not).

Of course, if you're interested in something besides a quick hit, you could check out the adulatory [not!] coverage elsewhere on the blog.

Does this help?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

contempt for us. just like gwb.

That's routine and dull snark? I mean we're talking about a Democratic Senator with a liberal voting record endorsed by Barbara Lee and Jesse Jackson Jr. and Lakoff. Those may not be enough to win your support but "just like gwb" or "fauxbama" or "con man" (seen in another comment here)?

I answer the "fanboy" critique, so the argument gets shifted somwhere else. Too tedious. Ciao.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Instead you created a false standard: one apparently has to compare Obama to the anti-christ to escape the bounds of sober analysis.

It's unfortunate that you insist on basing your critiques of Obama purely on anger. If you think that something that could be expressed as "Obama's logo reminds me of reagan" is a rational critique - think again.

Don't you have a bridge you should be under?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Well that was fast. The cool, rational personality of the Clinton supporter wins again.

goodbye.

Instead of getting sucked into an endless discussion with a obvious concern troll. So sorry I can't devote the entire afternoon. Don't let the door hit you as you flounce off.

Readers, check the posts here. You'll find plenty of analysis, talking points, and righteous anger, and you will also discover a refreshing absence of... well, overvaluation of the object. Since apparently the word "cult" makes some people very, very angry and that's "divisive."

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

1. Quote of the day: "Obama speech generator"
2. Obama's logo reminds me of Reagan, ick.
3. LHP caught on misrepresentation but his other points are important and by not confronting all of them, any dissenter reveals intellectual bankruptcy.
4. Jeff Koopersmith says that I conclude from something an Obama supporter said he has contempt for the civil rights movement - his invited sermon in MLKs church on MLK day which one might think relevant is apparently not.

etc.

Thank you for commenting, rootless. Your comment is very important to us. Please do not hesitate to comment again.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

pff.

Fitz.

Or if the word "worship" is itself excessive, let's put it this way: We are giving his background the kind of searching, detailed, indeed nitpicking examination that the media should have done long since but haven't, since besides laziness they can justify their avoidance with a fear of being charged with racism.

If what we say here--be it about voting/attendance records in elective office, about alleged scandal a la the Rezco affair, or even in the form of petty personal insult like "fauxbama"...holy crap, Rootless, you better gird your loins a little tighter or you're gonna collapse of apoplexy before we even get to the convention.

And you know--you do know, don't you?--that nothing we say here is a patch on the barrage the RNC and pet 527s are going to be throwing at him once/if he's the official nominee.

Think of this as vaccination. A little dose of exposure to non-adoration to arm you against the slings and arrows to come.

I'm sure there are some outright Obama haters out there, either out of HRC adoration, feminist conviction, racism or any number of other factors. So let me say again: We. Are. Not. Obama. Haters. We are Obama questioners.

And to be a little pragmatic about it, you know damn well that we'll figure out reasons to support the shit out of him if he's the nominee, even if the best we can muster is that he's got a "D" after his name and that's a million times better than any alternative. So maybe let's rachet down the antagonism just a bit and take an occasional aim at the common enemy rather than each other, eh?

Think of this as vaccination. A little dose of exposure to non-adoration to arm you against the slings and arrows to come.

I don't buy it. Comments calling Hillary a "bitch" or reviving stupid whitewater era "scandals" annoy me too. Repeating or inventing slurs doesn't vaccinate, it spreads the disease.

Considering that I am absolutely furious at both candidates for their cowardly positions on the most important issue of the time - the war, I'd hardly call my default view "adoration". We have two moderate-centrist professional politicians who seem to be largely decent. No need to help the MSM frame them as evil.

Thank you for commenting, rootless. Your comment is very important to us. Please do not hesitate to comment again.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

lambert, grow the fuck up. I don't support Hillary or Obama, I support the eventual Dem candidate -- the alternative is too dire to contemplate. You really aren't doing anyone any favors with your one-sided attacks. WWJD?

'cause, seriously, this ecnalubma mindset of yours is a prelude to llikdaor.

We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

start characterizing BHO's ability to generate crowd fervor with LEFT BEHIND's prime mover, that enumerator of the principalities of the UN, that bad mofo himself, the Antichrist.

I mean, his scandals roll off like water, his backers are formidable and powerful, his potential complications about his history and connections pooh-poohed as rumors spread by the jealous....

If he's willing to use the mantle of sanctity for political gain, then he'd better be prepared for the projection of the evil by the evil, upon him.