I'm still of the belief that we should jsut let the narrow-minded branch of the right use Hussein as much as they want.  There's plenty of time left before the election for it to become tiresome and meaningless except for a small core of idiots who wouldn't vote for Obama anyway.

Bill Hussein J-MN

I love this the press wants Obama to rebuke Louis Farrakhan's endorsement -- which I think he should do and he did do -- not only renouncing it but rejecting ti or the other way around.

And yet they will never ask McCain about Robin Smith's endorsement.

He rejected and rebuked, true.

Any candidate should also expect to have to explain why his church gives a Lifetime Achievement Award to a David Duke or a Louis Farrakhan.

Has anybody here heard that explanation?  Maybe I just missed it.

Why don't you just read the article at snopes.com and get a grip.

Are you going to try to derail EVERY THREAD with this irrelevant BS? Obama is NOT responsible for what his churchs pastor does. He condemned the award he condemned Farrakhan and his reverand isnt running for president. The question you want answered needs to be answered by Wright. You are being a troll.

MyYAK! for today:

Republicans who chomp at the bit to tear down Obama will be bitten in the behind, influencing only brain-challenged bigots, while the McCain straight talk express loses steam and goes back to the roundhouse for repairs.

first it was melanie mOrgan, now it's tucker carlson. Oh, the wall is crumbling!

Great news that Tucker's show got the ax, but they're still keeping him on as a commentator...ugh. They've got enough juvenile snipers commentating already to fill up a middle school cafeteria.

"People want to get at it," a senior Republican strategist said of the conservative radio hosts and bloggers. "There's a lot of anxiousness. What does that tell you? It tells you that the machine is really anxious to get out. It tells me there are people chomping at the bit to get to work."

Bring it.

Round, glad to oblige. Here's right wing lesson # 1,374 (they never learn, do they?)

No, they never learn. Mostly because too few liberals are willing to inform their ignant rightwing arses that the American people are too strong a people to be paralyzed by such morally repugnant Republican fearfulness.

You are a seriously bone ignant conservative if you believe McCain isn't loving this.

These thugs are all on script. By denouncing this "machine" McCain gets to appear pragmatic. I believe this to be so because I will never doubt their capacity for deceit nor will I complain about it. I know it's no use to complain. It's who they are, it's what they do. I have no reason to doubt their dirty bellies can't go deeper in the muck. To a man this "machine" is irretrievably absent a moral soul and it's no suprise they try to make us fear. Republicans have no accomplishments to hold up as example of their philosophical superiority.

And as for media complicity in all this? Please. I have no reason to believe their sniveling, cowering a**es; they've been intimidated for decades now by richard Vigurery's punk conservative guerilla letter writing intimidation campaigns. Every time a journalist sneezed in the direction of a conservative he'd find paper mountains of peevish reprisals and physical threats thrust upon his office door. Not that I really care, I think it was a brilliant stroke to get folks impassioned and empowered. I object to the violent tendencies that infect the conservativeworldview. Liberals have just been too damned reasonable to counter such gutteral politics in like kind. I'm just sorry we didn't realize earlier that this machine was out to devour our very trust in each other.

We liberals trust in facts. But most of all we trust in the ability of the individual to weigh the facts and make clear decisions. But conservatives knew the facts favored liberals. Anyway, they weren't out to counter facts with facts, they were out to bust facts in the knee caps with a ball bat.

Intimidation was the conservative movement's strategy from the start. We didn't invite this fight but we better be ready to go all in if we want to end the suffering wrought by the conservative ideology.

Well done Round...

For years-decades--liberals have been concerned with helping people and dealing with problems and perceived injustices.

The Cons could give a crap about any of that.  They want power and political control.  They focused on "messaging," getting control of the media, and busting the middle class.

They've succeeded beyond their wildest expectations.  What they've done is hateful and disastrous for America, but you've got to admire their political savvy.  It's brilliant!!  Liberals forgot an important component of politics:  If you're not in power, you can't do a damn thing. 

Thanks! And right on!

Roundhouse,

That's one of the best rants I've read in a long time! 

I enjoyed reading your post. It was so vitriolic, it made this conservative chuckle. 

Thanks. Because I care, I'd rather make you laugh than burst your bubble. The shock of all that reality rushing in on you could have dire consequences.

When you're ready to join us liberals in the reality based community, I'll be here to help you get along.

Did anyone check out the link MMFA is talking about?

MMFA links to a Washington Post article that in the Post's words, "derisively" used "[Sen. Barack] Obama's middle name." to make it's argument.

Looking at what is purported to be the actual press release by the Tennessee GOP, (linked twice in the thread above.) I do not see anywhere  where the name Barak Hussein Obama is used derisively.   Barak's full name is used only once, (correct me if I am wrong,) and nowhere is "Hussein" used by the Tennessee GOP chairman.

The post article says McCain condemned both, but (unless I missed it,) does not provide any quotes from McCain regarding the two. The other being Bill Cunningham's comments at a McCain rally. 

Looks to me like MMFA is trying to cause a little mischief by purposely attaching a WaPo article that is incomplete and misleading. 

Gotta love the the unbiased nature and relentless search for truth here at MMFA!  :-) 

McCain spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker noted that her candidate condemned the press release and apologized to Obama.  It was the second time he had to do so in as many days. 

"There will be times in this campaign where people do and say stupid things," Hazelbaker said.  "It's a fact and it's beyond our control."

"We will continue to condemn [such comments] in the strongest language possible and reitterate our commitment to running a positive campaign based on the issues."

Hi Pete,

Thanks for the link. What a sad state of affairs when one is condemned for simply including a candidate's middle name. 

Contrary to what Roundhouse wrote, it looks to me like the left has done a great job intimidating the G.O.P. and McCain.  

 

I believe McCain's campaign was condemning the whole of the announcement, right down to the usage of the Kenya photo. 

I think it's more accurate to say that McCain has, at least on some level,  rejected this smear because he, like Karl Rove, has recognized this does nothing to shake the GOP's image as the party of choice for bigots.

Pete,

What in your opinion, was the smear by the Tennessee G.O.P.? 

I'm not Pete, but I will say there was no smear.  It's just tasteless and childish.  To think adults are sitting here resorting to elementary school name-calling is sad.  Her name is Hillary Rodham Clinton, but his name is Barack Hussein Obama.  This isn't something that has been consistent with politics of the past, so one guess as to why it's happening so much now.  TO REMIND THE BIASED AMERICAN PUBLIC THAT HE HAS AN ISLAMIC NAME AND IS DIFFERENT FROM THE REST OF US AMERICANS!!  Childish. Any Tim's in the house?  I guess every American with the name Tim will forever remind us of Timothy McVeigh.  How about Chu?  Any Chu's in the house?  I guess every Asian American will be ashamed of the name Chu because of the Virginia Tech shooter.  How about Jeffery?  Any Jeffery's in the house?  How shameful Jeffery Dalmer not only was a serial killer, but also a cannibal.  How many of you with names I just mentioned would appreciate the name game the media is playing if it were you? So you see AA, it's not a smear, it's just embarassing that a man's name is a determining factor for president of the U.S.of A. 

See my reply to AA.  The middle name is nothing compared to the rest of it.

.. And the names Barak and Obama don't?  Funny.

How many maniacal dictators do you know by the name of "Barack" or "Obama"?

One could make the case that the name "Obama" is easily confused with "Osama", just as candidate Barack "Hussein" Obama could be confused with dictator Saddam "Hussein".........to anyone who would have the idiotic propensity to consider either. 

First, they're claiming to "set the record straight" by quoting Louis Farrakhan's praise of Obama without noting that Obama has repeatedly and steadfastly denounced and rejected Farrakhan's views.  Obama has also said that his campaign has no association of any kind with Farrakhan or his organization.

Second, they're using the Farrakhan quotes and the Kenya picture as evidence that Obama views Israel "as a problem rather than a partner for peace in the Middle East."  Obama has already made it clear that Farrakhan does not speak for him.  The story behind the picture is the same as this picture and this picture.  Therefore, you should be listening to Obama when you want to know what Obama's views are with regard to Israel.   

This is not "setting the record straight." This is dishonest and one-sided.

It is a smear.

Pete,

I'll agree that it is one sided. But you failed to convince me it is a smear.

As most of us know, Mr.Obama's pastor's church gave Farrakhan an award. I may be wrong, but I don't  believe Mr. Obama has distanced himself from his pator or his church over this award. (And yes I heard Obama give his tepid denunciation during the debate with Hillary.)

Therefore the linkage, although you find it distasteful, is a valid one. Similarly, if Obama wants to dress up in traditional African clothing and have his picture taken, then it is as okay to use as any picture of him in his campaign.  Both are fair game until Obama puts it to rest. Luckily he has McCain helping him. :-)

ps. This just in... New York Times reports Gov. Eliot Spitzer admits involvement in a prostitution ring.

Think anyone will link him to Hillary?  

 

 

My point is missed entirely.

A simple "linkage" does not constitute a smear. 

As I clearly laid out, it's not the evidence as much as it is how it's being used. 

Read the press release again. 

In spite of the preponderance of support that Obama has expressed for Israel, do the words of Farrahkan and the picture constitute evidence that Obama views Israel as a problem and not a partner?

I feel that they do not, so it's a smear.  They need to cast this "evidence" into the sewer where it belongs and dig up something more substantial. 

Pete,

I see the point you are making. In my book a "smear" involves falsehoods. I did not see any. 

What I saw was an attempt at linking Obama with Farrakhan. But similar linkage happens everyday to politicians.  How many times have I seen posters, (perhaps you too,) who have cited McCain's address at Bob Jones University to make the outright argument he is racist? What about pictures of Hillary, Bill, and that Chinese bundler? What about the continued reference to Cheney and Halliburton?  What about Bush with the Saudi's or Ken Lay?

Are these all smears too?   If that is the case, you have a big problem with most of the 'progressive' posters here. 

We're talking about smears from the officials of a political party, not from synonymous comments on a website. 

I expect smears from talking heads, radio hosts, professional smear artists, and yes, commenter's on a website.  But I expect political party officials on both sides to adhere to a discernible level of decency and credibility, especially in their public announcements, as I'm sure McCain does.

Normally, I don't patrol the comments on websites in search for smears to pounce on, nor do I deny that smears happen here on a reglular basis.  Scrutinizing a public release from the appointed or elected representatives of a political party is much more worthy of my time and attention.  Talking heads, radio hosts and professional smear artists come next, but synonymous website comments are way down the list.  I'm happy to debate with people, but I'm not here to judge every post as "smear" or "not a smear."

As far as what you've listed, you're not being real specific as to what the evidence is and how it's being used.  If my opinion is really that important to you, link to the comments themselves and I'll be happy to take a look as time and chance permits, but I have a feeling that even you want the time you spend at MMFA to be a little more simulating than that.

No resignation from Spitzer yet, but we better see one soon, instead of him trying to 'Vitter' his way out of a crime.