Obama Site’s Anti-Semitic Material: Much Ado About Nothing
I guess I have a different take from most conservatives on the issue of anti-Semitic remarks on Sen. Obama’s web site.
As I understand it, BarackObama.com is somewhat like Daily Kos in that the site allows a wide range of participants to publish posts. (Why, at least one daily newspaper — you’ll never guess which one — has referred to it as a “social networking site” without even bothering to note that it is also an official campaign web site!) There is no official approval needed before content may be posted.
If you have a set-up like that, it’s going to get abused. Period. It’s as certain as the rising of the sun.
What’s more, we don’t even know who’s behind the anti-Semitic postings. I’ll assume that it’s a genuine Obama supporter for purposes of this post — but it could be a right-winger trying to make Obama look bad. Don’t tell me you wouldn’t suspect something similar if the tables were turned.
So, assuming that the content was posted by an Obama supporter: so what?
Barack Obama attracts some anti-Semitic supporters. That’s hardly a surprise, nor is it his obviously his fault. In my opinion, he’s been too cozy with supporters of the anti-Semitic Louis Farrakhan. So criticize him for that. But the fact that he has anti-Semitic supporters, standing alone, says no more about him than the fact that there are white racists supporting John McCain.
The issue is how he and his campaign react to that support.
I understand this material stayed up on his web site for two months. This might be significant if there were any evidence that he knew it was there. But evidently, as soon as conservatives pointed it out, it was scrubbed from the site.
Yes, and they erased it from Google cache and the Internet Wayback Machine. So would I, if someone posted that kind of junk on my site, and I could figure out how to scrub it off that thoroughly.
I understand the impulse to ding Obama for anything possible. He’s incredibly liberal. He will appoint terrible judges. He plans to cut and run in Iraq, sparking a possible civil war. And so on.
But there are undecided voters out there who are watching the competing arguments — and if your argument is silly, they’ll notice. This one, in my opinion, is silly. I’m actually surprised to see so many conservatives trying to make something out of it. There’s no “there” there.
UPDATE: OK, here’s the best argument I’ve heard contra my position: Obama’s campaign, having raked in $300 million, could spend $50,000 to have someone police this stuff. Not a bad point.
The guy who posted that awful rant appears to be a Ron paul supporter. All the anti-semitic comments were ported over wholesale from his own site.
http://www.newshoggers.com/blog/2008/06/cleaning-out-th.html
Regards, C
Cernig (bac533) — 6/8/2008 @ 9:59 pmYeah, onto a site with a million categories on the sidebar — each one with zero posts!
I’m not sure I follow your post, sir, but I’m also not sure I believe it. I urge those with more time on their hands to explore all the links to the “Real Jew News” site and see if it seems like a real site to you, or something manufactured recently.
Me, I’m going to go to bed.
Patterico (cb443b) — 6/8/2008 @ 10:04 pmMaybe it’s the case that not each and every post is examined, but I find it hard to believe that the sight as a whole is not moderated.
Here is a simple test: are there a lot of anti-Obama posts on the site? If it is unmoderated, there should be. At one point the Kerry-04 site allowed truly unmoderated posts, and guess what: about half of them were statements in support of Kerry by Saddam Hussein!
LTEC (601e5e) — 6/8/2008 @ 10:21 pmI wonder whether the progs are going to try to pin the Truther posts and Black Panther posts to false flag ops by the right or just normal nutjobs that support Obama that need to be purged from the blog occasionally.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/8/2008 @ 10:50 pmObama is not “liberal” — he’s hard left fringe. He is further from the center than any major party candidate ever. Further than McGovern, and further than Goldwater was to the Right.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 6/9/2008 @ 12:33 amThe “there” that is there about the happy camping ground that Jew-haters have found on the Obama “community” web pages emerges when one makes a search of those blogs against the terms Jewish+Lobby.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/search
The results made unpleasant reading: I stopped after 110 posts and comments, none of them quite so organized as “Brother Nathaniel Kapner,” but most of them displaying the same venomous paranoia directed toward Jews. Not Israel, not “Zionists”: Jews.
I could detect no evidence of moderation, and can only conclude that the Obama campaign is quite comfortable with having its “community” pages be a haven for the hate-filled and hateful. That “there” is most definitely there.
David L. (b851e1) — 6/9/2008 @ 12:47 amI’m surprised he didn’t shut down the site saying he was saddened by the recent turn of events and the website wasn’t the website he had known and loved when he first set it up.
Grant (56f05f) — 6/9/2008 @ 1:29 amthe problem is that it is HIS site. If you were running such a site and left this kind of tripe up (okay, your moderators left it up) and your stated polocies leads many to think you feel this way as well. . . .how well does that reflect on you?
Charles is mostly pointing out that these nuts are allowed access to a Candidates Blogsite, and some bizzarre stuff is coming out. Looking deeper, he finds all kinds of the stuff. Then they dissapear, no explanation, no statements. Looking further, he finds the site is so poorly run, he can access directories.
If the moron can’t run a blog correctly, how can he be relied on to run anything?
Now, picture McCain’s campain allowing a Stormfront page to show up on it’s website. Or a “Fascists for McCain” page.
JP (e05949) — 6/9/2008 @ 1:46 amHow big would the headlines at LAT and NYT be?
Patterico:
Would President Barack Obama allow “unmoderated” access by the elite media to classified documents?
Dafydd
Dafydd ab Hugh (db2ea4) — 6/9/2008 @ 3:44 amIt seems far fetched that Obama or anyone closely connected to him would purposely allow any kind of anti-Semitic material on the web page.
edward cropper (9e79a8) — 6/9/2008 @ 4:18 amEven if Obama was really anti-Semitic can you honestly believe a con man of his stature would let this slide knowing the political effect it could have? Obama and his top lieutenants have little time to deal with small aspects of the campaign. That lower echelon people didn’t catch this is unacceptable but not uncommon in a political campaign. I will not give Obama the time of day, but sometimes common sense must prevail.
It is no secret among most of us that the extreme left and right directions of the political orbit meet up somewhere on the dark side of the moon. Senator Obama is guilty of not having someone secure his website.
Personally, I wonder why he didn’t spend a little time looking it over himself. A website has global reach.
tyree (e24364) — 6/9/2008 @ 5:27 amNot so. After you click the name of the category, you have to click the title of the post — and there you’ll have all the “George Soros is the evil mastermind” insanity.
Nikolay (a50f82) — 6/9/2008 @ 5:50 amThere’s been a civil war going on in Iraq ever since “Mission Accomplished.”
David Ehrenstein (f6984e) — 6/9/2008 @ 6:01 amIsn’t that what is commonly referred to as a canard?
JD (75f5c3) — 6/9/2008 @ 6:41 amHere is a simple test: are there a lot of anti-Obama posts on the site? If it is unmoderated, there should be. At one point the Kerry-04 site allowed truly unmoderated posts, and guess what: about half of them were statements in support of Kerry by Saddam Hussein!
Yeah, maybe someone should start putting up porn on the Obama site, like someone did to an LAT wikitorial, and see if *that* stays up.
Somehow I think that might be found more instantly objectionable.
My guess is that the policing is done by people who frequent the site. They probably wouldn’t be as likely to inform the moderators about anti-Semitic posts (even if they didn’t agree with them) as they would be with porn or anti-Obama posts.
They really should have someone monitoring the site.
Patterico (cb443b) — 6/9/2008 @ 7:22 amPassive acquiescence seems to come to mind. Sen. Obama has a long history of willingness to listen to voices that are pretty stridently anti-Israel, and certainly have been tinged with hatred of the Jews.
I wonder how many posts that stated the exact same wording about blacks would have piled up…before they were found and eliminated.
Or, more tellingly…openly refuted and opposed.
The issue is not the creation of the posts, it is the lack of reaction to them. Read anything from Robert Malley’s father…and you will see the exact same thought process. Or catch Nation of Islam leaders (and followers) in a private moment.
You can’t stop this sort of posting on a site…especially if you attract it in the first place. Flies buzz where bull droppings fall.
cfbleachers (4040c7) — 6/9/2008 @ 7:42 am“That lower echelon people didn’t catch this is unacceptable but not uncommon in a political campaign.”
edward cropper – It’s common in the Obama campaign, however, and the excuse still seems to be working.
BLAME THE STAFFERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/9/2008 @ 8:02 amIs someone keeping track of the number of people that Baracky has thrown under the back of the bus?
JD (75f5c3) — 6/9/2008 @ 8:18 amSo does the fact that thing was a deliberate provocation still not matter to you?? If it were just a simple repost of the thing picked up from a hate site, it could be just a work of a loon (although it’s kind of hard imagining a leftist loon believing in “George Soros is evil” crap — that’s mostly what rightist loons believe), but given the fact that not only the post itself was taken from a fascist site, but comments also, there’s about 97% probability that the only purpose of that thing was to embarass Obama campaign.
Nikolay (a50f82) — 6/9/2008 @ 8:32 amAnd what kind of judgment are we supposed to make about “what people are attracted to Obama”? Does the fact that Obama’s site attracts malicious right-wing crazies that exploit it’s open structure to stir trouble say something about Obama’s judgment? Is there any doubt that this heartless scum (actually, crying wolf and pretending to find Antisemitism where there’s actually none is extremely harmful to Jews in general) will exploit whatever they can exploit?
That was as predictable as the sun rising, Nikolay.
JD (75f5c3) — 6/9/2008 @ 8:47 amNikolay probably is unaware, JD…about the postings that appeared on Kos Kidz when the Joe Lieberman flap took full flight.
(or maybe not)
This isn’t an isolated incidence of spewing hatred of the Jews from the left. In fact, it is quite common and rampant.
The pernicious stew of imbeciles attracted to Sen. Obama’s candidacy from the far reaches of leftism….(again, See Robert Malley’s fathers writings and his ilk)…one must remember it also includes pro-Hamas elements as well.
The far left plus the Islamofascist ingredients make such statements not only believable…but predictable.
Google the leftist spewings about Joe Lieberman…it’s a real treat for the Apologist Apostles to feast upon.
cfbleachers (4040c7) — 6/9/2008 @ 8:55 amNikolay – Did you miss the fact that there is all sorts of other loony left wing hate crap posted to the web site. Have you definitively proved it is all coming from the right wing? I think not!
It is the normal barking moonbats that Obama has had to publicly disown over the course of his campaign.
BLAME THE STAFFERS FOR NOT CLEANSING THE SITE!!!!!!
Moron.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/9/2008 @ 9:20 amI’m not sure what the fuss is about. Yes, there was offensive material ported onto the site by a Ron Paul supporter; and yes, it’s now gone, which makes me think there is moderation over there.* What I find strange is that the accusations of antisemitism come four days after Obama puckered up to AIPAC.
*Unless this is a “Such is the danger of the Internet!” story, in which case, we already knew that.
SEK (bd295a) — 6/9/2008 @ 9:42 amSEK, maybe the fact that this one post was not an isolated instance. You seem to have missed that there have been scores of posts like this, on Obama’s site.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/9/2008 @ 9:53 amDafydd @ #9…
He won’t have to, he’ll just designate the NYT as the archive for all National Security info.
No “Too Many Secrets” allowed.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 6/9/2008 @ 10:01 amNo, I can’t prove that, of course. But in this particular instance there’s enough evidence to believe that this copy-paste job was a right-wing smear (I mean, a “George Soros is an evil Jew” site as a source, comments that are copy-pasted as well, is it not enough?)
http://commentsfromleftfield.com/2008/06/breaking-jewish-lobby-story-overinflated
Doesn’t the fact that you have people that would stoop so low on your side bother you at all? Just a bit? And this false-but-accurate defense is weak. Given the fact that LGF was just caught with a blatant lie concerning this story,
Nikolay (a50f82) — 6/9/2008 @ 10:04 amhttp://www.jedreport.com/2008/06/lgf-is-crying-w.html
the general observations don’t work well when most of the particular instances you use to prove your general observations are false.
For me, hearing Chomsky speak for the first time was a life-changing experience. His ability to take preconceptions and destroy them—to completely remodel one’s understanding of reality with cold, hard facts—blew me away. When I left what was then the ARCO Forum last fall, I felt as though I had been through the Matrix and back. Chomsky really has this effect because he bombards you with evidence and logic, not empty rhetoric. It is nearly impossible to hear him or read him—once you’ve actually checked his facts yourself (he even cites page numbers in public addresses)—and deny what he’s saying.
It is Chomsky’s amazing ability to reason that leads me to believe that he has the power to make the Left make sense—and perhaps, to single-handedly push America in a more progressive direction.
Chomsky has his reasons for his unwavering radicalism. He could care less about persuading swing voters not to vote for Bush, because he distrusts governments in general. He believes that real change comes about as a result of grass-roots movements, not the political process. Yet, even if he is waiting for Americans to rise up in mass movements, he’s not going to spark widespread protest unless he can get more people to embrace his message. And if he wants to convince Americans, he’s simply got to tone it down.
Sam Graham-Felsen…chief blogger for Sen. Obama
cfbleachers (4040c7) — 6/9/2008 @ 10:08 amPeople still fawn over that upper-class, MIT tenured , Khmer Rouge and Hezbollah admiring, yacht-owning, pseudo-radical laughing all the way to the bank with Progressives’ money, clown Chomsky???
Jack Klompus (cf3660) — 6/9/2008 @ 10:18 amhere
The chomsky view of Hamas and Hezbollah…the tie in with the radical left’s marriage to the Nation of Islam and Farrakhan and Wright…and the picture becomes clearer.
Sen. Obama is perfectly content to have that point of view expressed for two months on his website, it reflects a significant portion of the people in his inner circle’s worldview.
cfbleachers (4040c7) — 6/9/2008 @ 10:24 amPeople still fawn over that upper-class, MIT tenured , Khmer Rouge and Hezbollah admiring, yacht-owning, pseudo-radical laughing all the way to the bank with Progressives’ money, clown Chomsky???
Not just ANY people, Jack. The people who run the Senator’s blog.
Here, we can connect the dots. Sam Graham-Felsen is a Chomskyite worshipper, a Socialist who flies a Communist flag in his bedroom…and he allows the rancid, venom-spewing against Israel in general and Jews in particular to stand on the site for two months. Coincidence?
Perhaps. Looks, smells and acts like passive acquiscence to me. Chomsky’s own leanings toward Hamas and Hezbollah are more in line with Farrakhan and Jeremiah Wright. (And Otis Moss, Rev. Meeks…not to mention the late Edward Said, Ali Abunimah, Rashid Khalidi and convicted felon Tony Rezco)
Chomsky’s anti-America hatred and lies and propaganda are more in line with “Frank” Marshall Davis, James Cone, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dorhn.
If you click on the link to the American Thinker in my post at #29 above, it outlines pretty much what I have been saying all along.
If the Chief Blogger is a Socialist who worships Chomsky…and chomskyites are pro-Hamas worldviews…why would it be a surprise to see anti-jewish sentiments on the blog? It should be anticipated…not refuted as coincidence.
cfbleachers (4040c7) — 6/9/2008 @ 10:32 amThe last I heard, it wasn’t Klansmen or Nazis that were killing Jews in America just for being Jewish. It was Al Sharpton’s followers.
nk (0e7da1) — 6/9/2008 @ 10:34 amAmericans who posture as “radicals” are so beyond parody. I remember the fun of scrawling an anarchy symbol on a ripped denim vest when going to a Dead Kennedys concert at age 15 but adulthood comes knocking at some point. Looking at the various rallies and protests and the element that they attract with their costumes, banners, stupid chants, the socially-retarded posturing, who takes these people seriously? People who have such a hardon for this kind of activity just prove that they are in a political version of Scientology or some other stupid cult.
Jack Klompus (cf3660) — 6/9/2008 @ 10:37 amwho takes these people seriously
How many people will vote for Obama?
(also known as “How many pinheads can dance on the head of a saint or the halo of an angel”)
cfbleachers (4040c7) — 6/9/2008 @ 10:46 amSEK, maybe the fact that this one post was not an isolated instance.
Yes, in a move Johnson’s calling “Orwellian,” the Obama people are removing all the offensive material from the site. Like our host, I see this as a non-issue. It’s the internet, people. Johnson himself pre-scrubs the hateful speech of his commentariat, after all. I’ve had unscrupulous people post child pornography on my site. It happens, and the last place I’d expect people to deny that is in a comments section.
SEK (bd295a) — 6/9/2008 @ 11:07 am“This might be significant if there were any evidence that he knew it was there. But evidently, as soon as conservatives pointed it out, it was scrubbed from the site.”
Are we to believe that they are monitoring what conservatives are saying on other websites but they don’t know what people who claim to be Obama supporters are saying on their own?
To me, it goes to what Obama and his supporters call “mainstream” and “not particularly controversial.” Like a Che flag in Houston or a reverend in Chicago, it doesn’t occur to them to disassociate themselves from certain things that seem perfectly acceptable to them until others point out the political harm.
Steve (a36cb3) — 6/9/2008 @ 11:21 amMaybe my point is more subtle than I intended.
It is not the candidate’s responsibility to account for every post on his internet site by commenters.
When it continues for two months with unabated hate speech aimed at a particular race or creed of people…you would think the chief blogger would take notice.
If the chief blogger is a Chomskyite admirer…a Socialist and pro-hamas sentiments are part of his worldview…then the allowance of such hatefest in the hundreds of posts to stay in place for two months…takes on a different level of inquiry.
For instance, if Pat or any of the commenters here who have their own blog sites…had two months worth of skinhead rantings, aimed at blacks or Jews…and the comments numbered in the hundreds…how long would it take to paint that blog site as being sympathetic to that worldview?
Now, add in the the deafening silence of the host or moderators on the subject. For two months.
As much as Levi gets clobbered here…so too do people who go too far in the other direction. Swiftly. Immediately. Resoundingly.
To me, allowing it to stand with so many comments…for so long a period of time…is passive acquiescence. Hate speech against any race or religion has not ever been accepted or acceptable here. In fact, it has been openly rejected. It wouldn’t last two days…much less two months. It wouldn’t survive a dozen posts, much less in the hundreds.
cfbleachers (4040c7) — 6/9/2008 @ 11:34 am“Maybe my point is more subtle than I intended.”
I don’t think your point is subtle. But taking if from there, obviously they are paying somebody to monitor something. Otherwise, how would they know to remove comments that others are ridiculing?
I just can’t buy it that they didn’t know it was there. I agree with you; they just didn’t see what was wrong with it.
Remember, Obama didn’t finally distance himself from Wright because he found Wright’s statements all that objectionable. He distanced himself from Wright when it became evident he was an albatross around his neck.
I think the point conservatives are making about what the Obama campaign is allowing to be said on their site is more subtle than what Patterico thinks.
The joke is, how long will it take the Obama campaign to remove this now that we’ve pointed out what’s on their site?
Because somebody else has to point it out to them. And they’re obviously paying somebody to monitor what we’re saying.
For instance, long after they scrubbed the “Jewish Lobby” post, they still had a “Jemaah Islamiyah for Obama” blog on their site. And have since March 31st. It would occur to me not to maintain an endorsement from the Bali bombers on my site if I was running for president. And it would occur to me to scrub my site for anything of the sort if something did slip by me like the “jewish lobby” hatefest.
But they didn’t. They may now remove the blog started by Fatima in New York, who believes that Obama is the guy to end the illegal occupation by the evil zionist entity that she can’t even bring herself to call by name.
But only because conservatives pointed it out.
Steve (a36cb3) — 6/9/2008 @ 12:01 pmYes, Urkel is merely innocent and unaware. I’m sure the radical far right is the one who right now is on Obama’s site supporting cop killers Mumia Abu Jamal and Peltier.
madmax333 (428029) — 6/9/2008 @ 12:01 pmhttp://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog has the particulars and if you scroll down you’ll see that although many posting groups have been thrown under the bus, the New Black Panther Party remains. white blood! Black power! Hope! Change! Falling seas levels! Healing planet! Fresh fruit for BHO’s kids! Incandescent superior being! Leader of kool-aid drinkers and sexually aroused by his oratory and the package in his tight jeans media.
I appreciate the objective perspective on these wedge-driving memes (at least this one), Patterico. Valid points here, no cheap shots (in your post, I mean — not the comments section). And you’re right that on-the-fence voters are watching for this this sort of thing.
Phil (6d9f2f) — 6/9/2008 @ 12:33 pmIt has been said elsewhere (many times) that one of HRC’s political failings was that she is tone-deaf. BHO is not tone-deaf, he just doesn’t know that there are competing strains of music out in fly-over country.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 6/9/2008 @ 1:15 pmBlissfully unaware!
Talk about living in a bubble.
I assume, for the moment, that I’m one of the guys taking “cheap shots” at the Obama campaign. So be it.
But I’d like one of the objective types to explain to me why what the Obama campaign chooses to allow on their site, and what they later choose to remove from their site (and Google cache and the Internet Wayback Machine) is supposed to say nothing about the campaign?
1. If the site is unmoderated and anybody can blog , why remove anything? Why not just stand on principle, if indeed “anything goes” is a principle?
2. If lack of resources explains why they don’t moderate the site, then how can they react so quickly to what’s being said about them on other sites?
3. If these things that have been deleted were in fact antithetical to the Senators beliefs, and just happened to slip by, then why are other blogs that say the same thing allowed to remain?
If this were the only issue being raised about Sen. Barack “I wasn’t aware of what was obvious about (X) to everyone else for the last 20 years” Obama, then I’d admit it is rather silly. It seems to me, though, that his campaign’s selective elimination of blogs that attract a certain level of negative attention (but retention of other blogs that say the same thing but don’t attract that level of attention) is part of a pattern.
Steve (a36cb3) — 6/9/2008 @ 1:26 pmBHO ought to shut the thing down. The only downside would be to offend the few users who actually care about it. How many innocent devotees could there be?
If he lets it continue, he has to divert resources to secure and police the thing, wrestle with any scandalous crap that slips thru the filters, pay for the bandwidth, etc. Let’s see if he’s a good enough manager to recognize that his blog is a liability with little offsetting benefit, and pull the plug.
gp (c05653) — 6/9/2008 @ 1:43 pm#32 Jack Klompus- you are probably aware of the terminally weird San Fran/Berkeley moonbats as portrayed at http://www.zombietime.com I’ve little doubt that Urkel is their candidate of choice. Wondering if the naked old geezer with peace signs all over his hot bod would consider painting pro-Obambi graffiti in lieu of the peace symbols. Same dude had saline injections to his inflated cojones to make him more macho.
madmax333 (a01a43) — 6/9/2008 @ 4:02 pmgp, the internet is the grassroots now. Obama has raised so much money, and it’s largely related to his internet activities including these blogs. I doubt the cost of policing this website would be significant compared with how much money it brings in.
Though it’s unfair to judge Obama based on his random crazy supporter. I much prefer to judge Obama on his crazy preacher and wife and Rezko mentor and Countrywide scam-artist buddy and terrorist pal Ayers and on and on.
Jem (4cdfb7) — 6/9/2008 @ 5:50 pmi didnt read thru the comments so if this is redundant i apologize.
obama doesnt want to stop this kind of posting. he could easily. as pointed out in blog entry he could spend 50,000 to hire someone or he could just flat out shut down the blogs and just allow those he has vetted to blog.
the goal is to let these lunatics have a place to spew where it looks like he is supportive of them but also to allow him the plausability of denial when the normal people find out whats going on. “why i had no idea such hate was on my site! i support the free flow of ideas which is why i dont moderate the site and i cant believe that some people abuse that privilege.” all the while making sure to position himself so he can be framed with the sun peeking thru the clouds behind him for the photogs.
chas (12a229) — 6/9/2008 @ 7:17 pmYou are dead wrong about this, Patterico. In the first place, the reason there is a website called “my.barackobama.com” is so he can prove what a hip wired dude he is unlike McCain and Clinton. It is unmistakably a tool in his Presidential campaign so he damn well better take responsibility for what goes on there.
Do I think he’s antisemitic? Not at all. Let me say up front that I am Jewish and a strong supporter of Israel. But the problem is not that Obama is antisemitic or anti-Israel. He is pro-Obama, and everything else is negotiable. When it’s to his advantage to suck up to Farrakhan and the Palestinians he sucks up to them. When it’s to his advantage to suck up to the Jews he goes before AIPAC and says Jerusalem is indivisible. Compared to Obama, Bill and Hillary’s principles are etched in granite. Obama is an inexperienced, shallow but very slick hustler and his election would be a disaster for our country.
Gary Rosen (6ed456) — 6/9/2008 @ 9:15 pmJust to amplify a bit on my previous post, I am not talking only about Middle East policy. Obama tells everybody what they want to hear on every issue, and then something different the next day if someone else didn’t like what he said the day before.
Gary Rosen (6ed456) — 6/9/2008 @ 9:18 pm“Obama has raised so much money, and it’s largely related to his internet activities including these blogs.”
I seriously doubt that. The BHO phenomenon is due to the candidate’s charisma, race, the support of MSM, voter disgust with Repubs, backlash against the GWOT, etc. I can’t imagine anybody thinking “I want to send money to support BHO because I just love participating in his blog.” Many BHO supporters undoubtedly hang out on blogs, but I’d bet my.barackobama.com ranks far lower in popularity among them than others like Kos, firedoglake, Atrios, DU, etc.
gp (72be5d) — 6/10/2008 @ 7:12 am“I’d bet my.barackobama.com ranks far lower in popularity among them than others like Kos, firedoglake, Atrios, DU, etc.”
gp – You might be right, and you never see any rabid anti-semitism at swamps like Kos, Racistdogfakes or Atrios do you? Not even a whiff!
Guess which candidate those blogs support.
There is absolutely no way I see that any of those loons that hang out at those blogs supporting the Messiah would find their way over to MyBO. They are just too dumb.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/10/2008 @ 2:03 pmgp, you forgot the single most important part of the BHO phenomenon. He’s not Hillary.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/10/2008 @ 2:52 pmJTFR, I understand the material was up for less than a day. The two-month-old date is when the material was written and posted elsewhere.
Andrew J. Lazarus (aed77a) — 6/12/2008 @ 4:47 pmBarry Obama may not be a Muslim, but he is a closet Islamist apologist for radical Islamists like Al-Arian, who most likely will be released if Barry is elected!! So if you are looking to advance the cause of radical Islamic militants, vote for Obama…he will be Jimmy Carter II. America will NEVER be the same again!!
AL-ARIAN IZZA TERRORIST (56efca) — 6/30/2008 @ 2:08 amOBAMA = BETRAYAL
Howard (f14f31) — 9/21/2008 @ 4:22 pmObama supporters are foolish to think that he will never betray them.
Obama was a close friend of Pastor Wright for TWENTY YEARS.
Obama threw Wright under the bus for personal ambition.
McCain would not betray his country even after 5 years of torture.
You can put lipstick on a traitor, but he’s still a traitor.