Oh Boy — The White House Calls Obama Intellectually Lazy
People who live in glass houses...
A senior White House official has offered this critique of Barack Obama:
As for Obama, a senior White House official said the freshman senator from Illinois was "capable" of the intellectual rigor needed to win the presidency but instead relies too heavily on his easy charm."It's sort of like, 'that's all I need to get by,' which bespeaks sort of a condescending attitude towards the voters," said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity. "And a laziness, an intellectual laziness."
Is there anything more to say?
Comments (90)
NCSteve wrote on September 24, 2007 11:12 AM:Damn. Projecting much?
anns wrote on September 24, 2007 11:16 AM:Yes.It is so easy getting through Columbia and Harvard Law School. This from the President who got rejected by the U Texas Law School in the 1960's!
Jeremy wrote on September 24, 2007 11:16 AM:Obama, who has a track record of evidence-based judgment unmatched by other leading Dem candidates who could not be bothered to read the NIE before giving Bush a blank check for war, is easily the most intellectual candidate on either side.
Passing Shot wrote on September 24, 2007 11:24 AM:Hmmm. In this corner, the none-too-bright (even his mama thinks so) scion of a wealthy connected family who has used those connections to avoid breaking a sweat as he coasts through Andover, Yale, Texas Air National Guard and HBS during the height of the Vietnam War.
In that corner, a child of mixed parentage who, using all the tools of intellect and personality, overcomes his admittedly troubled teenage years to attend a local college, do sufficiently well academically to transfer to Columbia, engage in local organizing, attend HLS where he not only succeds academically but is elected the first black president of its noted and prestigious Law Review.
I'd say it doesn't pass the laugh test but I'm not laughing because the former is our president.
Geek, Esq. wrote on September 24, 2007 11:29 AM:I'm surprised they didn't call him "shiftless" or "getting by on electoral welfare."
Keith wrote on September 24, 2007 11:33 AM:I think the bigger point here is not the not-so-subtle racist remark, but that Obama is on the mind of the administration. The CW is that HRC has this locked up--this comment seems completely at odds with CW. Maybe the nomination is quite a lock after all (pure speculation on my part).
Brian wrote on September 24, 2007 11:36 AM:It seems like this is Rove 101 to me -- you don't hit a candidate's weaknesses that the voters will figure out, but instead his strengths. So, lay the claim of "intellectually lazy" on one of the more thoughtful and intelligence presidential candidates we have had in a while.
mark wrote on September 24, 2007 11:39 AM:[i]This[/i] administration is calling Obama intellectually Lazy?!?!?!?
BWAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
mark wrote on September 24, 2007 11:42 AM:hum....
Seems the HTML tags don't work as advertised.
Wait a minute...I thought Hillary was the only one who was so divisive that she would be ridiculously attacked from the right? Who would have ever thought they'd attack everybody?
NCSteve wrote on September 24, 2007 11:44 AM:On further reflection, given that this is a "senior White House official" (read: "Rove") being interviewed for a Regnary book, I've got to conclude that this is a deliberate use of GOP racial code talking. The GOP has raised the use of coded messages to racists to a high art since Nixon's Southern strategy. (Remember Reagan's "welfare queens," Bush I's Willie Horton ad?)
I'm guessing the "Al Qaeda Sleeper Agent" rumor has kind of peaked out in effectiveness, so now they're going for "affirmative action baby." This will probably be on the lips of all the low rent radio ravers by the end of the week and will seep up to Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Hannity within the next two weeks. Given Carlson's obsession with Obama, (which, let's face it, is well into the creepy zone), I wouldn't be surprised to see him be the first to latch onto it.
DML wrote on September 24, 2007 11:45 AM:Wait a minute...
"condescending attitude towards the voters"
Did they really pack 'uppity' and 'lazy' in the same interview? I thought Rove was out of the WH? Karen Hughes must be back.
Righteous Bubba wrote on September 24, 2007 11:47 AM:Mark is HTMLically lazy. You need triangular brackets.
Now go read three Shakespeares.
moodmovesmarkets wrote on September 24, 2007 11:48 AM:"The official, who requested anonymity because ..."?
Lettuce wrote on September 24, 2007 11:48 AM:Brian hit the nail on the head -- this is classic Rove. Gore had integrity, passion -- make him look feckless and a liar. Kerry's military record was a formindable strength -- so get some nutwhacks to call him a traitor.
So Obama is lazy, huh? That's rich. But this isn't their first crack at this. Any missteps so far that have fed that meme (his comments on foriegn policy for instance) have gotten, and will get lots of coverage by the real intellectually lazybones here -- the press.
The Bush admin has taken political chutzpah to places I'd never dreamed they could go. That, as with so many other depressing things, continues to prove my imagination was never up to the task of predicting what this president was capable of.
Col Bat Guano wrote on September 24, 2007 11:48 AM:This will probably be on the lips of all the low rent radio ravers by the end of the week and will seep up to Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Hannity within the next two weeks.
I'm sure you're right about this, but doesn't the picture of all those rightwing mouth breathers disparaging Obama on his "intellectual laziness" make you laugh out loud?
Timroc wrote on September 24, 2007 11:49 AM:Okay, let's get ready for a response 2-day from the Obama camp. I think the comments written before this one will suffice. I mean any of them!
carsick wrote on September 24, 2007 11:51 AM:I love the line, "it's sort of like..."
It's sort of like when he says "Hello" he is saying "Goodbye" and voters find that condescending and won't vote for a Goodbye candidate.
this is the sort of thing that a C student says about the professor
oleeb wrote on September 24, 2007 11:56 AM:This simply proves that there really is no end to the bullshit this White House is capable of producing.
jalbert wrote on September 24, 2007 12:00 PM:putting this together with bush's comments that HRC will win the nomination, it's clear that the gop feels that a Hillary candidacy will motivate their voters to come out and gives the right their best shot, if not at the presidency, certainly for down ballot contests
The Obnox wrote on September 24, 2007 12:04 PM:Imagine trying to say that with a straight face.
Kevbo wrote on September 24, 2007 12:08 PM:The GOP thinks it knows how to beat Hillary....they've been working that out for a couple of years. They need to make sure she gets the nomination.
Grumpy wrote on September 24, 2007 12:08 PM:Reagan proved intellectual laziness didn't matter.
chisholm wrote on September 24, 2007 12:09 PM:The absurdity of this comment, coming from this White House, is so vast that I won't be able to laugh about it until tomorrow.
In terms of strategy, this is so vague that it feels like they're still trying to find the right character smear to hang on him. It feels exploratory and trial-balloon-y. Once they find the right one they'll run with it, and the "questions" it raises will soon be posed by all the many, many Joan Venocchis in our political-calculus-obsessed media. It would be fun to track this meme as it passes through the RNC/punditocracy digestive system.
anonymouse wrote on September 24, 2007 12:10 PM:TPM:
Please stop printing quotes from the administration. It's bringing my IQ down to dangerous levels...
The sheer racism of the statement, evoking the ancient slur of "lazy darkies," demands a stern rebuke from every human being--including the poor excuse for one currently seated in the Oval office. The Republican party has been trading on racism for decades--can you say "Southern strategy"?--and this is a chance for the Democratic party to call them on it and not let up.
harriett wrote on September 24, 2007 12:13 PM:Yeah, everyone knows our Boy King is an intellectual GIANT. The Chimperor must be afraid. Won't work, as over 70% of Americans KNOW what an idiot he truly is.
Bill H. wrote on September 24, 2007 12:17 PM:Time for Obama to show us the goods....how does he do with "My Pet Goat"?
Fe wrote on September 24, 2007 12:17 PM:Its a racist remark designed to go viral inside the right-wing base "news" network.
It has the earmarks of Biden saying Obama was "neat and clean".
And if we want to go there about ineffectual African Americans, one only has to look back to Condi Rice buying Ferragamos while NOLA drowned in 2005.
fuzz wrote on September 24, 2007 12:17 PM:I hope Obama has a lot of fun with this.
gqmartinez wrote on September 24, 2007 12:21 PM:He couldn't ask for a better campaign boost than this. It let's him be bipartisan and partisan at the same time. Of course the irony in his overall message combined with the WH comments is not lost on me.
gcs wrote on September 24, 2007 12:27 PM:Isn't this a repeat of the Republicans 2004 strategy that's been well documented on TPM? You know the one, where the Republicans to a man attacked and assailed Kerry knowing the Dems would circle around him like a bunch of goddamned sheep when in fact they were actually terrified of running against Edwards.
So, by directly attacking Obama aren't they trying to stampede Dems and Independents into voting for him, having already determined or decided that their biggest threat comes from Hillary or Edwards? Or a Hillary/Edwards ticket for that matter?
Can we all be so stupid as to fall for the exact same bit twice, two presidential campaigns in a row?!
Juble wrote on September 24, 2007 12:33 PM:All this from a Prez who before his being selected to the Prez of US had not the intellectual curiosity to visit a single country outside of Mexico ?
Must be some kind of joke.
Repubs would rather fight Hillary then Obama.
Keith wrote on September 24, 2007 12:37 PM:This "smear" has already been somewhat effective (as indicated by posts here--myself included). Suddenly everyone is trying to figure out what was the "intent" of the comment. Was it misdirection (i.e., designed to throw us off the scent of the candidates the Repubs REALLY fear) or was it direct (i.e., designed to undercut Obama's perceived strength). (IMHO) If asked, Obama needs a witty retort and that's it. He needs to run HIS race, not the one Repubs and MSM want to see.
trish wrote on September 24, 2007 12:46 PM:Wow, this is Rovian on so many levels (attack the opposition's strengths, play the "coded" racial card, etc.), it seems to me it's time for the Veracifier to show Bush and Obama side by side, don'tcha think?
Obama is intellectually lazy????
And yet yesterday the Chicago Tribune asked if Obama can actually cut it with "beer-track" voters:
"A former Harvard Law Review president and constitutional law lecturer at the University of Chicago, Obama can sometimes seem professorial. It is one of the reasons he sometimes fails to connect with working-class voters.
"Pollsters call Bren and those like her 'beer-track' voters, while those with higher incomes and more education are dubbed 'wine-track' voters. The first group tends to care more about pocketbook issues. The second places greater value on more global matters."
Wait a second! Wasn't Bush the guy who was elected because more people would want to sit down and have a beer with him than they would with Al Gore or John Kerry? Talk about ass-backwards.
Who is this "senior White House official" anyway? It can't be Rove because he'd be a "former" official. Whoever it is he (or she) is clearly a Rove disciple. Why do reporters give cover to such obvious self-serviing political smears?
markg8 wrote on September 24, 2007 12:48 PM:Compare and contrast with the hitjob on the frontpage of the ChiTrib yesterday claiming Obama attracts wine drinking eggheads but not the average beer drinking unwashed based on the quip of one unemployed woman in IA.
elrapierwit wrote on September 24, 2007 12:48 PM:
Yes, there is a lot more to say.
Only in America could a man who graduated from the most prestigious Univesities our country has to offer be described as intellectually lazy. Degrees from Columbia and Harvard now confer intellectually lazy as part of their alumni's pedigree.
Only in America could a man who went to Harvard Law and was President of the Harvard Law Review be described as intellecutally lazy.
Only in America could a man of color who is a recognized constitutional scholar be smeared with the racially biased image of a dumb shiftless negro having taught Constitutional Law at one of the most rigorous Constitutional law institutions in the country.
Only in America could a man with exceptional political judgment and a brilliant strategic mind put forth a foreign policy backed by one of the most eminient foreign polical experts, Zbig..be called intellectually lazy.
Only in America could a man who was against the biggest foreign policy disaster in the history of the nation be decribed as intellectually lazy because he would have demanded an exit strategy before he went to war, unlike his political rivals.
All that is left is for the RNC to paint the picture of Obama being a minstrel tap dancer to Jolston tunes.
It seems to me that the RNC is running scared not about HRClinton who they know they can easily beat in the general but they have figured out that it is Obama who is the most formidable politician who appeals across the political spectrum to independents, democrats and republicans.
That's fucking retarded.
Joshua wrote on September 24, 2007 12:54 PM:Not only is it classic Rove (hit the strengths), but its some brilliant concern trolling - "oh, Obama is totally awesome enough to be Prez but we fear he is relying on his charms too much".
There are few politicians in this country, maybe even the history of this country, which has less respect and more contempt for voters than the crooks running the executive branch today. And who is more intellectually lazy than the current President? Classic projection.
Joshua wrote on September 24, 2007 12:56 PM:Also: forgot to say that Rush has been bringing out the ol' "Osama Obama" line a lot more lately... did the RNC do some polling and figure out that Obama is gonna be the nominee, or are they just trying to cover all their bases?
Chris wrote on September 24, 2007 12:58 PM:"I think the bigger point here is not the not-so-subtle racist remark, but that Obama is on the mind of the administration. "
Didn't I read somewhere a while back, around the time that Rove left maybe, that the Republicans started going after Kerry in '04 because they felt that John Edwards was actually the real threat? They targeted Kerry because they felt he was the weaker candidate and they wanted to make people pay attention to him rather than Edwards. I wonder if this is the same situation. While Obama is a contender, it's been generally acknowledged that Hillary has been stronger than expected. Maybe this is their way to trying to choose the candidate they'd most like to be up against.
nellieh wrote on September 24, 2007 12:59 PM:If they would characterize Obama that way, in what category would they put the moronic President? Did Obama have a 'Legacy' spot at the University? Or did he have to apply? Did he receive 'gentlemanly Cees or did he have to work with out 'Skull and Bones" givoing him papers to turn in? Where do these f'n people come from? Regent?
john mccutchen wrote on September 24, 2007 1:01 PM:White men can't jump and O's got a mean jump shot
john mccutchen wrote on September 24, 2007 1:03 PM:White men can't jump and O's got a mean jump shot.
Next thing you know they'll roll out the heavy artillery - Alan Keyes and Clayton Bigsby
Easy charm? What the hell is easy charm? Is it anything like people wanting to sit and have a beer with you?
What I really would like to know is why any antonymous predictions coming out of the White House is given any credence? I mean they are good for a laugh, but does anyone give these clowns any real play after the Scooter Libby thing?
What was it Rove said before the 06 elections?
This administration is bankrupted intellectually, ethically and morally.
There is literally nothing that they, the Bush Administration, could say, autonomously or any other way including a Presidential press conference, that should go unchallenged by the press.
The press spoon feed the Bush preemptive Iraq war to the American people almost unexamined.
Main stream media is invested in the Iraq/Bush war and can no longer be trusted. Some are owned by corporations, G.E., that make more money at the war then they do with NBC. Is the NBC/CNBC/MSNBC arm of the G.E. family going to run counter to the interest of the parent corporation? In the public interest we hope so.
But it is the DUTY OF THE CORPORATE CEO TO RETURN TO THE SHAREHOLDERS THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE RETURN ON INVESTMENT.
How long would any executive at NBC last by telling the truth and undercutting G.E.'s biggest cash cow, the Iraq/Bush War and the endlessly expanding military budget that isn't paid for but put off on to debt.
Is all this really in the interest of the American people or the American/International Corporations?
Now, who is it paying the candidates bills as they run for the highest office of the land? Them that pay the fiddler call the tune.
I've sent money to Obama, lots of little people have. In the future it would be better if the entire shooting match were paid for by the people. We would then be calling the tune. Something like the Democracy/Republic we are suppose to be.
A government paid for and run by corporations is called a Fascist Government. It is run for the benefit of corporations and the people who own them.
Such a government might make laws with advantages for corporations. Such a government might make laws limiting freedom for individuals and legal protection for corporations.
Anonymous wrote on September 24, 2007 1:08 PM:I thought I had heard the most bizarre statement this gutless White House had to offer. Now I am convinced those were only the prelude. But alas, this one simply makes them look terribly stupid and has nothing to do with Obama. Now jerks like Rush may have a field day with it, but what intellectual would ever tumble to anything the guy says anyway. I will wait for Obama's high class answer with great interest. These attempts at racial hate seem to just not get to him and I say, GOOD FOR HIM!!!! Let him raise lots of dollars from this goof-up by the White House.
Liane Norman wrote on September 24, 2007 1:08 PM:I don't imagine anyone in this administration, which thinks Obama not intellectually serious enough for the presidency they have despoiled by incompetence and thoughtlessness, has read THE AUDACITY OF HOPE. I find it extraordinary intellectually, not to mention well-written and self-aware.
Clem wrote on September 24, 2007 1:09 PM:...and if Obama hits back hard, we'll hear that he is "emotional" and has problems with "impulse control."
slb wrote on September 24, 2007 1:13 PM:Isn't there supposed to be a tradition that the outgoing White House stays the hell out of the current presidential election?
Not that this administration has ever shown any respect for political tradition.
fishbrake wrote on September 24, 2007 1:24 PM:They're afraid of Obama, more than Hillary. That's why they criticize him and Edwards and build her up.
OxyCon wrote on September 24, 2007 1:45 PM:I think Obama should take a cue from Hillary and just laugh in Bush's face.
Seriously. The Bush White House calling someone else "intellectually lazy"?
Pot, kettle, black.
I guess there's no question of who the Republican Party is most scared of anymore.
Thanks for clearing that up for us!
Paul Stamler wrote on September 24, 2007 2:12 PM:Hmm..anyone think the White House wants Obama to be the candidate because they think the (semi-)latent racism of the populace is enough to defeat him?
Charles B. Flaherty wrote on September 24, 2007 2:17 PM:Bill Clinton overcame the Republican owned media machine with Swift counterpunches. Remember that Kerry lost ground, because he expected " journalists " to heap scorn upon the Swift boaters for the paid hacks that they proved to be. He waited too long. I would be delighted to see Barack Obama ask if people in President Bush's administration wish to insult him they have the intestinal fortitude to go on record and not do it anonymously. An immediate denunciation of this remark for the pernicious tripe that it is sure to come all Democratic candidates. The Democratic field is strong enough to stand on their own merits, individually and should stand together to combat these subtle innuendos. (I.e., rumors of HRC's lesbianism or making fun of how much a rich man spends on a haircut.) The cry should remain " issues, platform, issues, platform"
I believe that the Republicans feel they can beat Hillary Rodham Clinton, otherwise how do you explain Rupert Murdoch holding a fundraiser for HRC. I also believe whomever ascends to the presidency in 2008 should appoint Bill Clinton as our ambassador to the United Nations.
numi wrote on September 24, 2007 2:20 PM:What's next?
Obama eats big juicy watermelons and spits seeds on the carpet! Oops! Didn't mean to reveal the next genius move by the Republicanites. I'm sure Rush will be all over the watermelon angle in no time.
the real cookie wrote on September 24, 2007 2:21 PM:That is hilarious! Hey, I wonder if Laura read Obama's book?
TPM Election Clinton wrote on September 24, 2007 2:25 PM:Repubs would rather fight Hillary then Obama.
Exactly. That's why Kleefeld plays along. That's why this is front page "news." That's why TPM Election Clinton is a joke. That's why Republicans will keep the White House.
Charles B. Flaherty wrote on September 24, 2007 2:26 PM:Bill Clinton overcame the Republican owned media machine with Swift counterpunches. Remember that Kerry lost ground, because he expected " journalists " to heap scorn upon the Swift boaters for the paid hacks that they proved to be. He waited too long. I would be delighted to see Barack Obama ask if people in President Bush's administration wish to insult him they have the intestinal fortitude to go on record and not do it anonymously. An immediate denunciation of this remark for the pernicious tripe that it is should come from all Democratic candidates. The Democratic field is strong enough to stand on their own merits, individually and should stand together to combat these subtle innuendos. (I.e., rumors of HRC's lesbianism or making fun of how much a rich man spends on a haircut.) The cry should remain " issues, platform, issues, platform"
I believe that the Republicans feel they can beat Hillary Rodham Clinton, otherwise how do you explain Rupert Murdoch holding a fundraiser for HRC. I also believe whomever ascends to the presidency in 2008 should appoint Bill Clinton as our ambassador to the United Nations.
Please pardon the double post, my Dragon NaturallySpeaking caused typos that I didn't catch.
apodaca wrote on September 24, 2007 2:29 PM:Dear Lord. What's next -- an ad featuring Miss "I met Barack at the Playboy party?"
colonpowwow wrote on September 24, 2007 2:31 PM:I know it's the conventional wisdom around here that the adherants of the anybody-but-Hillary camp must say these such things in chorus (from this thread):
"The GOP thinks it knows how to beat Hillary . . . they have to make sure she gets the nomination."
"Repubs would rather fight Hillary then Obama."
"a Hillary candidacy will motivate their voters to come out and gives the right their best shot"
"HRClinton who they know they can easily beat in the general "
Okay, lets start with these premises:
1. Hillary Clinton is a stronger Democratic candidate with a more talented and disciplined campaign staff than John Kerry 2004
2. Incumbent President Bush in 2004 was a stronger GOP candidate than any of the GOP contenders will be.
3. The general political climate today strongly favors the Democrats.
We all know that it is "states" not individual voter totals that elect the president. So what state(s) that Kerry/Edwards carried in 2004 will Hillary not carry in 2008?
Ohio will go Democratic in 2008. There's your victory. But even if it doesn't:
Hillary is leading big in Bush 2004's New Mexico and Iowa. Also Bush 2004'S Kentucky, Florida, Arkansas (in the bag if she runs with Clark), West Virginia, Missouri, and Arizona are all in play and trending Democrat. One or two of those states along with Ohio and it's getting close to mandate time.
So fear not Hillary-bashers, and oh, BTW it should be irrelevant, especially to Democrats, what the GOP thinks they want. Since women make up the largest single demographic, and Hillary will "own" this demographic by Election Day - they best be careful what they ask for.
Pablo wrote on September 24, 2007 2:31 PM:
BadaBing...but seriously folks, boy are my arms tired......
It's classic Rove strategy...go after the man's strength (intelligence), from your weakness (mental dwarfism)
illlich wrote on September 24, 2007 3:06 PM:I'm sure the first thing that came to everybody's minds (except the loyal GOP minions): Obama graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard law school, and George W. Bush was an average student (by his own admission), who (more-or-less) got straight C's through prep school and college (and who still can't pronounce "nuclear"), and yet the GOP insists Obama is "intellectually lazy"?!
Would be nice if Obama was on a FoxNews debate and Brit Hume tossed him that softball. "Senator Obama, you've been characterized as 'intellectually lazy'-- how do you respond to that?"
acf wrote on September 24, 2007 3:08 PM:This from the poster boy of incompetence, and intellectual laziness? It's kind of an insult to us that we waste any time even commenting on this.
dkr wrote on September 24, 2007 3:20 PM:The outrageous accusations gain a lot of traction.
People keep reporting on them and repeating them even if they are baseless, so the idea spreads further and further.
The fact that it riles people up and they say things like "Obama is intellectually lazy, that's crazy!?!" merely spreads the association of Obama with the phrase "intellectually lazy" in the public conscious, it doesn't negate it, unfortunately.
Colonpowwow:
1. Hillary is more polarising than John Kerry in 2004. Doesn't mean she can't win, just a fact.
2. Hillary does not have a commanding lead in Iowa (in fact I believe she is trailing Edwards). In any event that race is TIGHT.
3. She is trending down in NH where she and Edwards are already on the teevee. Obama just placed his first buy (expect her lead to erode further).
4. Just because a plurality support her support her now (on name recognition), doesn't mean that once the field narrows that all the votes of the other contenders will flow to her (or whoever the frontrunner is at that point). Remember polling doesn't cover people who are on the Do Not Call List or who have landlines only. So take comfort in her lead, just don't take too much comfort.
6. This race has just begun. So be careful counting your chickens before they hatch.
Dawn wrote on September 24, 2007 3:32 PM:"I believe that the Republicans feel they can beat Hillary Rodham Clinton, otherwise how do you explain Rupert Murdoch holding a fundraiser for HRC."
Easy. Murdoch is smart enough to know a Dem is going to win in 2008 - it is only a question of which one. He knows Hillary is the most conservative of the front runners. He would rather have her as president than Obama or Edwards. It has nothing to do with who he thinks a Reoublican can beat.
keith wrote on September 24, 2007 3:33 PM:Sorry, in point 4, it should say "who have cellphones only" and there was a fifth point, but I deleted (hence the incorrect numbering).
Dave Adams wrote on September 24, 2007 3:50 PM:One thing no one's pointed out is the overt partisanship and interference displayed by an outgoing adminstration.
No, I'm serious.
Think about what the comments would have been like if someone in the WH Clinton had done the same thing in '99. Imagine if they had beeen taking potshots at the Republican candidates during the primaries.
Its not that I'm shocked, its just that I don't see why these bastards ought to get any kind of free pass. They're not in the race, and they ought to keep their mouths the hell shut.
donna wrote on September 24, 2007 3:59 PM:APPARENTLY SOME DEMOCRATS AGREE WITH BUSH THAT ITS A REAL GOOD IDEA TO TURN OUR COUNTRY INTO A POLICE STATE:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/09/22/telecom_immunity/print.html
Former Clinton officials lobby for amnesty for FISA lawbreaking
AN EXCERPT:
"...This would mean that the Attorney General could simply decree in secret ("in a manner consistent with the protection of State secrets") that any lawbreaking relating to surveillance or other intelligence activities was "intended to protect the United States from a terrorist attack," and any liability for that lawbreaking, civil or criminal, would thereafter forever be prohibited. It would be absolute, sweeping amnesty for all individuals and entities, in government and in the private sector, who broke the intelligence and surveillance laws after 9/11. Neither Vladimir Putin nor Hugo Chavez have amnesty power of that sort. But that's what the administration and Mike McConnell are demanding, and it's what, at least as it pertains to telecoms, wonderful ex-Clinton officials such as the "highly regarded" Jamie Gorelick are working to bring about..."
"...(Gorelick) will undoubtedly be a leading candidate for Attorney General in the next Clinton administration..."
R E S I S T!
Jan wrote on September 24, 2007 4:34 PM:You ask: "Is there anything more to say?"
Yes.
In general, the current crop of Republicans are a bunch of racist m'f'ers.
I hope Obama doesn't do a John Kerry and just ignore this. He needs to come out with both barrels blasting. This is unacceptable.
Shinobi wrote on September 24, 2007 4:43 PM:I sent a form e-mail to Barak Obama several days ago regarding the global gag rule (encouraging him to work towards repealing it.)
Generally I get fairly bland "thanks for your opinion on this we'll take it into account" responses to my little notes, but the response I got from Obama was very substantive. It indicated that at the very least his staffers have knowledge of the history issue, and it outlined several courses of action and related issues he is currently working on.
Now I know, obviously, that Obama himself didn't write this e-mail, but the fact that his staffers sent an interesting form response to my form letter presents some evidence contrary to the White House's claims.
(Also, has anyone asked, why is the white house saying this, shouldn't someone y'know...running for president... be making these claims?)
colonpowwow wrote on September 24, 2007 4:58 PM:keith
I generally agree with your observations. However, I was really addressing the Hillary can't win meme.
As you mentioned, she can win. I contend that not only can she - that she has the best chance of all the Democratic contenders to win. Besides her drive and her organization, she is whip-smart, politically savvy, and you know from watching the debates, the more you see her, the more she impresses rather than scares.
She is already vetted (by 15 years of attacks from the right wing slime machine) - they've given her their best shot and she's still standing tall.
I shudder to think how they would attempt to character-assasinate Obama or Edwards - though I also think they could still win.
dwalter wrote on September 24, 2007 4:59 PM:Intellectually lazy? This is rich! Classic case of pot calling kettle black.
Except that Bush isn't just intellectually lazy. He's clearly intellectually challenged.
So, since he's part of a protected minority, we can't really make poke fun at him, I suppose?
JeromeProphet wrote on September 24, 2007 6:18 PM:Create and sustain a society based upon fear. Like rats we are forced to scurry our way up the sides of the rich man's swimming pool as it slowly fills with water.
We bite at each other, blaming each drowning upon ourselves when in fact it's the gardener and the well to do gentleman who laugh at our torment for their sour recreation.
Race will work in America.
There's millions of poor dumb idiots out there who want to blame someone, some group for the slow decline of the Middle Class and who better to attack than those poorer and worse off.
Classic GOP class warfare.
JP
Create and sustain a society based upon fear. Like rats we are forced to scurry our way up the sides of the rich man's swimming pool as it slowly fills with water.
We bite at each other, blaming each drowning upon ourselves when in fact it's the gardener and the well to do gentleman who laugh at our torment for their sour recreation.
Race will work in America.
There's millions of poor dumb idiots out there who want to blame someone, some group for the slow decline of the Middle Class and who better to attack than those poorer and worse off.
Classic GOP class warfare.
JP
Historical Quote of the Day
"A moment I've been dreading. George brought his ne're-do well son around
this morning and asked me to find the kid a job. Not the political one
who lives in Florida. The one who hangs around here all the time looking
shiftless. This so-called kid is already almost 40 and has never had a
real job. Maybe I'll call Kinsley over at The New Republic and see if
they'll hire him as a contributing editor or something. That looks like
easy work."
-- Ronald Reagan in his recently published diaries , May 17, 1986.
mario wrote on September 24, 2007 7:13 PM:c'mon.
We all know that all Barack really wants is loose shoes and a tight pussy.
(http://tafkac.org/celebrities/butz_racist_remark.html)
I suspect that the big O is an empty GQ suit. All glam/slam dunk but, not much behind the psedo-intellectual shell/shill. He'll go far in the private world of capitalism some day.
pacc wrote on September 24, 2007 9:03 PM:What about a warm place to shit?
Yossarian wrote on September 24, 2007 9:46 PM:I am not surprised that some one from this administration actually said this. After all the repukelican party is nothing but a bunch of racist fascists. Why is Obama "intellectually lazy?" Because to call him just lazy would be a throw back to the old south's way of racism, which these days isn't considered polite in the repukelican party. So call him "intellectually lazy" to cover your ass. I mean isn't this the administration of the guy who went to Bob Jones University (if you can call it a Uni)to give a speech as a candidate in 2000? Go figure!
Pastor Doodah wrote on September 24, 2007 10:19 PM:He lacks what? The intellectual depth required to stick the country in a trillion-dollar fuckup with no plan to get out? I hope so.
Liberal Larry wrote on September 24, 2007 11:04 PM:I will NOT vote for a corporate Democrat.
beb wrote on September 25, 2007 8:14 AM:Wow! This is the pot called the kettle black.
Tom in Ma wrote on September 25, 2007 8:15 AM:Isn't it incredibly weird that Democrats are speculate obsessively about who Karl Rove wants the Democrats to nominate? A kind of "Rove Primary" that takes place entirely within our heads?
No matter who we nominate, they will smear them, and appeal to any latent prejudice they can attach to the candidate.
We should use our primary process to evaluate the appeal of our candidates to the Democrats and Independents we need to win. That's how you judge electibility, not speculating about how the all-powerful Karl Rove wants us to move.
Phoenix Woman wrote on September 25, 2007 12:02 PM:This is like Hitler accusing Churchill of war crimes.
Like Dan Quayle criticizing Stephen Hawking's math.
Like Diaper David Vitter lecturing Democrats on morality while earmarking taxpayer money for his evangelical buddies.
Phoenix Woman wrote on September 25, 2007 12:03 PM:One thing no one's pointed out is the overt partisanship and interference displayed by an outgoing adminstration.
No, I'm serious.
Think about what the comments would have been like if someone in the WH Clinton had done the same thing in '99. Imagine if they had beeen taking potshots at the Republican candidates during the primaries.
Hell, the media freaks out when Clinton criticizes Bush now!
Jim Jolly wrote on September 25, 2007 5:23 PM:What I don't understand is, Why doesn't lightning strike these people?
radlib1 wrote on September 25, 2007 10:23 PM:And George W. Bush's minions are actually putting this shit out? Everyone in America knows that George Bush is the most "intellectually incurious" President the United States has ever had. He may also be the stupidist (see Iraq). He is definitely the Worst President Ever. (McKinley, Buchanan, et al, don't hold a candle to this bozo.) And anyone who disagrees with this assessment also deserves to have their heads examined for premature political dementia. No other explanation is possible.
