In the American Conservative, Scott McConnell notes that the liberal blogosphere goes nuts when anyone raises the "Barack Hussein Obama" issue--as Bob Kerrey did, mildly, wondering if Obama's background would stop people from voting for him--but that in fact the general electorate will be receptive to this sort of smear come the fall.
Can we acknowledge that no contemporary Trollope or Allen Drury seeking to dramatize the emergence of a talented half-African presidential contender would consider burdening his hero with a name that evokes both of America’s best-known enemies in the War on Terror?...The political class, far more cosmopolitan than the rest of the country, has been intrigued with Obama for years. But by this summer, both parties will be playing to a broad electorate, in most cases more than twice the percentage of voters who turn out for a contested early state primary. Compared to primary voters, November voters are lower on the political awareness scale, less educated, less prosperous, less tuned in. Many will be forming an opinion about Barack Obama for the first time during and after the conventions, and branding him could be done comparatively quickly. Democrats in 1988 were astonished at how rapidly Michael Dukakis was “defined” by Willie Horton and how fast the Duke’s double-digit lead in national polls evaporated.... On what basis should we assume that white working-class voters (precisely those most resistant to Obama’s electoral appeal thus far) would be completely unmoved by a campaign geared to question Obama’s “American-ness”?
I take McConnell's point; and god knows a lot of us are braced for the general election and all that it will bring. Nightmares!
But the test matters as much as the result. There are times when a country is called to a larger field of values, and this is one of them. An Obama campaign is sure to redefine America, and pull it forward to a motley America I seek. That is why I'm enthusiastic. Will there be a reaction? Of course. Will it be that bad? Who knows. Maybe it won't, maybe America will pass the test. If we peel away now from the challenge, that's worse. And anyway, isn't it surprising that the Clintons haven't pushed this one--yet?
On the Huff Post the other day, Larry Johnson, a former CIA man and Hillary backer touched the "Hussein" issue. His article was about how the vast right wing conspiracy will tie Obama to Islamic radicals and mentioned Rashid Khalidi.
The Clinton campaign is peppering Obama with jabs regarding his foreign policy advisors (Zbig Brezenski, Robt Malley) and Israel. Freedom's Watch will not just jab Obama, they will pummel him with this stuff.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-c-johnson/no-he-cant-because-yes_b_87036.html
I'm glad someone finally noticed this piece, which for weeks (for some odd reason) basked in more obscurity than anything I had written in years. If I'm not mistaken, it was linked only on the right wing Free Republic, and some fairly obscure blog called "gun-toting liberal" or something like that–perhaps my archtypical audience. FWIW, for a long time now I thought Hillary was the better choice for actually beating the very bellicose McCain, and still do– but am gradually beginning to appreciate the historic role Obama might play in recasting American foreign policy.
learn about how what the young Arabs are about- they become terrorists- kill the Jews- because they are broke in Egypt
http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=3b4514d0475403ef66dd102886021d893aef75ad
PATHETIC
Questioning Obama's American-ness is a dangerous tactic that could easily backfire on American Jews that subvert the US constitutional system (conspiracy against rights) and that subordinate US interests to Israeli interests.
In a very real sense both Hillary Clinton and McCain are political shabbesgoyim. In McCain's case he is following in his father's footsteps.
BTW, Barack is just as much an Arabic or Muslim name as Hussein.
Joechim, please enlighten us has to how McCains father was a lackey of the Khazer, soviet, fascist, blood sucking, neocon, genocidal, jewish imperialist design. I really am curious.
That would no doubt involve Admiral John S. McCain, Jr.'s crucial role in the cover-up/whitwash of Israel's murderous attack on the USS Liberty:
"One of the Navy bigwigs pushing hard for a sanitized Liberty inquiry was none other than Sen. McCain’s father, Admiral John S. McCain, Jr., Commander-in-Chief, Naval Forces Europe. He wanted the investigation done in less than a week. [Ward] Boston said a “proper inquiry would take at least six months.” Admiral McCain also wouldn’t permit Admiral Kidd to travel to Israel or to contact any potential Israelis witnesses."
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July2004/Hughes0712.htm
Maybe someone should ask Senator McCain about that…
Returning to Phil's question, if we may. The Barack-Hussein-Obama (BHO)theme is not getting much promotion currently for the very good reason that people with an interest in this theme are working up a far more powerful one — Barack is the Antechrist. Within that apocalyptic view, the BHO question becomes ancillary proof, "no coincidence".
For the current state of things, see link to crooksandliars.com
If the Antechrist theme takes, we could expect a thousand-Christian brigade of 2nd-Amendment patriots to feel freed (or Freedom's-Watched) to follow its calling. The one case were assassinating the Democratic candidate will be electorally helpful (and more) is where this assassination frees (Feedom's-Watches) America of the Antechrist. But no need to ever use the word itself.
The lower-caliber alternative is the one where Obama (you-know-who) is suddenly too infernally hot for the Democratic party to handle. Not a few within it (e.g. Emanuel, Feinstein, Rockefeller) would be rather relieved too. Not that they're all that far from Freedom's Watch, hey?
McCain says it was just a mistake, as his father said (after a whole week's investigation, when the norm was minium six months for much lesser subjects–McCain needed a few days
to soften up the traumatized survivors–no wonder Joe Lieberman loves him:
"‘Tourney – report to sick bay. Admiral Kidd wants to talk to you… ’ ‘Did you know who was attacking you? How long was the attack? Did you see life rafts being shot at? Did you see any markings on the airplanes or torpedo boats? Was our flag flying?’
We all opened up our hearts and told him what we had seen and how brutal the Israelis were to us. We asked why help did not come to us. We asked why a destroyer escort was denied us and on and on we asked questions.
'I want you to listen to me very closely. If you ever repeat what you have just told me to anyone, I don’t care if its your mother, another shipmate, anyone, I will make sure you end up in prison…'"
2008 by Phil Tourney, Survivor of the Israeli Attack on the USS Liberty taking place June 8, 1967 off the coast of Gaza in international waters.
link to ussliberty.wordpress.com
Veterans, documents suggest U.S., Israel didn't tell full story of deadly '67 incident
link to chicagotribune.com
PS: There's a new book coming out with the eye-witness accounts–they wanted to testify in congress but have been ignored.