The Attack on Obama
MORE
Joe Conason
“They will try to Swift Boat me,” said Barack Obama in the days before the New Hampshire primary, looking forward to the Democratic nomination that he now believes will be his with a prediction that is both accurate and chilling.
Whether he can go on to claim the nomination is yet to be determined. Much more predictable is the nature of the campaign that will be waged against him—and the fickleness of the national press corps when that ugly process eventually reaches its nadir.
The effective template for attacking a Democratic nominee was developed by former Republican political boss Karl Rove during decades of trench warfare in Texas and across the country. Whether he is whispering advice from the sidelines next fall won’t matter much, because his approach can be easily copied by lesser talents: Seize upon the Democrat’s most attractive quality and sow doubts to undermine that appeal. With candidates such as John Kerry and Max Cleland, that meant tearing down their records as war heroes and raising questions about their patriotism.
With Mr. Obama, the obvious target is his inspirational life story. The task of the opposition operatives will be to twist that saga, to unearth facts or factoids that raise concerns about the candidate’s background, and to make his cosmopolitan upbringing appear alien and even sinister—and of course to play the race card against him, either subtly or blatantly. These themes will begin to appear in the right-wing press, which is of course where the original Swift Boat smears first showed up four years ago.
Indeed, that process has begun, and is accelerating along with Mr. Obama’s drive toward the nomination. Conservatives will briefly applaud him for defeating Hillary Clinton, the immediate object of their hatred, which they will then turn on him as the next target. Denigrating material about the front-runner—whose popularity and skill they clearly fear—will be ready for deployment very shortly, but will not be aired until his nomination is a certainty.
Meanwhile, certain themes are being tested on the Web sites of the extreme right. The basic concept is to suggest that Mr. Obama is not as wholesome as he appears to be. On these sites and in e-mail barrages, he is portrayed as the son and stepson of Muslims from Africa and Asia, who worshipped in mosques and madrasas as a young boy. That is a proven falsehood surrounding a tiny grain of fact, but no matter. Repetition will make the poison.
Next will come questions about the Chicago church he attends, whose eccentric pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, is a close friend and spiritual adviser to the Obama family. In an article published on the Newsmax Web site just days ago, Mr. Wright is depicted as a raving black nationalist and a proud associate of Louis Farrakhan. He is prone to polarizing remarks about a wide range of topics, from Jews and Israel to the disappearance of Natalee Holloway.
That Newsmax article on the relationship between Mr. Obama and Mr. Wright displays at least one aspect of the campaign under construction on the right. Although such Web sites may seem marginal, they are not—and more powerful forces are clearly indicating their interest in these same lines of attack.
Brad Blakeman, a former Bush White House aide who now runs Freedoms Watch, a political committee funded by major Republican donors that has aired several pro-war commercials, told Newsmax that he was aware of the Obama-Wright connection.
“If your spiritual adviser makes outrageous statements, it’s incumbent on you as a leader to denounce those statements,” he said. “Silence is an admission that you agree with what your spiritual adviser pronounces.”
Newsmax concluded that “if Obama is his party’s nominee, his Republican opponent will rightly be able to make use of Rev. Wright and his radical teachings as effectively as supporters of George H.W. Bush used Willie Horton’s furlough to help Bush win the presidency.” In other words, be prepared for the attack ads to be aired by Freedoms Watch and other shadowy, well-funded organizations, just like the Willie Horton ads put up by an earlier “independent committee” in 1988.
The right wing will do exactly the same thing to Hillary Clinton if she somehow revives her campaign, of course—except that those ads would have to be reruns.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Thank you Mr. Conason..for reminding us of what the Republican "political machine" did to Max Cleland..I hope our Iraqi vets will take note of this if they seek out a political career as a Democrat...their war service, lost limbs and metals for bravery will mean nothing!
I suspect IF Obama wins the nomination the three "R" words to watch for in the conservative media will be...Race, Religon...and Reparations!
As usual, Joe is just plain wrong. Hillary and her clan will do way more barack bashing than joe's belief in the "vast right-wing conspiracy".
Mr. Conason's record and reporting stands for itself. Candidate Clinton may engage in some rough and tumble politics, but I doubt it will be anywhere near the outright lies and falsehoods promoted by Republican tactics. I can remember a time when dirty trick politics only operated on the local, and easily countered, level. Rove, Cheney and Bush have elevated the game.
It's already started, Barak is being attacked for his ability to talk to the people in their own language and style, instead of being praised for celebrating the diversity of the people of America, he is being called a racist. With the right wing you can't win for losing. They are irrational and power hungry, and stoop to any means to win.
You don't think that Koz and Move On will attack the Republican candidate in the same fashion as you are talking about, the Right Wing conspiracy way. Lots of laughs on that one. The Dems are just as vicious as any political party around. Look at what the Clinton machine did to all the people that questioned him, Jones, Broderick, Willey and so on. You are just dreaming. John Kerry shot himself in the foot. He has still not disclosed his medical records that he said he would years ago. Get Real.
You are right that the attacks have already started. Yesterday I had a friend ask me about an email she had received about Obama being a closet radical Muslim, complete with the charge that he attended a Madrassa. Christopher Hitchens has a post on Slate about Obama and his minister.
When Obama prattles on about changing the tone, reaching out, etc. he is implying that Democrats such as the Clintons, Gore, Kerry and Cleland got slimed because they were participating in this kind of mudslinging. This is hugely insulting.
I am sure the Swift Boat crowd will be so charmed by Obama that they will put down their knives and join hands with him to sing Kumbaya.
I received the Newsmax article about Obama`s church and sent it my friends.
The article that I distributed makes a valid point when it compares the media`s treatment of Mitt Romney`s Mormon`s faith and the way the media has ignored the black extremist church that Obama belongs to.There is a double standard.
One of the reasons Romney is not doing as well as he could is because he is a Mormon. Even if Obama does not subscribe to his church`s and Wright`s belief`s he should be questioned about his membership in this church. Furthermore Wright and the Trinity United Church of Christ`s belief are far more relevant to our current life than anything the Mormon church espouses.
Democrats should be aware of Obama`s church allegiance before they cast their vote. Because the right knows about it and it will be an issue if Obama gets the nomination.
I agree with you 100%. Obama implies that the Clintons brought on the attacks by the GOP.
He will be swiftboated too if he is the nominee/
Repetition
Poetic elements: image conjuring language, alliteration, rhyme
Implication
Narrative
Together these elements make an idea memorable. Later it is the ONLY thing remembered about an event or person. As the only thing remembered it is repeated even by those who don't believe it, recruiting its enemies in its dissemination.
These are elements of marketing an idea that need contain no truth at all. Americans, though widely subjected to marketing, are strikingly vulnerable.
There is hope in educating the target audience in the techniques so that they at least instantly arouse suspicion. Simply discrediting the ideas is reactive, helps by repeating them, and takes to long.
Joes effort at preemptive education about the expected themes and narratives is tempered by adding to the repetition, but I hope is a net gain.
Does Joe Conason read about political sources that aren't left wing? His article on Obama is astonishingly ignorant, a typical example of an extremist who thinks only the other extreme is evil. Here are the facts about Obama: for about two decades he has attended an Afrocentrist church, a church that promotes what it calls a "black values" system. His pastor (whom Obama has called a mentor and been very close to for a long time) has used the most nasty rhetoric imaginable against Israel. We know for a fact that he has travelled with Farrakhan. This pastor also, in an interview, says that men should not even talk about the abortion issue because they aren't the ones getting pregnant. Saying such a thing is exactly what Southern plantation owners asserting states rights were saying to the Union back in the time of slavery: you can't tell us what to do because you aren't us. It's insultingly ignorant. Add to this that Obama in a speech compared shootings at Virginia Tech to hurtful words that people use, suggesting that he may have as little grasp on logic as his mentor and suggesting that he may further erode the First Amendment that keeps being eroded by the politically correct on the left and the religiously prudish on the right. I will speak out loud and often to make sure Obama does not get elected, and everything I say will be true.
I find it amazing that Joe is blaming the Right for bringing out the facts about Obama's pastor and mentor. So it doesn't bother you, Joe, that this pastor is an Afrocentrist and a Jew basher? You blame Republicans for using it rather than Obama for associating so closely with such a bigot? You've gotta be kidding me! And isn't it interesting that you call this pastor merely "eccentric" but people who report facts about him and Obama are using the "race card." I really feel sorry for someone who is so partisan that he doesn't even try to approximate objectivity. And I find it amazing that someone who is so cognitively disabled can get a job writing for a paper--but hey maybe the paper is hiring in order to achieve a "diversity" of cognitive abilities on its editorial staff.
So Mr. Conason, if a white candidate belonged to a church that promoted itself as "unabashedly white" and espoused a "white values" system, you know as well as I do that the mainstream media would be all over that candidate by now, demanding he (or she) answer for those beliefs. And would you be blaming the "left wing" for these tactics? Somehow, I doubt that.
Of course I imagine you subscribe to the belief that only whites can be racist ...
Joe, Big LIES!
Can't "swift Boat" Mr.Obama. He does not appear to be a liar or gross exaggerator of his past. That was Kerry's stock in trade. He's as big a liar as algore-you know that fat guy that runs around making zillions talking about his hot air.
Obama appears sincere, although he is grossly naive about the ways of the world and the attitudes and workings of foreign governments.
Maybe he can grow into the job, if he gets it. He'd sure be a better role model for our kids than Satan's sister.(and her quickdick husband)
I have what I think is a valid question for Democrats. How come everything Republicans do is dirty tricks and when Democrats do it it is called political strategy. The Clintons wrote the book on dirty tricks. Hillary and her army have already brought up Obama's kindergarten paper, his drug use. I am sure there will be more from the left in the next month than there will be from the right. I will wait for your article on that.
Two observations:
1) Conason doesn't deny Rev. Wright's anti-Semitism. Bush can take heat for rubbing elbows at Bob Jones University, but it's a smear if Obama takes heat for rubbing them with an anti-Semite?
2) Conason also derisively mentions "shadowy, well-funded organizations." Um, Joe, weren't you also a supporter of McCain-Feingold? Welcome to the world you helped create.
Politics is, and has always been, a very dirty game. There are books lining shelves describing every era back to the beginning of our country that describe each generations way of conning "the American people" into one voting block or another. Democrates and Republicans and Independants all do it.
The problem as a voter, as I see it, is to plow through all the garbage and truthful information until I have enough to make up my own mind. But then I am influenced by my own history. Can't help that. We are who we are. So I read Conason. I read Rove. I see the world through a multi-cultural, multi-religion, multi-color prism, because that is the kind of American family I was raised into and became myself. And I evaluate each bit of information through that prism, as we all do through whatever prism we were raised with.
Democracy is a lot of work to maintain. I hope for a President this next time that is able to be a mediator, not a divider, to bring to the table our countries many divides, and to address the divide that has developed between us and the rest of the world over the past seven years. Idealist, and hopeful for the first time in many years.
Politics is, and has always been, a very dirty game. There are books lining shelves describing every era back to the beginning of our country that describe each generations way of conning "the American people" into one voting block or another. Democrates and Republicans and Independants all do it.
The problem as a voter, as I see it, is to plow through all the garbage and truthful information until I have enough to make up my own mind. But then I am influenced by my own history. Can't help that. We are who we are. So I read Conason. I read Rove. I see the world through a multi-cultural, multi-religion, multi-color prism, because that is the kind of American family I was raised into and became myself. And I evaluate each bit of information through that prism, as we all do through whatever prism we were raised with.
Democracy is a lot of work to maintain. I hope for a President this next time that is able to be a mediator, not a divider, to bring to the table our countries many divides, and to address the divide that has developed between us and the rest of the world over the past seven years. Idealist, and hopeful for the first time in many years.
So Obama attends a white hating racist church, that shouldn't be an issue? LOL. Let's see, libs love talking about what college groups Bush belonged to.
Bush masters dirty tricks? Remember the night that Ross Perot endorsed Bush? That's when Gore's people leaked the news of Bush's dwi.
Conatard is showing lib hypocrisy at its finest.
"On these sites and in e-mail barrages, he is portrayed as the son and stepson of Muslims from Africa and Asia, who worshipped in mosques and madrasas as a young boy. That is a proven falsehood surrounding a tiny grain of fact"
Is the liar saying that his dad wasn't a muslim? Is the liar saying he didn't attend a Madrasa? These are all FACTS not opinion. A madrasa is a muslim school. That's the definition. It can be radical or not. And Obama went to one.
Minor correction, Joe: If it's a smear to state less-than-rosy facts about Obama's past, then the smear began with Obama himself in his biography and by Rolling Stone magazine last year. The right wing press doesn't need to find anything worse than "the denigrating material" already in plain view.
As usual Joe the Clinton enabler is again calling the conservatives that big right wing conspiracy. He leans so far left that he walks at a tilt. I have never seen a man fight and protect crooks like the Clintons I don't think he can think straight.
All the people screeching that they know "the truth" about Barack Obama's "sordid" religion apparently need to be reminded that George W Bush loudly proclaimed to be a "Born-again Christian", and look and the wondrous "Christianity" he has inflicted on the people of Iraq!
If George W Bush proclaimed himself to be a Muslim, he would rightly be called a hypocrite (at least) and morally bankrupt (at best) by the same people that today defend him because of his "faith". Yet, when this "Christian" man proclaimed "Jesus" was guiding his hand as he unleashed an unprovoked attack, followed by devastation, mass-murder, and torture, on the soveriegn nation of Iraq, there was not a peep from the so-called "Christians" in the United States at how it was against what their religion stood for. While the media loves to talk about the dark under-pinnings of Islam, they refuse to even mention that the pious US "Christians" overwhelmingly supported the anti-Christian, malevolence committed against the innocent people of Iraq by a self-proclaimed "Born-again Christian".
Does anyone honestly believe if it had been another country, under a different religion, that had attacked Iraq and unleashed the mass-murder that the Bush administration has done, that there wouldn't be HUGE outcries of how "evil" and "morally deficient" that country was - and blaming it on their religion, whatever that religion was?
The "faith based Christians" in this country have very little ground to stand on when it comes to condemning other religions. They allowed their so-called faith to be used in the most malevolent and evil way imaginable, and never once shouted at Bush to stop disgracing the religion, or to stop blaspemously proclaiming Jesus' approval for his murderous actions.
Joe is right.
Since Obama has started playing the "race card" against Hillary, he has inspired the Republicans to hope he wins the Democrat Primary, then the Republicans will have the opening to expose Obama for the raciest he is.
The Republicans would do to Obama what the'cowboys' did to the Indians in the old movies.
Obama has proved that he is not a man, but like a child on the playground, and will be sent back to the streets of Chicago.
As a Democrat I've been reading and writing on line for the better part of 10 years and have heard it all. Not once have I heard any legitimate rationale or reason for the "hatred" of Hillary Clinton. I've heard they don't like her voice her pants suits her big butt and oddly enough even her strength and her command of the issues. They hated her because her husband cheated and somehow that was her fault...blah, blah, blah! It's all been a bunch of hoowee! Which, as I have stated before, sounds more misogynic than real reasons for not considering her qualified or for that matter not liking her. And, frankly, I don't give a rats ass what the GOP has to say about it. It's all been said before. Furthermore, if Obama is nominated, he will be attacked as well and undermined by them no matter what he does. And, if he can't take the heat in a primary over an issue he himself put out there in his own words about past drug use then he really isn't ready to for the position. Obama, at this point, has gotten a free ride in terms of media scrutiny. Where Hillary has gotten a beating every day. They have handled him with kid gloves, fearful they would offend a black man. Let me tell ya, the GOP doesn't share that fear. And, this notion that he alone can go to Washington and "change" much in terms of the GOP attitude towards working with the democrats IS a fairy tale. Hillary Clinton has worked across party lines in the Senate, the repubs have said that many times, long before she started running for office, because that's the only way anything gets done in Washington. She's been in the trenches both in the White House and in the Senate. She knows what to expect. Like she's said many times she has the battle scares to show for it. That's no fairy tale.
It's going to take more than a great orator to get the job done in Washington. It's going to take leadership and hard work and the ability to actually make a decision. You can't just vote present all the time as Obama did while in the Ill. legislature, and now claim you were against the war when you weren't even there to see what went into the decision one way or another. At least he's admitted he's not sure how he would have voted. There's a big difference between saying I would have voted against it and saying I'm not sure. But, I get it, he's the liberals dream guy. Sweet, intelligent, and black (please lord, forgive us of our sinful slavery past). I cringe whenever I hear how Obama is like Martin, Bobby and John. What hoowee!! Furthermore, one has only to remember the sad fact that all three of them are martyrs, shot dead in the streets of their own country. How horrible it would be for this nation to face that heart breaking nightmare again. What would that say to the world.
This country is facing daunting challenges for the next president and it's just like young liberals to get so caught up in the oration of Obama, Mr. sweetness and light and want to put a beginner in job. Unaware of what the GOP is really like. Obama will he will spend years struggling against the white boys club known as the GOP. When what we need is a strong, experienced leader.
BTW, the poisoning of Washington started from the Gingrich revolution right through today. The current administration came into office with their number one policy of ABC, "anything but Clinton." Haven't you wondered why it's taken Bush 7 plus years to even consider Middle East Peace talks. Just think how far we would be had the current admin. taken the good thinks Clinton did and added to them rather than scrap them all and ...well, need I say more regarding the damage this administration has done to this country. Things were damn good in the 90's, for everyone. Frankly, that's why the GOP hated him so. He was a centrist, yet the painted him a liberal. They accused him of everything from drug running to murder. What Clinton did is take republican ideas and democrat ideas and moved this country forward. Had Bill Clinton had an (R) beside his name he would be their hero for all he did to set this country on the right path and they sure as hell wouldn't feel the need to resurrect Reagan in every election.
One other thing I'd like to say is in terms of endorsements. Clinton has endorsements a mile long. In fact, more than 130 of them. And she's still racking them up. Like all candidates they get rolled out as they are needed. That's the way the game is played. And it is a game, the art of politics. But more than that it's leadership and experience which is what it's going to take for the next president, not an inexperienced dreamer who thinks the republican will hold hands with him.
From Iowa, the national press coverage of Obama has been inadequate. I went to 15 of his events during the last year, 4 featuring Michelle, several for Clinton and many for the second tier candidates. During that time it was rare to find coverage of Obama's speeches except in the most general terms, i.e. inspiring, visionary, etc. The media seemed fixated on the size of the crowds he was drawing and paid little attention to his remarks.
After Iowa, the national press reports his statements as if they are "new", yet I have heard them for several months. Same for Michelle.
I think one of the problems is that while the national media embeds itself in the military in Iraq, there is little continuity of coverage for the national candidates. Perhaps the editors are afraid of having a pundit get too close to the candidate, but the result is that most have not become educated about the content of Obama's appeal. And don't get me started as to their ignorance of the organizational structure of the campaigns and their financing! Obama's Iowa win was built on an organizational structure which was deep, wide and well financed. I spoke to many reporters during the Iowa caucus season and many were unwilling to follow a story line, explore the development of a candidate's political philosophy or have anything but a superficial understanding of politics on the ground. Too much "color" coverage and not enough substance. They also did not seem very well read. IMHO. Clara Oleson
I disagree, the book on dirty tricks was written by Lee Atwater and the Nixon administration. The kindergarten paper was in direct response to Obama's claim that he hadn't been planning or dreaming of being president until recently, unlike, according to him, Hillary Clinton. Going back to kindergarten was silly, as they could have found other ways to undermine his claim. In terms of his drug use, that's an issue he, himself put out there. It seems to me that Obama and his camp feels they should not be given the same scrutany as Clinton or any other candidate in the race. What hoowee! He's gotten a free ride thus far. If he or his team feels he should be elected just because he gives a nice speech and is a black man he's got another think coming.
The American people will NOT go for a president that really is basically saying, "vote for me I new because I'm black, rather than, "vote for me, because I would represent the entire American population and here's what I've done to qualify me for the job. To simply say, everyone else running is just the same old same old, is hoowee too! We need the next president to hit the ground running and has the experience and is battle hardend to pull this country out of the ditch that GWB and his fying monkeys have driven us into. We need the best qualified person for in that job. Obama is NOT the most qualified as he hasn't had much experience outside of local politics in the Ill. legislature where he voted "present" more than he should have. As if he was just there to pull a paycheck. It will take more than simply showing up every day. As president one need to make decisions not ride the fence as it seems he did there. He's gotten a free ride from the media. That needs to change!
I like the bullshit about the medical records. Anything to hold on to a shred of nonexistent dignity. If he released heis medical records as right winger you'd have to demand that he release something else or contend that what he released is false because you have nothing worth talking about other than throwing mud, which the highest skill any right winger ever attains.
I like the bullshit about the medical records. Anything to hold on to a shred of nonexistent dignity. If he released heis medical records as right winger you'd have to demand that he release something else or contend that what he released is false because you have nothing worth talking about other than throwing mud, which the highest skill any right winger ever attains.
Why don't you write about the Clinton's private investigators. They have always maintained a mini-KGB to dig up dirt on their enemies.
I'm not a liberal but I'll tell you this, Obama seems honest and the Clintons stink like three day old fish. Therefore I hope Hillary gets nominated. With her baggage and with Bill out there reminding the country of what a absolute trailer park scumbag he is, even old fossil dick John McCain could beat her.