“F*ck Saddam. We’re taking him out.”
~ March 2002, one year before the Iraq invasion, as quoted by Time magazine
Telling Kid Rock about his support:
Kid said that he can’t vote for Hillary so he’s either going to go for Barak or John McCain. Howard told the guys that Barack can’t win because he’s made a bad decision about being friends with that racist preacher. He said that he’s going to vote for Hillary Clinton and he has to support her.
And to another guest:
Mark asked Howard about this guy that he’s endorsing for President. Howard said that it’s Hillary but Mark thought it was Ron Paul. Howard said that he liked some of what Ron Paul had to say but he’s not endorsing him. He said that he’s behind Hillary.
Hillary Clinton And Barack Obama Discussions. 03/17/08.
6:55am\ A caller told Howard that he got his name out to Hillary Clinton the other day when she was in his town. He said that he told her that Howard was endorsing her and she told him she didn’t know that and told him to thank him for her.
Howard said that he appreciates this guy doing that for him because he’s been actively talking to people trying to support her.
He said that she may have no clue about that and he likes that someone is telling her about it. He said that he reaches out to a lot of people, especially men, who he may be able to influence. He said he’d like to be recognized for doing his part there.
Howard said that he wanted to talk about this latest controversy about Barack Obama. The caller had some comments about that too but Howard told him to wait for him to do his thing. He ended up hanging up on the guy after he hit a button on his phone.
Howard went on to talk about this Barack Obama controversy where they have tapes of this preacher that Barack has been going to for over 20 years. The pastor there is this guy who was recorded saying some stuff that upset some people. He said that he was giving the benefit of the doubt when he watched the tapes but then he realized that the guy is just insane. He was saying ”God damn America” and stuff like that after 9/11. He said he sounds like a raving lunatic to him.
Howard said that Barack was asked about this a long time ago and he claims he wasn’t there when he made those statements and that he would have voiced his displeasure if he had. Howard said that if you’re part of a church like that, you know what’s going on there. He said that he should have known that the guy was a raving lunatic.
Howard said that this church is hateful and horrible and he’s sending his family there. He said that maybe he’s not making the greatest decisions with that. He said that he has to agree with that guy on some level if he’s going to the church.
Howard said that once the tapes came out with this pastor yelling and screaming, then Barack came out and said that maybe they’re kind of bad. He still hasn’t condemned this guy. Howard said that’s enough for him and he’s not going with Obama.
Howard played some of the tape of this Pastor Jeremiah Wright going off on the Rich white people in this country and how they’re running it. He said a bunch of stuff about the government lying about the AIDS virus and how they’re keeping the cure from them as a way of committing genocide in the black community. There were a bunch of clips of him saying some outrageous things like that.
Howard said that Barack is now bullshitting everyone by saying he didn’t know what this guy was up to. Robin said that this is the game that politicians play with people. He said that if you stand next to someone stupid like that, they’ll eventually splash a little something on you. He said that Barack had to have raised an eyebrow at something that this guy said during his sermons. She said she doesn’t know what all of that stuff had to do with a Sunday service anyway.
Howard said that this kind of thing should end a political career. He said that he can’t be given a pass on something like that. Howard said that some people are saying that Hillary shouldn’t use this stuff against Obama but he thinks that she should. Artie said that this stuff is insane and he can’t imagine what the guy is thinking going to someone like that. The guys talked about how Barack is best friends with that Pastor and he’s even named him to some committees and things like that. Right now the guy is out of the country so they can’t get any comments from him about what’s been going on lately. Howard said that Hillary doesn’t even need to use this stuff in her ads because the tapes are out there and the media outlets are playing them.
Today, HillBuzz has been delighted by chances to use a lot of Hope-tinged words in polite conversation.
* The Hope-tanic (Obama’s campaign post Wright-berg)
What other fun hope-tinged terms have you heard to describe the Obama campaign?
Let’s build a list here at HillBuzz!
Send your Hope-mots to HillBuzz@gmail.com
NoQuarter has a nice take on the Obama campaign: it knows it is in serious trouble and that the MSM (mainstream media)’s smoke screen aside, the Jeremiah Wright scandal is the iceberg that is sinking the Hope-tanic.
HillBuzz noticed the “pundits” on MNSBC, in particular, are nonstop cheerleaders for Obama: even the ones MSNBC claims represent the conservative, ie GOP, perspective. One of the most biased in favor of Obama is Michelle Bernard: the wide-eyed, romantic look she gets when she talks about Obama is shameless. It’s like she has religious moments when merely thinking about him.
HillBuzz is glad others have noticed this bias and have also wondered WHO IS MICHELLE BERNARD?
From the Daily Howler:
WHO IS MICHELLE BERNARD: In prime time coverage of a White House election, no cable news network has ever been as propagandized as MSNBC currently is. On Fox, Hannity was always paired with Colmes—and O’Reilly, who is a nut on some topics, is relatively fair about major pols. (In Campaign 2000, for example, he was massively more fair to Gore than most big cable hosts were.)
But on MSNBC, the performance of Hardball, Countdown, and now Race for the White House often resembles that of a cult. This brings us to a peculiar question: Who is Michelle Bernard?
On the surface, the question is easily answered. At present, Bernard is CEO of the Independent Women’s Forum, a conservative women’s group founded in 1992. (According to Wikipedia, the IWF grew out of an ad hoc group created to support Clarence Thomas.) The groups directors emeritae include such conservative stars as Lynn Cheney, Wendy Gramm, Midge Decter and Kate O’Beirne. To peruse the group’s web site, just click here.
The IWF, like many such groups, is founded as a non-partisan 501(c)(3) group. As such, the group does not endorse candidates. But it does promote a range of conservative causes.
All that is well and good—and Michelle Bernard is the group’s CEO. Which leads us to a puzzling question: As a major conservative, why is Bernard appearing on Hardball so often—to gush about Obama?
Bernard’s remarkable Hardball run began on Thursday, January 24. Since then, she has become a frequent guest on the propagandistic program. Here is the list of dates on which she has appeared:
Thursday, January 24
Friday, January 25
Monday, January 28
Tuesday, January 29
Wednesday, January 30 (regular program)
Wednesday, January 30 (special post-debate program)
Tuesday, February 5
Tuesday, February 12
Wednesday, February 13
Thursday, February 14
Tuesday, February 19
Tuesday, February 26
Tuesday, March 4
Wednesday, March 5
Tuesday, March 11 (regular program)
Tuesday, March 11 (special post-primary program)
Wednesday, March 12
Friday, March 14
Tuesday, March 18
According to Nexis, Bernard has appeared nineteen times since January 24, an eight-week period. During that time:
She has almost never been identified as a conservative.
She has repeatedly and effusively praised Obama.
She has never been asked why she, as a leading conservative, is promoting the Democratic Party’s most likely presidential nominee.
Who knows? Maybe there’s a legitimate reason why Bernard, the head of a major conservative group, is promoting Obama so effusively. But Bernard is appearing on a cable network which is perhaps more propagandized than any such network ever has been during a White House campaign. And she is appearing at a time when at least one major writer is asking a question: Have some conservatives been supporting Obama because they think he would be the easier Democratic candidate to beat? (For Wayne Barrett’s Village Voice piece, just click here.) For ourselves, we don’t know who would be the stronger Dem in November—and we don’t know what different conservatives think. But as we’ve watched Hardball, we’ve become increasingly puzzled by Bernard’s effusive praise of Obama—praise which has never yet been questioned by her host.
Our question: Why is the head of the IWF gushing so over Obama?
And make no mistake—Bernard has been gushing hard about the Dem front-runner. (Such gushing is par for the course on Clinton/Gore-loathing MSNBC.) This Tuesday night, for example, the head of a major conservative group said this about Obama’s speech:
BERNARD (3/18/08): I think that this is probably the most important speech that I have heard in my lifetime. I would say this is probably the best speech and most important speech on race that we have, that we have heard as a nation since Martin Luther King`s “I have a dream” speech. Every single word was riveting. I thought that the way Barack Obama started off the speech talking about how perfect and how—you know, the ideals set forth in our Constitution, but slavery being the original sin of our nation and how our forefathers left it to further, further generations to perfect this union and giving the impression that that time for change is now.
I was riveted by his ability in the speech to actually talk about and explain in a manner that is not scary to the nation the type of anger that consumes men like Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and explain it in an important way by talking about what black men in this nation faced in the 50s and in the 60s and not as a way to—to get away from the fact that some of the problems that still plague black America need to be fixed within the community.
He did a great job of, for example, talking about the importance of personal responsibility in the black community, but also balancing that out with saying we need to fix our public education system so that you don`t see such a great disparity between black children and white children. I think, overall, you know, it ranks right up there as one of the best speeches I’ve ever heard.
On balance, we thought the speech was quite good too—but then, we don’t head the IWF, a major conservative group. But then, Bernard had gushed the previous week, defending Obama during the controversy about Ferraro:
BERNARD (3/12/08): Well, I got an e-mail from a viewer who sent me an e-mail and said, “Look, here’s the thing about Geraldine Ferraro—if her premise was correct, why wasn’t Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton ever elected president? If all it takes to be a black—to become president of the United States is to be a black man, we would have seen one a long time ago. And that`s why it’s offensive.”
He is not an affirmative action candidate. He is highly qualified. He is well spoken. He has captured the imagination of whites, blacks, Hispanics. He’s captured the imagination of everyone in this nation, and she seems to really be denigrating him and kind of saying, “You know what? Realize your place.” It’s almost as if we are beginning to see the evolution of the angry white female, or the angry Democratic white female in this election.
Say what? According to the had of a major conservative group, Barack Obama has “captured the imagination of everyone in this nation?” That would have struck us as somewhat odd, coming from the head of the IWF. Except for the fact that, just one night before, we had seen Bernard gush like this:
BERNARD (3/11/08): I think Iowa, New Hampshire, and all of the states that followed, particularly Iowa, you turn on news and there are literally thousands of white people, you know, standing in line to shake his hand and voting for him and they are—
MATTHEWS: What was your feeling in seeing that?
BERNARD: I was proud. I thought it was a wonderful time in our history. We’ve had other African Americans run for president, Shirley Chisholm, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton. Barack Obama represents a new type of black politics.
MATTHEWS: Define it, if can you.
BERNARD: Well, we are going beyond color. You are seeing African Americans competing with whites on their own territory. Like his wife goi
ng to Princeton, like Barack Obama going to Harvard Law School. Speaking just as well as the whites, not speaking Ebonics. Going out and giving great speeches.
Barack Obama isn’t speaking Ebonics! It made Bernard feel proud!
At any rate, you get the general idea: Bernard has been pimping Obama quite hard. As such, she fits right in with Hardball’s requirements—and good news! On March 11, Matthews introduced her, for the first time, as an “MSNBC political analyst.” Like Rachel Maddow before her, Bernard seemed to have said the right things—and seemed to have reaped the reward.
In fairness, Bernard is a young African-American high-achiever herself. (She doesn’t speak Ebonics either!) One might imagine that this helps explain the oddness of seeing the IWF head praising a major Dem in this manner. But few Hardball viewers will find themselves wondering about Bernard’s endless praise for Obama. As we’ve noted, Matthews keeps forgetting to tell his viewers that the IWF is a conservative entity; he introduced Bernard as a conservative on January 28 and February 5, but that was the last time he let viewers know about her political orientation. And something else has never happened. As far as we can tell, Matthews has never asked Bernard an obvious question: Why do you, the head of a conservative group, praise the Democratic front-runner so effusively? That is a baldly obvious question. The question has never been asked.
Why in the world is Michelle Bernard praising the Dem front-runner this way? Is this just another of the Jack Welch Net’s endless scams? Why is Michelle Bernard gushing like this? There may be a very good answer to that—but it’s high time the question was asked.
But back in ’02, for those of us who dared to speak out against President Bush and his war in Iraq, we stood virtually alone. There was no resounding chorus of people calling “bullshit” on Bush’s folly. No, back in 2002 you were called unpatriotic if you dared to question the president; labeled as helping the terrorists if you raised doubt about his divine call to action.
Now forgive me, but I do not recall the help (or the voice) of any Barack Obama from Illinois. Indeed, I cannot recall hearing or feeling the impact of any one speech from the Illinois Senator. Did he attend the rally on the mall in Washington? The marches and protests in NYC? Did he conduct national press interviews? Did he write any editorials? Organize any protest rallies? Mobilize the people? Did he write any petitions? If he did, I never saw any of them.
Yet according to Barack Obama, because he spoke out in 2002 against the war in Iraq, he is better qualified to be president.”
Howard Stern has been a vocal supporter of Hillary Clinton from the beginning of this race. We at HillBuzz demure at some of his naughtier bits, but Stern speaks for a large swath of America, immune to Obamania and decidedly embargoed against Hopium.
Send Howard Stern a message thanking him for his support of Hillary Clinton:
Or, if you prefer, tell him how much you love “The One”, his Obamessiah-ness. It will be fun to see what Stern writes back in that case.
The most interesting and unlikely of alliances have formed in this campaign. HillBuzz is exhilarated by this.
HillBuzz doesn’t understand a great many things about the Obama campaign, but chief amongst those mysteries is this simple fact: if the Obama campaign believes, truly, that their candidate is the best in the race and that voters clammer for him to be the Democratic nominee, then why did the Obama campaign shoot down the only realistic opportunity to have the voters in Michigan and Florida weigh in on this nomination? If Obama is the FUTURE, as his supporters claim, then why do they fear votes in Michigan and Florida today — and what myopic future do they scry in November, with Michigan and Florida remembering this slight and landing squarely in McCain’s column as a result.
Remember: Obama cannot beat McCain without winning an electoral college that relies heavily on some combination of Michigan, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. If Michigan and Florida voters do not back the Democratic candidate, that means Obama has to entrust his fate to Ohio and Pennsylvania (while miraculously picking up some southern or western GOP stronghold state as well). Hillary Clinton won Ohio decisively and is on course to exceed that margin in Pennsylvania. If Obama alienates Michigan and Florida today, and has proven he cannot carry Ohio or Pennsylvania, then no amount of Hopium can improve his chances with the electoral college.
Anything to win
The Michigan legislature adjourned without having voted on a proposed primary revote. The revote is likely dead. The DNC was on board. Clinton donors offered to fund it. Barack Obama was reported to have opposed it, and was piling on legal objections, to prevent it. The Obama camp had already made clear that they would prefer the delegates be split 50/50, and the campaign today repeated that they would consider such a split to be fair. Of course they would. Not because they’re evil or bad people or don’t think Michigan voters are relevant (as the dishonest bloggers at dishonest blogs would frame it, were Clinton playing this game), but because they’re a political team playing politics-as-usual. And as is the case with most politicians, they will do anything to win.
In Florida, plans for a revote also collapsed, this week, and after the same basic dynamic had played out: Clinton was open to a revote, Obama was opposed, with Obama suggesting a 50/50 split of the delegates. Meanwhile, a St. Petersburg Times/Bay News 9 poll showed one in four Florida Democrats may abandon the Party, if the results of the already held primary are not counted. I’m guessing those wavering Democrats will not be convinced to support a candidate who even obstructed efforts for a fair revote.
In Indiana, today, Clinton made clear that she sees a political advantage in this Obama obstructionism. As reported by The Hill:
“I do not understand what Sen. Obama is afraid of, but it is going to hurt our party and our chances in November and so I would call on him, once again, to join me in giving the people of Florida and Michigan the chance to be counted as we move forward in this nominating process,” the former first lady said at the outset of an Indiana press conference.
Clinton went to Michigan this week to make her case. However, it appears that efforts in both states to hold a re-vote are coming up short. The Clinton campaign is saying that Obama’s refusal to strongly support such primaries is part of the problem.
“I do not see how two of our largest and most significant states can be disenfranchised and left out of the process of picking our nominee without raising serious questions about the legitimacy of that nominee,” Clinton said.
I’ll restate what I’ve been saying all along: I do not support seating the delegates as voted on in the original primaries. I do support revotes. Many Obama supporters have claimed that it was Clinton who would try to block revotes. That has now been proven false. Will these Obama supporters now have the courage and candor to call on their candidate to respect the will of the people, and turn around and help support revote efforts? Is preventing revotes in two states that demographically favor Clinton worth throwing away those states’ electoral votes, in November? Is preventing revotes in two states that demographically favor Clinton worth throwing away the concept of abiding by the will of the people? Politics-as-usual should not be political suicide.
HillBuzz is amused by a new word we see making the rounds on the Internet. Wonder who started it? Buzz buzz buzz.
Etymology: Chicago, from Greek opion and Hope springs eternal
Date: 21st Century
1 : a bitter addictive narcotic that deludes its partakers into seeing brilliance in solipsism, substance in propoganda, and a Messiah in just another Pied Piper
2 : something having an effect like that of opium, of and for the people, to spellbind its partakers in the thrall of Obamania
HillBuzz is reminded of occasions when we’ve gone to the latest “chic” restaurant to sample the newest craze in molecular gastronomy, or whatever, or when we’ve been regailed by would-be sommeliers about how absolutely unbelievably magnificent this or that wine is, and HillBuzz has been left wondering what all the fuss is about. What exactly do people see in tiny bits of dehydrated food, or a wine from New Zealand that’s $50 a bottle and tastes, to our pallettes, like the $9 Californian?
That’s how we feel about Obama in general, but also in regards to his speech on race. Chris Matthews drooled over it, going as far as calling Obama the new Lincoln.
He’d also, we’re sure, drone on about molecular gastronomy and the ebulience of some random shiraz.
We’re not the only ones who’ve noticed Obama’s speech is a “brilliant failure”