Catastrophe and Euphoria

President Obama. Though I was originally a Biden-backer, I never thought I'd be able to write "President Biden" or "President Obama" for that matter. After all, I am the same one whose value system told him to vote for Jimmy Carter in 1980 and Walter Mondale in 1984. Now, after being exposed to the pomp and circumstance of the day-long inauguration ceremony and not being able to remember the underwhelming inaugural speech by President Obama who knows that his golden tongue, well exercised and polished as it is, has a lot to do and do quickly if he wants to turn this country around, I am left wondering what all the fuss is for.

I suppose there is something to be said for the peaceful transition of power and for the little ceremony that America has left. It's the thorn in the side of and downfall of most other governments around the world. We seem to have mastered the art. One could say that the previous administration should have been turned out of power far sooner than noon eastern time today, having presided over the fall of the American financial markets and the ripples that are slowly transitioning into, I fear, a tidal wave that will impact more lives than even Barack Obama can hope to save. I hope I am wrong.

Simon Schama was interviewed on Bill Moyers' Journal. Schama, a Briton teaching at Columbia University, observed what we are going through right now: the convergence of catastrophe and euphoria. People are putting so much faith in the young couple I am watching walk down Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, cold wind howling over the teeming crowds. All this while notice comes to my computer that the Dow Industrials sink 332 points as a reminder of the reality that President Obama will face when he wakes up tomorrow and finds the horror and dread that is filling too many families' lives today including my own. So it is that my euphoria at having Barack Obama as President - a guy of my generation - is tempered, mashed even, by the catastrophe that I and undoubtedly thousands like me are feeling is impending, the gathering gloom to come before the hope and change that were promised us in the campaign arrives, breathless.

My only regret is now that I am not a part of the government, that I am somehow not doing my part. I can't help but think that the 28 years of Reaganomics against which I protested on the mall in Madison, Wisconsin but under which I lived my entire adult life have so messed up this country that it will be difficult for me, really difficult, to believe in any office-holder who comes to promise - and deliver- a better future. The hopeless romantic in me, however, wants to believe in tomorrow and the reason why America has historically held and still holds inexhaustable promise for so many, including me. The fact that this country could elect a Barack Obama President makes me think that anything is possible, the good as well as the bad.

Randy Shiner

Sarah Silverman: "Tell Your Racist Jewish Grandparents To Vote Obama"

The Great Schlep from The Great Schlep on Vimeo.

Here is a humorous video from Sarah Silverman on behalf of The Great Schlep. What is The Great Schlep, you ask? Why, it's a Jewish Counsel for Education and Research project to have hip young kids convince their elderly Floridian grandparents to vote for Barack Obama in that crucial state. This video is actually pretty funny and effective—certainly more effective than saying something like, "If Sarah Palin isn't enough of a reason for you to get over whatever your problem is with Barack Obama, then you damn well had better pay attention. Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don't care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through," as Rep. Alcee Hastings did this morning—so it just might work! In which case, expect a Pat Buchanan victory come November.
By Alex Balk 09/25/08 11:36 AM
File Under: Barack Obama, Clip of the Day, Politics, Pop, Sarah Silverman

The Palin Debacle by MAJO and US Iran Policy, Past and Future

The following ideas, somewhat edited, are from an email I exchanged with a correspondent in Israel yesterday. He is very, very concerned, and rightly so, about the Iranians. As a result, he views Barack Obama's position on Iran as weak willed and lily-livered. I very much disagree.
_______________________



Balls are not in short supply here. Brains are. This country is in ruins, and maybe it's easier for both of us to see each others' trees for their respective forests, but the situation in 1939 was way more simple than it is today: there was no nuclear bomb until 1945. Then when the Russians got it, that was the end. Or maybe it was the end when Oppenheimer came up with the idea to weaponize crashing atoms in the first place. Regardless of anything, we do not need a doddering old man whose competence and judgment are in question, as are those of Sarah Palin who is as well qualified to run a country as she is the Cafeteria at Hewlett Packard. Carly Fiorina, a "surrogate" for the McCain campaign admitted that neither Mrs. Palin nor Mr. McCain "were qualified to run a major corporation". And this is from their own side! She has been disappeared from their campaign because she told the truth. If they couldn't run a major corporation, why on earth would we want someone like that running the entire free world? If you poke around on my blog for awhile, believe me, you will come up with enough reasons that Palin is a meshuggener whose foriegn policy outlook is "God's will". That is a quote.

The Jews (MAJO) were SO dumb to invite Palin in the first place. It was just a political move to salve the very small, but very wealthy "Republican Jewish Coalition" whose very existence is to me a joke. No-one of any substance, including now Joe Biden, would be seen with Sarah Barracuda (an insult to all self-respecting barracudas, BTW). I wouldn't have appeared, either, with her.

At the end of the day, the fault with the whole thing lies with the organizers who never should have invited the first politician, democrat or Republican, to the rally. That was the first and last bad political move by the MAJO in this affair. If they were going to have a rally, they should have had a rally and left the politics out of the thing. We can all unite, regardless of political points of view against a goofball like Ahmedinnerjacket. I would bet that if he was "disappeared" (permanently), not a few people inside Iran would be very happy. The problem isn't Iranians. It's their government that is leading them places that they themselves have to know are not in their long-term best interests. Taliban can't play in Persia forever. Or can it? Perhaps if things were made a bit inconvenient for the Iranian people, they would take their lives back, lives that have been spent fighting the ghosts of the American CIA who put the Shah in power in 1953 via a coup. Iranians need to join the 21st century and stop fighting 50 year old wars. If they don't, there should be consequences for such people.

In 1933, this country needed saving. The country picked a crippled patrician white guy to lead. He led with smarts and not a little bit of good PR. Not, mind you, that he gave a damn about the Jews of Europe. Heck, there were plenty of Jewish voices here in the US who didn't want Ostjuden here, either. He is famously quoted as saying "remind the Jews that they are but visitors here. This is a Christian country." (paraphrasing) If anything, we are fortunate that there IS a half-black guy running, because trust me, this is still a country where white Christian males run the show, and Israel and the Jews are just so much bother when things get inconvenient, as they are now. Just ask Ike in 1956. Remember the negotiations undertaken by Kissinger in 1973. Whose side is on whose? Add traditional right-wing nutjobs as exist in the Christian Right (personified in lovely fashion by Mrs. Palin), and the leftist idiots who rant on and on about Israeli "apartheid" yet say nothing about the way women are treated in nearly every Arab country, not to mention minorities and children, as you well note. It is a situation the solution for which I have no answers, but the mountains of Peru are looking very nice this time of year.


As far as Iran is concerned the US isn't going to credibly threaten anyone with anything at this point. This country is in the midst of if not a Great Depression, then a Pretty Big Depression. Focus has to be on fixing the economy first. Without a strong economy, our influence in the world is dreck. We have no moral authority - we torture prisoners, keep them locked up forever without any due process and invaded Iraq because of George Bush's desire to do better than his daddy did. This country is, in a word, f'ed up. We have no credible foreign policy - what foreign policy we did have under Bush was ideologically driven and not reality based. Lies, lies and more lies created not a foreign policy but a Ministry of Propaganda. Goebbels would be proud, believe me.

I am not saying that Iran isn't a threat. It is. Clearly. I think Ahmedinejad is a menace. But does HE really hold the reigns of power? It is not a Hitlerite system in Iran. I do not know internal Iranian politics very well, but I have to assume from what I do know that the Mullahs are the real power there, and they do not want war. At least I HOPE they don't want war. I am sure that we can find out this information, but negotiations have to be undertaken with the threat of a big klonk on the head lurking not too far off the surface for the negotiations to accomplish everyone's goals. I predict that Iran will be allowed to keep whatever nuclear reactors that they have, but will ultimately be forced to accept meaningful IAEA oversight. Obama's approach is simply to co-opt them. And failing that, there will be consequences, inlcuding, obviously, a military one. The objection everyone has to him meeting Ahmadinejad without preconditions is unjustified. Someone has to start a conversation with him. Let it be a guy named Barack. Ahmedinejad is acting like a spoiled brat by moaning and whining, hoping that the Jews of the world will get so upset that they will completely overreact and do something stupid, like help elect John McCain president. That would be a continuation of present policies toward Iran that directly have resulted in the situation we face today. The same is true with every single other foreign policy decision made by the Bush Administration. And if anything, McCain on foreign policy is Bush on anabolic steroids.

McCain's attitude with respect to Iran is exactly what Ahmedinejad is pining for: a showdown with the US. I would frankly rather have a foreign policy in which WE are in some measure of control. That control begins by talking with our enemies. At present, the foreign policy deregulation by the Bush administration (I hesitate to call it an administration, given the level of real administration that has taken place, but "regime" seems so, well, third world.) has resulted in a meltdown of a credible position with respect to Iran. The present posture leads directly to war, without a stopover for a discussion. I think talking is a good thing. It beats people dying.

Let's assume that George W. Bush has one more disaster in him before he leaves office on January 20, 2009. From a military standpoint, how does the US or Israel attack a nuclear program that has over 2000 individual sites? Do you just call out B-52s and carpet bomb Tehran and hope you hit a target? Limited strikes such as that done to Osirak reactor in Iraq in 1981 and more recently to Syria are just not possible, as far as I know. Perhaps you have some information that would help the discussion in that regard. Not negotiating when military options are limited is self-defeating, is it not? It would be a blessing in disguise if the oil got cut off. That would motivate Congress to stimulate - really stimulate - the growth and maturation of alternative energies like CNG, wind, solar, and the rest. We are all hostages to the Arabs at this point - it is a national security issue for the US that needs immediate attention not unlike that which the President and Congress are giving the investment banks and AIG.

I sense some justifiable panic in your voice. If I were an Israeli, I would be insisting on American action, too. Just know that if John McCain gets elected, this world will no longer be safe or sane in any measure, not that it is right now. He is WWIII personified, and as far as I am concerned, any Jew that votes for him will deserve what s/he gets as a result. The discussions over Israel, the Middle East and the rest have got to change. Obama is the only candidate with the intelligence and foresight to do it. There is no other choice. It's just a shondeh that there are so many Jewish bigots in the world (33% according to latest polling) who would just as soon vote for McCain than a "schvartzer". Even though he is also half-white. Even though he personifies not only an American dream, but also a very Jewish one as well.

Would the mother of any Jewish guy NOT think that their son, the President of the Harvard Law Review, and Senator shouldn't be President of the US, if that was what he wanted? Don't you think that Eliot Spitzer is thinking that even a Jew had a chance to be President if a black guy did? (only the black guy kept his schvanz in one place - his wife; WASPS can breathe easy) That doesn't seem to matter to a moronic Jewish-American electorate that is fused to idiots like Sarah Palin and John McCain like our future was some kind of very bad TV game show. God help us all. And I mean ALL.


Randy Shiner

Rabbis for Obama seen as first in American politics

View from a booth:

Kol HaKavod! This comes as welcome news to me.

Randy Shiner

2008 ELECTIONS
Rabbis for Obama seen
as first in American politics

By Eric Fingerhut

Published: 09/16/2008

WASHINGTON (JTA) -- Saying it is their duty to “fight for the truth and against Lashon Hara,” more than 400 rabbis have joined to back Barack Obama's presidential bid in what is believed to be a first-of-its-kind effort.

Rabbis for Obama, officially unveiled last week, is a

Font size:
	Print article
	Send article via email
	Share on Facebook
	Digg this
	Tell the editors
	Post a comment
	What bloggers are saying
Related Content
Rate this article:

grass-roots organization formed when two Chicago-area rabbis came to the Democratic candidate’s campaign wanting to help counter the many false rumors that have been spread about him.

“What makes this unique is the lies and smears" were "targeted to the Jewish community,” said Rabbi Sam Gordon of Congregation Sukkat Shalom of Wilmette, Ill., citing the e-mails that falsely claimed Obama was a secret Muslim and educated at a madrassa. “Those of us who knew him felt we had to respond.”

“These attacks that he's not supportive of Israel are just not true,” said Rabbi Steve Bob of Congregation Etz Chaim in Lombard, Ill.

Jonathan Sarna, the Joseph H. & Belle R. Braun Professor of American Jewish History at Brandeis University, said he believes Rabbis for Obama is a first in the Jewish community.

“I certainly can remember many newspaper ads that rabbis would sign" backing a candidate, Sarna said, but “I can't remember another organization with this kind of title.”

Given the increased mix of religion and politics that the United States has seen in the past 20 to 30 years, he added, it is much more likely for such a group to spring up now than it would have been early in the 20th century.

Bob said that he and other members of the organization are interested in publicly speaking -- under the Rabbis for Obama banner -- on behalf of the Democratic candidate across the country and are currently discussing how to become more involved in key swing states.

The letter the rabbis signed, available on the Web site www.rabbisforobama.com, states that the group backs Obama because “he will best support the issues important to us in the Jewish community.”

In addition to writing that the Democrat is “inspired by Jewish values such as Tikkun Olam and the pursuit of justice,” it states that Obama's “longstanding, stalwart support for Israel is a testament to his own principles” and that “attempts by some to use Israel as a wedge issue against him -- unjustifiably -- is dangerous in that it politicizes the pro-Israel position” and has “completely distorted Senator Obama's record.”

“We are fully aware that a smear campaign against Senator Obama has been waged in the Jewish community, and we feel it is our duty as Jewish leaders to fight for the truth and against Lashon Hara,” reads the missive, using the Hebrew term for evil gossip.

“Senator Obama has been viciously attacked using innuendoes, rumors, and guilt by association, and we urge our fellow American Jews to judge Senator Obama based on his own record and the clear statements he has made about his personal beliefs and principles.”

A Republican Jewish leader found that passage of the letter particularly objectionable.

“It's irresponsible and unprofessional as rabbis to give a hechsher in accusing us of Lashon Hara,” said Matt Brooks, the executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition.

Brooks said the reference to “guilt by association” seemed to be referring to the RJC's criticism of Obama's links to his longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and some who have been listed as the Democrat's foreign policy advisers -- two topics that Brooks believes are fair game in the debate over Obama's record.

Rabbis are listed by their hometowns rather than their synagogue affiliation because, Bob said, the signatories wanted to make it clear they were speaking for themselves and not their institutions. He said none of the rabbis had any intention of discussing their endorsement from the pulpit or writing about it in their synagogue bulletins.

“We're not doing this as rabbis of synagogues,” he said. “We're doing this as private citizens" who are rabbis.

“I would never presume to tell congregants how to vote,” Gordon said, adding that he simply wants everyone to make their decisions “based on fact, not on lies.”

Membership includes rabbis from every denomination, although one independent observer said he noticed only a couple of Orthodox rabbis on the list.

Bob and Gordon happen to be old friends from the Reform movement's rabbinical school, but had approached the campaign independently with their idea and were matched up. While the campaign did provide advice and pass along the names of interested rabbis, the rabbis said they did virtually all of the work on their own.

More than 300 rabbis were part of the group initially, and Bob said another 125 signed on since it became public last week -- including Michelle Obama's rabbi cousin, Capers Funnye.

The Democratic Party and the Obama campaign have made a special effort during the campaign to reach out to faith groups, but Jewish Democratic operative Matt Dorf said the organization and its missive is better seen as part of another strategy.

The Democratic goal is to reach persuadable Jewish voters through the testimony of people in “positions of influence” in the Jewish community -- rabbis, Jewish members of Congress and other well-known Jewish figures such as former New York Mayor Ed Koch.

Dan Shapiro, the Jewish outreach director for the Obama campaign, said his team is "delighted to have leaders with credibility" in the Jewish community come forward to “make a difference.”

One rabbi familiar with politics welcomed the rabbinical group.

“I endorse Rabbis for Obama and I endorse Rabbis for McCain,” said Rabbi Steve Gutow, the executive director of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs. “I believe religious people ought to be engaged in the public world.”

Anti-Defamation League national director Abraham Foxman, who has been critical of mixing religion and politics, said he was OK with the group. Rabbis don't have to give up their rights, he said.

As long as they're not endorsing candidates from the pulpit, Foxman said, “I don't have a problem with it.”

Not all rabbis feel comfortable with publicly endorsing a candidate.

“I feel my personal political views are personal,” said Rabbi Steve Wernick of Adath Israel in Merion Station, Pa., a suburb of Philadelphia.

Wernick said he is happy to discuss his views with congregants privately because he already has a relationship with them, but he doesn't feel it necessary to broadcast his views to those who don't know him. He stressed, though, that he has no problem with colleagues who signed the letter.

“It's the way our system is supposed to work,” he said.

One Republican was critical of the rabbis for what he believed was a blurring of the church-state barrier.

“By linking their rabbinical position to a political campaign, they risk the charge of politicizing their positions and erasing the boundaries between church and state, which they typically seek to defend,” said Noam Neusner, a communications consultant who served as liaison to the Jewish community during part of the Bush administration.

Neusner said the Bush campaign did not encourage such a letter or organization of rabbis “because of the sensitivity of the church-state issue.”

Rabbis for Obama may be the first but not the last rabbinical effort backing a presidential candidate this election cycle.

Fred Zeidman, co-chair of the Republican Victory Jewish Coalition, said he spoke to some rabbis earlier this month -- and a few days before the unveiling of Rabbis for Obama -- who were interested in putting together a similar effort backing GOP candidate Sen. John McCain.

What Economy ARE You Talking About, John McCain?

McCain says the economy is fundamentally sound. Alan Greenspan, a Republican, says today that this is the worst he's seen in HIS career, and that the economy is in a once-in-a-hundred-year financial crisis. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080914/bs_afp/useconomygreenspan_080914181841

Is John McCain really that detached from reality? Ya THINK?!

Candidates on Wall Street Turmoil

By Jeff Zeleny

Senators John McCain and Barack Obama on the campaign trail Monday. (Photo: John Raoux/Associated Press; Emmanuel Dunand/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images)

Updated: GRAND JUNCTION, Colo. – Hours after Senator John McCain said “the fundamentals of our economy are strong,” Senator Barack Obama seized upon the remark on Monday and offered a blistering critique of the Republican Party’s stewardship of the economy as the Wall Street turmoil created ripples in the presidential campaign.

“We just woke up to news of financial disaster and this morning and he said that the fundamentals of the economy are still strong?” Mr. Obama told voters at an afternoon rally here. “Senator McCain, what economy are you talking about?”

As he campaigned in Florida on Monday, Mr. McCain cautioned against panic as the stock market fell, Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy protection and Merrill Lynch was abruptly acquired. He acknowledged “tremendous turmoil in our financial markets” but said taxpayers should not be forced to pay for a government bailout.

“People are frightened by these events,” Mr. McCain said at a rally in Jacksonville. “Our economy, I think still, the fundamentals of our economy are strong. But these are very, very difficult times.”

Mr. Obama’s campaign pounced on the remarks, pointing to them as the latest evidence that Mr. McCain did not appreciate the severity of the crisis.

“I could walk from here to Lansing and I wouldn’t run into a single person who thought our economy was doing well, unless I ran into John McCain,” Mr. Obama’s running mate, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., said during a campaign stop in St. Clair Shores, Mich.

At Mr. McCain’s next campaign stop in Orlando, he opened a town meeting by clarifying what he meant when he said the fundamentals of the economy are strong, saying he was referring to workers and small business owners.

“My opponents may disagree, but those fundamentals – the American worker, the innovation, the entrepreneurship, the small business – are the fundamentals of America and I think they are strong,” Mr. McCain said. “But today, are being threatened today – those fundamentals are being threatened today because of the greed by some based in Wall Street and we have got to fix it.”

With 50 days remaining before Election Day, the disturbance in the nation’s financial markets shaped the debate, and the points of disagreement, between the two presidential candidates as they campaigned in different regions of the country.

Mr. Obama, who began a three-day Western campaign swing on Monday, was already intending to focus on the economy. But the news of Wall Street – and Mr. McCain’s remarks in Florida – added a fresh measure of intensity to a speech here in Grand Junction.

Mr. Obama characterized the situation on Wall Street as “the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression,” blaming the policies employed during the last eight years of a Republican-controlled White House for the upheaval.

“I certainly don’t fault Senator McCain for these problems, but I do fault the economic philosophy he subscribes to,” Mr. Obama told several hundred people who gathered for an outdoor rally on the Western Slope of the Rocky Mountains. “It’s a philosophy we’ve had for the last eight years – one that says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else.”

He added, “This country can’t afford another four years of this failed philosophy.”

While both presidential contenders released statements, advertisements and comments about the financial downturn on Wall Street, neither offered immediate solutions or new proposals.

“The challenges facing our financial system today are more evidence that too many folks in Washington and on Wall Street weren’t minding the store,” Mr. Obama said. “Eight years of policies that have shredded consumer protections, loosened oversight and regulation, and encouraged outsized bonuses to C.E.O.’s while ignoring middle-class Americans have brought us to the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression.”

The McCain-Palin campaign released a television commercial earlier Monday, titled “Crisis” that focused on the troubled economy, citing foreclosures and job losses. It also repeated the candidate’s pronouncement that there would be no “special interest giveaways,” were the Republicans elected, as the site of Lehman Brothers in downtown Manhattan flashed upon the screen. In the advertisement, he promised to shore up protections for voters’ savings.

Bill Burton, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, responded to the advertisement in a statement: “John McCain has been in Washington for twenty-six years and hasn’t lifted a finger to reform the regulations that could’ve prevented this crisis. In fact, his campaign is run by some of the very same lobbyists who fought against these regulations and worked to put special interest giveaways in our federal budget. Now he’s proposing $200 billion in tax breaks for the biggest corporations in America but not one penny of relief to more than 100 million Americans who are worried about their life savings and their ability to make their mortgage payments.”

While the Obama campaign sought to keep the conversation trained on the economy, Mr. Obama also unveiled a new television commercial called “Honor” that is intended to challenge his Republican rival’s credibility by pointing a series of editorials that have scolded Mr. McCain for recent statements and charges made against Mr. Obama.

“What happened to John McCain?” an announcer says at the beginning of the commercial. “It seems deception is all he’s got left.”

Tucker Bounds, a spokesman for Mr. McCain, said the advertisement was inappropriate “as Americans face economic uncertainty.”

“This latest ad by Barack Obama is a desperate effort to move away from talking about his thin, but alarming record on the issues,” Mr. Bounds said, “and it isn’t going to reform Washington or strengthen our economy.”

Deception and Lies as John McCain's Main Weapons

John McCain's Idea of a Clean Campaign

Received by email.

Swiftboating 2.0 -- Spread the word and stop the smears <http://mediamattersaction.org/swiftboating/?src=swift-2>

Dear Friend,

Swiftboating 2.0 <http://mediamattersaction.org/swiftboating/?src=swift-3>

<http://mediamattersaction.org/swiftboating/?src=swift-4>

The thematic structure of the right-wing smear campaign against Sen. Barack Obama <http://mediamattersaction.org/swiftboating/?src=swift-5>

I'm sure you've heard some of the many lies about Sen. Barack Obama that have been circulating over the last year or so, both online and in the mainstream media. The truth is that Obama is a Christian, not a Muslim; he was born in the United States; he doesn't refuse to recite the Pledge of Allegiance; he wasn't endorsed by Fidel Castro; the list goes on and on. While many of the attacks on Obama are outright lies, other attacks are outrageous distortions with just a kernel of truth at their core.

Many of these right-wing attacks have been spread in emails and reported in the echo chamber that is the mainstream media. While they may seem disconnected, the truth is that these attacks work together, like separate voices combining to form a chorus of fear and resentment. The claims that Obama is a Muslim or somehow foreign; that he represents a black radicalism more at home in the 1960s than today; and that he is a liberal elitist with a radical, even socialist agenda work to reinforce an overarching narrative that Obama is alien and threatening -- that he is "not one of us."

Click here to see how the right-wing narrative is being tailored to make you think Obama is "not one of us." <http://mediamattersaction.org/swiftboating/?src=swift-6>

We saw what happened when the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth unleashed their dossier of lies about Sen. John Kerry in 2004 -- lies that were repeated ad nauseam in the media. We call the 2008 version "Swiftboating 2.0" not only because it is the latest model of a political smear campaign, but also because it shares features of "Web 2.0" sites like Facebook and MySpace, where significant portions of the content are generated by ordinary people and are spread from peer to peer

You can fight back using the same channels of information. Share our graphic illustrating the smears about Obama on Facebook, post it on your MySpace page, talk to your friends and family about the information contained at mediamattersaction.org/swiftboating <http://mediamattersaction.org/swiftboating/?src=swift-7> to fight the lies. When you see or hear media figures repeating these smears, call or send them an email to let them know you're watching and that they got it wrong.

You can start right now by forwarding this email to your friends and family. The only way to keep this round of Swiftboating from succeeding is for everyone who knows the truth to stand up for media accountability and stop the smears.

<http://mediamattersaction.org/swiftboating/email?src=swift-8>

<http://mediamattersaction.org/static/img/waldman_signature.jpg>

Paul Waldman

Senior Fellow

Media Matters Action Network

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking here <http://mediamattersaction.org/users/unsubscribe?u=60fde5e4eec3be6475fde5a3528a7439>

Media Matters Action Network is a partner project of Media Matters for America.

© 2008 Media Matters Action Network

1625 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20036

Obama Gets His Message Out -- Loudly: GOP RIVAL MCCAIN FOLLOWS CONTROLLED CAMPAIGN SCRIPT

View from a booth:

Barack Hashem! He awakened! Now if he could stop talking like an analyst instead of somebody who wants to change the country, he'd be in even better shape. The country will grow tired of the daily click-clack about Sarah Palin after a little while; do not underestimate the shortness of the attention span of the American public. But after a time, when the luster and lipstick wear off of Mrs. Palin, people will return to some semblance of reality-based rationales, and will look around them in horror at the condition the party of McCain/Palin has left the United States of America in. They are "change-agents" like I am the reincarnation of Edmond Dantes.

Barack doesn't need to overreact here. Some righteous indignation is a good thing, when your opponents are running a campaign as if it were written and directed by George Orwell or Josef Goebbels: Lie after lie after lie. All verifiable lies. And the sad thing is that McCain can't remember more than his five talking points, and Mrs. Palin has been the victim of an "extraordinary rendition" - they are too afraid to let her wander off of those same talking points. So whenever they can, they are forced to distract the attention of the public, egged on by a media that is afraid of its own shadow, from the real issues that all of us face on a daily basis, floating faux outrage at "pig with lipstick" to define "change" under McCain/Palin vs. that of George Bush. It IS a pig with lipstick. Look around you. You are in a pigsty called America right now. If we choose to elect John McCain, then this country will at last get what it deserves. The chickens will come home to roost and the lipstick WILL come off, and that's what we'll have: the same old pig we are stuck with now. I mean no insult to my porcine friends by lumping them together with Mr. McCain and Mrs. Palin. Really I don't.

By the way, has anyone asked Mr. McCain why he is holding out information on the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden? Seems that he's basically using the fear of further terrorism led by bin Laden as extortion of the American people. "Elect me and I'll find bin-Laden". Well, if in fact Mr. McCain knows where bin Laden is, why is he waiting to tell us all - or more importantly share that information with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Is the deal that ONLY in the event that we elect him will he, McCain, deign to tell us where bin Laden is located? As a Senator, Mr. McCain is required to uphold the Constitution and to protect and defend it. Not to tell the proper authorities NOW about the whereabouts of bin Laden, assuming he can remember, is treason. Then again, a guy who doesn't know how many houses he owns cannot but have a difficult time trying to remember the exact whereabouts of a cave in Northeastern Pakistan.

Randy Shiner

Obama Gets His Message Out -- Loudly

GOP RIVAL MCCAIN FOLLOWS CONTROLLED CAMPAIGN SCRIPT

Associated Press

Article Launched: 09/10/2008 09:14:01 PM PDT

NORFOLK, Va. — Barack Obama is known for his eloquent speeches, but as he tries to regain his poll lead and beat back an energized Republican ticket, he is adding something to his delivery: volume.

Obama has uncorked some thunderous lines in recent campaign stops, showing a measure of emotion he seldom has displayed. His speeches now are laced with indignation as he argues that anyone who sees John McCain and Sarah Palin as vehicles for change is being duped.

At high decibels, he pressed his point Monday that people could pay a heavy price if they make the wrong decision Nov. 4. At stake are constitutional liberties that can mean the difference between freedom and unjustified imprisonment, he told the crowd in Farmington Hills, Mich.

"We may think this is Muhammad the terrorist; it might be Muhammad the cabdriver. You may think it's Barack the bomb-thrower. But it might be Barack the guy running for president," he said, referring to the Bush administration's arrest and detention policies toward terrorism suspects.

Then, the loudspeakers really began to quake.

"Don't mock the Constitution. Don't make fun of it! Don't suggest that it's un-American to abide by what the Founding Fathers set up! It's worked pretty well for over 200 years!"

Finally, he said disdainfully of the Republicans: "These people."

Feistiness is what many Democratic elected officials have longed to see. At the Democratic convention in

---

Advertisement

---

Denver last month, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell said Obama needed to show more fight. But he also suggested Obama knew as much. "You're going to see a new, fighting Barack," Rendell predicted.

That they're seeing. Compare the Obama today with what voters saw before the Democratic and Republican conventions: Campaigning in Montana on the Fourth of July holiday, Obama also talked about the right to challenge one's detention but said it in terms that were not only milder but also more abstract. Sounding more like the constitutional law professor he once was, he made no attempt to humanize the issue.

Although he is turning up the volume, Obama has stayed under control. If he shows too much temper, he risks looking rattled and perpetuating the sideshow, which could distract voters from the slumping economy, rising gas prices and other issues where he feels he has an advantage.

By contrast, McCain seems to be moving in the opposite direction. Once known as a free-wheeling candidate who liked to mix it up with the public and media, McCain has become far more scripted since reorganizing his campaign in July.

He is increasingly controlled, seldom deviating from his basic talking points. He rarely presides over unscripted town hall meetings, which he once called "the essence of democracy." He has not held a news conference in nearly a month.

Shaken Dems fear Obama on downslide

Shaken Dems fear Obama on downslide

By Alexander Bolton

Posted: 09/09/08 07:53 PM [ET]

Democrats in Congress are rattled over the momentum Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) has brought to John McCain’s presidential campaign and disagree about how their candidate should respond. Some Democrats say that Democratic nominee Barack Obama’s campaign must take a tougher approach and challenge Palin directly on her lack of experience and stance on abortion, creationism and federal earmarks. Other Democrats say they must tread carefully or risk alienating many voters who relate to Palin, a self-described hockey mom from a middle-class background, by appearing to bully her. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), a mother of three young children, has emerged as a spokeswoman for the campaign on media queries about Palin, making television appearances in recent days to support Obama’s campaign. She also participated in a conference call with reporters the day after Palin’s convention speech. “Palin is bad for America on the issues,” she said, citing the Alaska governor’s opposition to abortion rights and legislation to ensure equal pay for women. Wasserman Schultz said she has been on the campaign’s media surrogate team since June and has been asked to respond to media inquiries about Palin. But the Florida lawmaker said she has not been given an assignment as Palin’s official foil. Palin was the talk of the Hill as lawmakers returning to Washington woke up Tuesday morning to headlines declaring that Sen. McCain (R-Ariz.), the GOP nominee, has pulled even with Sen. Obama (D-Ill.) in national polls. The jump is due to a 20-point swing among white women, who now favor the McCain-Palin ticket by 12 points, according to a Washington Post–ABC News poll. “That’s all people have talked about since we got back,” said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, a Democrat who represents Missouri, a projected battleground state. “I received a phone call from an Obama fundraiser who said we’re going to have to go back and revisit the strategy.” Since Palin made her national political debut last week, Obama’s campaign and other Democrats have been slow to criticize Palin, preferring to let mainstream news outlets and liberal blogs raise questions about her record. But Democrats are growing concerned that Obama’s campaign has not challenged Palin’s lack of experience and views on abortion, creationism and the Iraq war more aggressively. “There’s anxiety developing because of a perceived lack of aggressiveness,” said Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), an early Obama supporter. “There’s natural anxiety when one feels they’re behind.” Democrats say that Obama’s campaign should get tougher on Palin and challenge her opposition to the right to abortion in cases of rape or incest, her support for teaching creationism in schools and her characterization of the Iraq war as a “task that is from God.” Republicans have tried to paint critics of Palin as bullies. Last week, former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) accused The New York Times of “trying their best to drag her down.” But some Democrats say that Obama’s campaign cannot let itself be cowed. “They have to be careful of being defensive,” said Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.). “The best defense is a good offense. She’s probably the least qualified person ever to be picked for vice president.” Rep. Diane Watson (D-Calif.) said Obama’s campaign should take a stronger approach on Palin but confine their challenge to criticism on the issues. Democrats say they grew a little complacent over the summer, buoyed by Obama’s glowing media coverage and his lead in the polls. That has changed since Palin’s emergence, which has energized the Republican base and McCain’s campaign. “There is concern,” said Rep. Ed Pastor (D-Ariz.). “We were feeling a little laid-back, and now we’re saying, ‘Oh hell, this is slipping away, we’ve got to get to work.’ ” Pastor said he expected his Democratic colleagues to become more involved in Obama’s campaign in coming weeks, predicting they would start contributing more from their own campaign accounts. Obama campaign officials have taken a more sanguine view of McCain’s surge in the polls, questioning whether their opponent has really gained much ground in recent days. Obama campaign manager David Plouffe simply called the recent Washington Post-ABC News poll “wrong.” “We’re not concentrating on national polls because the American people aren’t. They’re worried about how they’re going to provide for their families and which candidate is going to deliver the change we need. That’s Barack Obama,” said Nick Shapiro, an Obama campaign spokesman. The Obama campaign appears to have decided that one way to deal with the Palin political phenomenon is to use surrogates who may have similar appeal among white women. McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds rebuffed Democratic criticism of Palin. “The approval rating for the Democratic Congress is about 13 percent and Gov. Palin’s approval rating has been about 80 percent — maybe Democratic members of Congress should try doing the people’s work instead of Barack Obama’s,” he said. Some Democrats are counseling patience. They say the best time to challenge Palin will come in the next few weeks. “My sense is that the media, in asking questions of Gov. Palin, will find any soft spots and we’ll deal with that,” said Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.). “I think it’s always risky to attack others.” Other Democrats say the focus should remain on McCain and characterizing his future administration as a continuation of the policies of President Bush. Lawmakers such as Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) say Palin is a “red herring” and talking about her would create a distraction from the core Democratic message. But even Democrats who aren’t urging Obama to go on the offensive immediately say that with just over 50 days until the election, the time to act is fast approaching. “I don’t think we can sit and wait for very long,” said Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.). Manu Raju contributed to this article.

Westmoreland calls Obama ‘uppity

Westmoreland calls Obama ‘uppity'

By Mike Soraghan

Posted: 09/04/08 03:07 PM [ET]

Georgia Republican Rep. Lynn Westmoreland used the racially-tinged term "uppity" to describe Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama Thursday. Westmoreland was discussing vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's speech with reporters outside the House chamber and was asked to compare her with Michelle Obama. "Just from what little I’ve seen of her and Mr. Obama, Sen. Obama, they're a member of an elitist-class individual that thinks that they're uppity," Westmoreland said. Asked to clarify that he used the word “uppity,” Westmoreland said, “Uppity, yeah.” Other Democrats have charged that the Republican campaign to paint the Illinois senator as an “elitist” is racially charged, and accused them of using code words for “uppity” without using the word itself. In August, Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.) told reporters, “When I hear the word ‘elitist’ linked with Barack Obama, to me, that is a code word for 'uppity.' I find it extremely offensive and John McCain should know better.” Political consultant David Gergen, who has worked in both Republican and Democratic White Houses, said on ABC’s "This Week" that “As a native of the south, I can tell you, when you see this Charlton Heston ad, 'The One,' that's code for, 'He's uppity, he ought to stay in his place.' Everybody gets that who is from a Southern background.” The Obama campaign, asked about the quote, did not note any racial context. “Sounds like Rep. Westmoreland should be careful throwing stones from his candidate's eight glass houses,” said Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor. Campaigning against the first black major-party nominee has already created some problems for Republicans. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said that Obama's middle name – Hussein – is relevant to the public discourse surrounding his candidacy, saying in March that if Obama were elected, "Then the radical Islamists, the al Qaeda, the radical Islamists and their supporters, will be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on Sept. 11 because they will declare victory in this War on Terror." At an April 12 event in his district, Kentucky Rep. Geoff Davis (R) said of Obama: “I’m going to tell you something: That boy’s finger does not need to be on the button. He could not make a decision in that simulation that related to a nuclear threat to this country.” Davis sent a letter of apology to Obama in which he described his remark as a “poor choice of words.” Westmoreland originally supported former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney for the Republican presidential nomination. He now supports McCain, but missed an August fundraiser for the nominee because he was vacationing with his family.

Campaigns Voice Support for Rescue of Fannie and Freddie

• E-MAIL
• PRINT
• REPRINTS
• SAVE
• SHARE

By ELISABETH BUMILLER and JEFF ZELENY

Published: September 6, 2008

ALBUQUERQUE — Both presidential campaigns expressed support on Saturday for the planned government takeover of Fannie Mae andFreddie Mac as a necessary step to protect homeowners from further distress.

The Caucus

The latest political news from around the nation.Join the discussion.

• Election Guide | More Politics News

Senator Barack Obama, in comments to reporters in Terre Haute, Ind., said that although he supported the concept of a takeover, he would withhold final judgment until the Treasury Department released a detailed outline of the plan.

“Any action we take has to be focused not on the whims of lobbyists and special interests worried about their hourly fees,” said Mr. Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, “but on whether it’s going to strengthen our economy, whether it’s going to help strengthen the housing market and help struggling homeowners who are also being hit by lost jobs and stagnant wages.”

Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee for president, said at a rally in Albuquerque that “we need to keep people in their homes, but we can’t allow this to turn into a bailout of Wall Street speculators.”

His chief economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, said in a telephone interview that Mr. McCain saw the takeover as distasteful but essential. “You’ve got to do what they’re doing today,” Mr. Holtz-Eakin said. “You make every effort to insulate the mortgage and financial markets from financial distress so there’s no further harm to homeowners and businesses in general.”

Mr. McCain’s running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, went further and called for the mortgage giants to be scaled back.

“They’ve gotten too big and too expensive to taxpayers,” Ms. Palin said in Colorado Springs. “The McCain-Palin administration will make them smaller and smarter and more effective for homeowners who need help.”

Ms. Palin’s statement, among her first on domestic policy, reflects longtime Republican criticism of the management and size of the companies, which own or back $5.3 trillion in mortgages. But Democrats have countered that scaling back the companies in the midst of a housing crisis would make mortgages more difficult to obtain.

Mr. Obama said he had a “lengthy conversation” late Friday with Treasury SecretaryHenry M. Paulson Jr. but declined to discuss details.

“There is no doubt that what was taking place in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was in many instances irresponsible — it may have been illegal,” Mr. Obama said.

Elisabeth Bumiller reported from Albuquerque, and Jeff Zeleny from Terre Haute, Ind.