More on Kos and the CIA

Let's follow up on our earlier story on Markos Moulitsas and his strange relationship with the CIA.

In the earlier piece, we noted that his story has certain difficulties, chronological and otherwise. Moulitsas, in a recorded interview, says that he decided to become a clandestine officer in 2001. He went all the way through a six-month interview process.

Just before signing the final papers, though, he decided that he didn't want to go through with it -- ostensibly because he would have been required to serve in a dull "desk job" position in DC for six years before being sent out into the field for all those James Bond-ian thrills and chills. So he decided to join Howard Dean's presidential campaign instead.

Problem 1: The Dean campaign did not begin until 2003. This leaves roughly a year unaccounted for. (Training...?)

Problem 2: Would Moulitsas really have had to spend six years behind a desk in the DC area? Doubtful. Remember all those post-9/11 stories about a CIA manpower shortage?

I asked Larry Johnson about this matter. His reply:

The claim about a six month period to get hired sounds right. In my case, I started the process in March of 1985 and entered on duty on September 1985. However, there is no way that the CIA was going to keep Markos in DC for 6 years, especially in 2001. Remember Johnny Michael Spann, who died in Afghanistan? He was pulled out of training and sent direct to the field because they needed people. Sounds to me like Markos did not get a credible job offer.

I suspect that, if the CIA had doubts about Moulitsas' abilities, the plug would have been pulled before six months had passed. Besides, why wouldn't Moulitsas have been considered a good "catch"?

Moulitsas' claim that he was anxious to get into the field strikes me as odd for another reason. On other occasions, he has said that he was relieved when he learned that he did not have to serve in Iraq during Operation Desert Storm. That doesn't sound like the kind of thing you'd hear from a guy who was rarin' to go where Spann went. Which is it, Markos -- are you Mr. Adventure, or Mr. Play-It-Safe?

In my earlier piece, I wrote:

The CIA is prohibited from operating domestically. Anyone offered a stateside psyop assignment would naturally go through the training course, and then, at the last moment, refrain from signing official employment papers. This is exactly what Moulitsas did.

If you read enough books about American spies, you get the impression that the real problems are caused by the fellows who remain technically non-employed by the Agency.

Racism vs sexism

According to the progressive blogs, Obama's win in Oregon counts, and Hillary's far more impressive victory in Kentucky does not, because Kentuckian Democrats are all racists. Implicit in this argument is the belief that racism matters and sexism does not.

Here's a transcribed portion of an audio interview between Hillary and a Washington Post reporter:

Q. Do you think this has been a particularly racist campaign?

A. I do not. I think this has been a positive, civil campaign. I think that both gender and race have been obviously a part of it because of who we are and every poll I've seen show more people would be reluctant to vote for a woman to vote for an African American, which rarely gets reported on either. The manifestation of some of the sexism that has gone on in this campaign is somehow more respectable or at least more accepted. And I think there should be equal rejection of the sexism and the racism when and if it ever raises its ugly head. But it does seem as though the press at least is not as bothered by the incredible vitriol that has been engendered by comments and reactions of people who are nothing but misogynists.

Q. Isn't that how it's always been though.

A. Oppression of women and discrimination against women is universal. You can go to places in the world where there are no racial distinctions except everyone is joined together in their oppression of women. The treatment of women is the single biggest problem we have politically and socially in the world. If you look at the extremism and the fundamentalism, it is all about controlling women, at it's base. The idea that we would have a presidential campaign in which so much of what has occurred that has been very sexist would be just shrugged off I think is a very unfortunate commentary about the lack of seriousness that should be applied to any kind of discrimination or prejudice.

I think this is the point Geraldine "fucking whore" Ferraro tried to make in her should-not-have-been-infamous comments. Being a black male in this race is an advantage -- compared to being a woman of any heritage.

On a few occasions, I've pointed out that Colin Powell could have won the presidency in 2000 just by pointing at the White House and saying "I'll take it." Not one reader has disagreed with that assessment, even though people love to disagree with everything else I say. Can you name a single woman in the history of this country who could have strolled into the oval office that easily?

Mr 33

McCain will probably win Kentucky even if Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, but she could force him to fight hard for that state, and there's some chance that she could prevail. Obama cannot win there. He cannot even compete.

Only 33 percent of Kentucky's Clinton supporters say that they will vote for Obama if he is the nominee.

Of course, progressives insist that this reticence stems from the fact that Hillary supporters are all big fat racists. The progs are so lacking in self-awareness that they cannot comprehend that accusations of that sort are precisely what made Clinton supporters repulsed by Obama.

In 2000, "racist" Kentucky would have gone for Colin Powell in a landslide, had he run.

Besides (I may have to repeat this fact another dozen or so times, because it sill hasn't sunk in) Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe insisted that racism would not be a factor in the general, because (sayeth he) nearly all white racists migrated to the Republican party long ago. (Don't believe me? Here.)

The commentary appended to the afore-linked CNN article shows that most Obots didn't get the "make nice" memo -- or, more likely, that most of them are so addicted to Clinton-hate that they simply cannot help themselves:

HILLARY HAS WIDENED THE RIFT AS FAR AS SHE HAS.

SHE & BILL IN THE LAST TWO DAYS HAVE EXPRESSED THEIR PREFERENCE FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

As usual, Obots "recall" seeing things that never happened. When did Bill and Hillary ever indicate that they would not support the Democratic nominee?

Kentucky and West Virginia, we know your extreme views, you ll never change...

Just goes to show how this country hasnt changed at all! Still just as Racist as ever.

Because people in that part of the country are racist.

They would rather suffer four more years of economic hardship under the McCain regime than vote for a black man.

Yep. New definition of racism: Anyone who doesn't like Obama. Someone should tell Plouffe.

I don't want the economy placed in the hands of Obama's crew -- Goolsbee, Liebman and Cutler. Does that fact make me anti-white? I don't want foreign policy placed in the hands of Brzenzinski or one of his creatures. Does that fact make me anti-Polish?

This is all part of Clinton's scorched earth strategy. Shame on her and her self-serving campaign.

What "scorched earth" strategy? How do these wacky memes get started in Obot-land? Do these nutcases actually expect the rest of the nation to share their hallucinations?

(By the way, can anyone name a political campaign that wasn't "self-serving" -- ever, in history? Okay, maybe that contest where the dead guy beat John Ashcroft...)

All she has done is divide our party by staying so long and playing the race card.

This can be attributed to the Clinton's Rovian tactics

Racist morons. Isn't being married to your sister or first cousin illegal.

My fave:

You have to be a divisive person to support hillary. There is no other way to define her supporters.

Well, you get the gist. It goes on and on like that.

Again, I must ask -- how can these cultists be so lacking in the ability to question themselves that they cannot see that they are reason why life-long Dems such as myself won't vote for Obama in November?

I remain stunned by Obama's obnoxious zealots. They honestly can't see that they caused the problem, they cannot understand how repellent they are when they treat a political candidate as if he were a religious figure, they refuse to look at Obama's connections to Chicago's corruption, they have a downright psychotic attitude toward the only successful President of the past 45 years, and they continue to spew the very Kossack talking points that have turned Barack Obama into Mr. 33.

Barack Obama ran a smear campaign in a primary. His close supporters falsely accused innocent people of racism. With a few phone calls, Obama and Howard Dean could have created a much more civilized debate, online and off -- but they didn't.

These miscalculations were epic. These miscalculations -- not "racism" -- are the reason why Obama is Mr 33 in a state the Dems could have flipped.

Coronation

According to a confidential source within the campaign, Barack Obama tonight plans to declare himself not just the nominee but the President of the United States. "He simply wants to save time," explained the source.

Michelle...from Hell... (A love song)

As you know, as part of "Operation Make Nice," Michelle Obama said that she would welcome Hillary on the ticket: "I think the world of Hillary Clinton..."

God, I wish the Obamas would just stop lying!

Not long ago -- as the above video clip demonstrates -- she was saying something quite different. This cog in the Daley machine was saying that Hillary Clinton was unworthy of support.

In honor of Barack Obama's recent declaration that his wife is off limits -- oddly enough, he didn't seem to mind his wife's threat against Bill Clinton -- I've composed the following ditty. Apologies to Paul McCartney:

Michelle, from Hell
You and Daley go together well
Scumbag Michelle

Michelle, from Hell
Vous et Daley êtes très répugnants
très répugnants

I hate you, I hate you, I hate you
And all your whole unclean
Chicago machine
By the way, you have the shoulders of
a big Quarterback

Michelle, from Hell
dans votre manoir acheté par Rezko
Tony Rezko

Your father your father your father
He worked for Daley too
So tell me what you do
To earn three hundred sixteen k
From UCH

Corruption!

I’m onto, I’m onto, I’m onto
All of your evil schemes.
I’ll undermine your dreams
'Cause Tony’s going to the joint
And you’ll join him soon...

Michelle, from Hell
vous m'incitez honteux pour être
américain

And God has damned America
By making us live with Michelle.

The wrong man

Oh, this is rich. The right wing's attempt to rewrite the history of the Nixon era has reached its absurdist conclusion: A new book by James Rosen, a newsman for Fox News, claims that John Dean ordered the Watergate break-in.

Laughable. Absolutely laughable.

Everyone knows that Hillary Clinton did it.

Suppose they gave an election and nobody came?

Joseph Farah tells his fellow conservatives not to vote for McCain, who is seen as too moderate. Better, says Farah, to let the Democrats take over and "conduct their diabolical social experiment on America without restraint."

Meanwhile, I argue that Obama is no true liberal, and that his advisors are Friedmanites who cannot possibly cope with the coming economic disaster. Better, say I, to let that disaster occur on a Republican's watch.

Wouldn't it be fun if both Republicans and Democrats sat out this election?

FL and MI

I'm a little hesitant to post this video. It's too long, and I've got way too much caffeine in my system right now for this sort of thing. After the half-way mark, it turns into pro-Hillary campaign commerical. You can skip that stuff.

But the first half cleverly explains some little-known facts about the disastrous Michigan and Florida primary situations. My god -- who would have thought that the movement for paper trail elections could be used against Democrats?

Obama's refusal to permit a revote in those two states was, in a sense, comprehensible. Infuriating, yet understandable. But why in hell did Howard Dean embrace that decision? It's as though these two men entered into a suicide pact and decided to take the party with them.

I cannot believe that this is the Dean I once admired. He must go.

Good news: According to one very recent poll, Clinton is closing in on Barack Obama in Oregon. TalkLeft's headline: "Is A Funny Thing Happening On the Way To Obama's Coronation?"

Obama 45
Clinton 41
Undecided 8
Refused 6

I would bet money, if I had money, that the actuals will show a decisive Obama win. Still, at the moment, we can dream.

A word on "whitey"

A Kos writer -- no, I will not link to the diary -- has picked up on Larry Johnson's story about the alleged video showing Michelle Obama railing against "whitey." Most of the comments are hilariously hypocritical: The Kossacks call Johnson a smear-monger, a hater, unhinged -- and, of course, a racist.

Of course, I've been called a racist too, even though I voted for Obama and may well vote for McKinney. The term "racist" has been redefined to mean "anyone who doesn't like the Obamas."

And the Obots wonder why the Hillary-voters are going to stay home en masse in November! Why should they support those who denigrate them?

Back to the video. As you know, I've theorized that the video is both real and fake. That is to say: If (if, if, if) it exists, the woman on screen may not be Michelle Obama, even if she looks very much like her. If you scroll down to my post, I discuss at length a previous deception of this sort; I also discuss motive. (I can think of an earlier precedent, involving a proposed fake audio tape. Oddly enough, "Gordo" played a role in this story as well.)

In light of this theory, one Kos commenter made a rather perceptive comment. "Whitey" is not a term of opprobrium which sees much use among black people these days. I recall hearing it in the '60s and '70s, but not in more recent times. "Cracker" is fairly common. "Whitey" sounds like something that a bad white fiction writer might put into the mouth of an angry black character.

Side note:

The gods of slang really should give us a proper anti-white derogatory term. None of the contenders I've heard so far has any power to annoy, let alone to infuriate. "Whitey," "honkey," "cracker," "redneck" -- cah-MON, who really cares? "Albino" is kind of clever. "Pink boy" might have worked, if the SubGeniuses had not taken it. "Milky" is rare, but serviceable. Might I suggest "cum stain," "bukkake boy," or "Clorox"?

When you seek to do verbal harm, consult the Eye-talians. We're even better at that stuff than we are at oil painting. My professional fees are available upon request.

I can't decide whether I think this is good news or not

Jen here...

You've probably heard by now that Michael Moore is putting out another movie next year. Supposedly, it will deal with American imperialsm but is not a "sequel" to Fahrenheit 9/11.

Okay.

Is the "Obama-killer" video a fake?

I am now semi-persuaded that the "Obama-killer" video -- a reputed tape of Michelle Obama screeching against "whitey" -- is real. But I'm also starting to wonder whether the same tape could be a fake.

If that claim sounds contradictory, read Larry Johnson's latest.

He says that a fabulously wealthy conservative financier has been shown the tape but does not possess it. Said conservative hates McCain and therefore wants to get make the tape public before the Democratic convention. He does not want McCain to face a sure loser. Our ultra-affluent conservative is thus offering a cool million to anyone who can produce the tape.

How did this gazillionaire see the thing? Karl Rove showed it to him.

Rove has been shopping it around to well-heeled Republicans: You can see this video, but you cannot own it. We don't want copies floating around. We want to hold it back until just the right moment.

And why would Rove hold these little film society gatherings? Money. He's asking rich conservatives to fund the Republican cause -- a cause which they might otherwise see as hopeless.

Rove and company reportedly are showing the tape to big money Republicans to loosen up their wallets and get new money to fund independent expenditure groups. That’s why news of this is starting to leak out. The money is being raised for 527 groups that will target the Democrats in the fall.

So far, blogland reaction has gone two ways: People either think that Johnson pulled the whole story out of his ass, or they think that the story is genuine.

A third possibility occurs to me. My mind reaches back to -- of all people -- Vicki Morgan.

"Vicki who?" some of you may be asking -- and if you are, I feel old.

Vicki Morgan, who died in 1983 at the age of 31, was the beauty at the center of one of the great sex and murder scandals.

Vicki was the mistress of Alfred Bloomingdale, friend to and funder of Ronald and Nancy Reagan. By many accounts, including her own, she sexually serviced (with her patron's approval) a number of high-ranking Reagan officials.

(Around 1990, I talked with a very gay writer of Hollywood biographies who claimed to have known Vicki well. "Her specialty was seducing homosexuals," he said -- with a wistful smile that told much and hid little.)

Now is not the time to go into the mystery of her murder, which occurred shortly after the death of Bloomingdale. Let's focus on the post-mortem controversy.

After the murder, Vicki's lawyer said that she had stockpiled video tapes of herself performing various sexual acts with Reagan's top men. Publisher Larry Flynt -- acting in his usual Flyntian fashion -- offered a million bucks for the tapes. The lawyer then reported that the tapes were stolen. Many assumed that the lawyer had concocted the whole story, although his motive for doing so was never made clear.

At that point, a certain man approached Larry Flynt. I'll call him Gordo. Some of you will know the full name. I won't reveal it here, since I've already had one mildly unpleasant run-in with this gentleman. Gordo has connections (as they say) to the American intelligence community, although the CIA will quickly tell you that they never officially hired him.

Gordo claimed to possess the stolen Vicki Morgan sex tapes. He offered them for sale to Larry Flynt.

More than that: Gordo's tapes showed Vicki boffing not just Reagan's aides, but Reagan himself.

To be specific: The tape showed Reagan receiving a "message from the rear" which Vicki delivered, using a certain plastic appendage. (An unlikely fetish, given what I know of Nancy Davis' specialty. But I digress.)

Flynt made somewhat oblique reference to these events in The Rebel, a non-porno magazine he once published. I have no idea how much, if anything, Gordo received for the tapes. But I do know that Gordo wormed his way into Flynt's entourage, becoming the man's "minister of everything," as one glossy magazine profile put it. As I recall, the old Los Angeles Herald Examiner carried a front-page story connecting Gordo to the hiring of Bill Mintzer for Flynt's security staff. (Mintzer was a hit man later convicted in the "Cotton Club" killings.)

As you may recall, Flynt seemed to go wacky during this period, wearing diapers to court and such.

Flynt showed the Vicki-and-Reagan tape to a number of people. I've read at least one first-hand account of the tape and have received several second-hand accounts. Frank Zappa, of all people, attended a private showing, which he later described during a radio interview. He had a difficult time trying to think of a polite way to give the details.

Bottom line: The tape was a fake.

That's why you can't find the thing on YouTube today.

Gordo later admitted to its fraudulent nature. He said that the tape used spot-on lookalikes for Ronald and Vicki, and that it was produced by the intelligence service of an East-bloc country. (Not the KGB.)

I don't know when or how Flynt became aware that he had been gulled.

I do know that faked video tapes of famous people have fooled some onlookers who were by no means stupid.

I also know that, in a famous paper called "The Revolution in Military Affairs," Army War College strategists Steven Metz and James Kievit discussed the wartime propaganda uses of digitally-produced videos depicting political leaders doing and saying embarrassing things.

If a fake "Obama-killer" video exists, would it fool an expert? Probably not. But the public need never see it.

According to Johnson, Rove is using the tape to fetch dollars from conservative billionaires. That's the target audience. To fulfill its purpose, the tape need only be good enough to fool them. Afterwards, it can disappear forever.

Cokie Roberts...I can't believe I'm agreeing with Cokie Roberts...

First, I am very sorry to hear of Ted Kennedy's health problems. I know my readers will want to send their very best wishes to him and to his family.

On to business:

I must recapitulate a post by riverdaughter in today's Confluence. She took note of some very interesting observations that Cokie Roberts -- yes, Cokie Roberts -- had to say.

First, Roberts thinks that Clinton would be the stronger nominee against McCain.

Yes, the Clinton camp made strategic blunders that allowed Obama to score heavily in Republican states where few Democrats vote. But the real culprit is the party's stupid, self-destructive nominating system, which has two major flaws.

First, it was designed to anoint a nominee by early February, far too early in the process. The result: Obama built up an insurmountable lead at a time when he was still largely unblemished, untested and unscrutinized.

Roberts scries a wave of "buyer's remorse" within key voting blocks. I think she's right, but we need more data. I'd like to see a poll of Democrats: "Do you wish you had voted for someone else in your state's primary?" I suspect that the percentage of yea-sayers would be higher among Obama voters. (You all know what I would say.)

Second, the nominating system was completely incapable of reflecting these shifts. Not only were few states remaining on the calendar, the rules of proportional representation made it almost impossible for Clinton to catch up.

Since Feb. 19, seven states have voted. Clinton has won four — Pennsylvania, Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island —building up a popular-vote margin of 483,000. Yet her total gain in delegates was exactly five. In Texas, she won by more than 100,000 votes, but because of that state's ridiculous rules, she actually came out five delegates behind.

Roberts goes on to point out that Clinton won three swing states -- Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Ohio -- yet received only 28 delegates for her troubles. Meanwhile, the rules alloted Obama 38 delegates for winning the crimson-red states of Idaho, Kansas and Louisiana.

Three months ago, they were convinced that Clinton was the easier candidate to beat, and she's hardly an ideal choice, not when more than half of all voters tell ABC pollsters they don't like or trust her. But many GOP insiders now see her as a tougher, more tenacious rival, and the latest polls support that judgment.

At this point, Cokie makes what may be her most controversial statement, since it gets us into Geraldine Ferraro territory. And yet I think Roberts is right -- and I now see Ferraro's statement in a new light.

So why don't Democratic leaders and superdelegates face these facts and shift to Clinton? One reason is race. It's true, as Obama says, that being black in America has hardly been a political asset, given the fact that he's the only African-American in the U.S. Senate.

But at this time, in this party, being black is an enormous asset. Given America's long, torturous path toward racial justice, many Democrats simply cannot imagine denying the nomination to the first serious African-American candidate for president.

From a moral perspective, that's a noble judgment. From a political perspective, it could cost Democrats the White House.

I can guess how the prog-bloggers will look at these words: They will think that Roberts is saying that an African American cannot win in the general, due to racism. But that's not the point she is making. (And it isn't true.)

Roberts, I think, is saying that any non-black candidate with Obama's belatedly-discovered negatives would have been cast adrift by the party leadership and by the activists. But after a certain point in the primary process, the party found that it could not cut loose Obama without infuriating black voters. I can certainly understand that sense of outrage. To the shame of this nation, neither party has ever nominated a black person for President or Vice President.

I would like to suggest another reason why a black candidate might have an advantage. Obama did very well in Democratic primaries in red states. In such states, the Democratic voters tend to be either black people or white "creative class" types. I picture these latter voters as alienated New Yorker readers surrounded by Flannery O'Connor characters. These marooned liberals must feel a lot like Lisa Simpson -- they cannot believe the people they have to live with. So the red state "Lisas" look for the candidate who best exemplifies their sense of difference.

By the way... The caucus problem wasn't just a Texas thing. A comment appended to the above-noted Confluence story comes from credentials committee chair for a Kansas caucus:

So the Kansas Democratic Party sort of opened the caucuses. As long as you registered as a Democrat at the Caucus, you could participate. We had thousands, thousands & thousands of Republicans & Independents flood our caucuses. And THEY caucused for Barack Obama.

Oh, I know that there were Democrats in that crowd supporting Obama too... But mostly? Those caucusing for Obama at my caucus and my parents caucus (up the road) were independents & Republicans. We know that because, we had to get them registered before we could get started.

Question

I'd like to ask a question. This query arises from the previous post, but it also looks forward to one I may write in the future.

Can you name anything that Barack Obama has ever done to help black people?

Skewed reality

Either Obama does not have the nomination locked up, or the "Frog and Scorpion" effect (discussed in an earlier post) is still causing the progressives to behave in a self-destructive fashion.

Some of the middle-aged, older women who call themselves "feminist", who complain about not being seen as an equal to men, have literally jumped the shark with their support for Hillary Clinton. These women claim to want to be seen as an equal to men out of one side of their mouth, but out the other side, they want to be given an advantage for being a woman.

Have you ever seen a single statement on any pro-Hillary blog justifying this nonsensical accusation? If so: Citation, please.

If Obama were in any sense mediocre, he would be forgotten by now. He is, in fact, a remarkable human being, not perfect but humanly stunning, like King was and like Mandela is. We look at him, as we looked at them, and are glad to be of our species. He is the change America has been trying desperately and for centuries to hide, ignore, kill. The change America must have if we are to convince the rest of the world that we care about people other than our (white) selves.

My god, do the O-Bots have any idea how many people they repulse with this Messianic crap? No-one should spew this kind of romanticized glop about any candidate -- ever.

Can you imagine what he COULD have done? Bosnia ads? NAFTA lie ads? Colombia ads? He had fucking KID gloves on with Hillary, and STILL some of her supporters think it is HIS fault and that HE was the run who ran a dirty campaign.

Their skewed reality is unbelievable.

Oh yeah? Let's talk about skewed reality.

Hillary did not lie about NAFTA. In previous posts, we looked into the matter very carefully. There was never any evidence worthy of the name against Hillary, while the evidence against Austan Goolsbee was titanium-hard. Worse, Goolsbee -- when caught -- was quoted as saying that he had nothing to do with Obama's campaign. A complete lie!

Obama has run the filthiest campaign in the modern history of the Democratic Party. His supporters falsely accused the Clintons of appealing to racists. Obama's own campaign manager, David Plouffe, de-bagged that particular cat, admitting that any white person who would vote for racial reasons has already migrated to the Republican party. (See here.)

"Skewed reality"? You want to talk about skewed reality?

When Rev. Wright held his press confab to explain himself, the DUpes writing the next morning were convinced that the country would fall in love with the guy. They thought that Wright-mania would help propel Obama to an unprecedented victory in November. Said one: "I wonder if we can carry Idaho!" (This meme was short-lived; a few hours later, Obama condemned his former pastor.)

That is "skewed reality," my friends.

"Skewed reality"? Can we apply that phrase to Kos writer Jeff Feldman, who argues that violent language is a purely right-wing phenomenon, despite the garbage spewed daily on Daily Kos? Oh, and let's not mention Michelle Obama's voiced wish to do physical violence to Bill Clinton. Feldman won't mention the despicable wife of the Democratic front-runner. He thinks Ted Nugent is more important.

"Skewed reality"? Can we apply that phrase to Donna Brazile, who responded to a perfectly polite plea for seating MI and FL with these words: "I am not going to respond to any more anti American, Anti Democratic emails"?

"Skewed reality"? Can we apply that phrase to the O-Bot who thinks the election is winnable if the Democrats purge all Hillary supporters -- and who quotes Chairman fucking Mao to buttress his position?

"Skewed reality"? Can we apply that phrase to all of those who ascribe Messianic tendencies to a corrupt creature straight out of the Daley machine? To a politician who has never received a serious challenge from any Republican? To a man who has never done anything to help black people?

Obama received money and favors from a crook named Rezko. Obama at first claimed not to have known Rezko at at all; later, an FBI mole revealed that the two men were in contact every day. And how did Rezko make his filthy money? He profited from the misery of poor blacks.

Is that's the kind of Messiah you seek?

Talk about skewed!

"The 400 Blow-hards" -- and Operation Turn Down

The rumor is spreading throughout "the internets" that the Obama campaign has hired 400 bloggers -- or blogland loiterers -- in order

to influence the public discourse and sway Hillary voters to "remember we are all Democrats", to give up Clinton's cause, and to become dutiful citizens of the Obama Nation.

Also, it's been noted by several HillBuzz readers, that Obama volunteers are being told to ratchet down the anti-Hillary hate, because someone in the campaign realizes Hillary Clinton supporters are not very likely to support Obama if he becomes the nominee.

Which means, of course, that Obama controlled the Hillary-hate in the first place. His was the hand on the spigot. He is the one we must blame for the ceaseless smears and calumnies.

Mine is a pro-Hillary site only by default. She was hardly my first choice. At one time I favored Obi, until his campaign played the race card and the progressive blogs became intolerable.

Since then, I've received a truly bizarre barrage of anonymous hate comments, and not from my usual opponents. This hate-mail has had no hint of the conciliatory.

These "drive by" comments appear every hour. They never make a detailed argument, and they never make much sense. Judging from the writing style, only two or three individuals are involved. Some of these messages make threats. I've learned to delete these comments (mostly) unread; a whiff is enough to know what the rest is like.

The sheer ceaselessness of the barrage surprises me. I can't help suspecting that money has changed hands.

Paid or unpaid, Obama's followers have displayed a shameless, brainless, cult-like fanaticism that many find revolting. Yesterday, we discussed PA radio personality Steve Corbett. He is spearheading something called Operation Turn Down:

Looks like Steve Corbett PA Radio host at wilk network has caught the attention of The DNC, yesterday Corbett launch Operation Turn Down campaign to let the DNC know that true Democrats where not voting for Obama. The phones lines lit up; calls came from state after state, blogger from a site called Confluence and others posted Corbett Operation Turn Down and the blog sphere was at a buzz. State after state voters calling and pledging they would under no circumstance vote for Obama this has to be the DNC nightmare. Operation Turn down continues Friday at 3 p.m. EST tune in folks this is going to be huge.
http://wilknetwork.com

PS Please Let Everyone Know to listen in, on the net or radio, call in we got the DNC ears let our voice be heard

For those of you who want to know more about Corbett, go here:

I’m part of an impromptu movement born of outrage and frustration to which Democratic Party leaders need to pay very close attention. I’m a radical Democrat and proud of it.

Radical politics is one reason why I majored in “Community Development” at Penn State in 1970, after showing up there in September of 1969 with an open mind and a head loaded with ideas – not all of them good.

By November I was on the street in DuPont Circle in Washington, D.C., getting tear-gassed by National Guard troops during an anti-war protest. The next day I watched the attack on the Justice Department. The next year I watched my state cop father show up on my campus in riot gear.

I spent the next 30-some years developing my perspective and my honor as a daily newspaper columnist and broadcast commentator on television and radio.

I’ve learned from it all. I’m still learning.

And all these years later I still value my community development education and my degree from the counterculture school of hard knocks. The lessons of Kent State, My Lai, and the mean streets of Chicago under the first Mayor Richard Daley remain a part of my pledge of allegiance to real change I can believe in.

Hillary is the strongest, best candidate. Hillary can beat John McCain. Hillary is my Democrat.

Even if party bosses tell me that we must get behind the nominee and that the nominee will be Obama, I have a choice. Even if family, friends and colleagues tell me I’m wrong, I have a choice. Even if you hate my decision, I have a choice.

Corbett and I are not really on the same page -- he supported Nader in 2000, and he seems much rather more enthused about Hillary than I am. But he shares my aversion to political cults, and I think he understands that what passes for "progressive" politics today is a disguised form of Libertarianism, which has nothing to do with the left that he and I once knew.

If Obama were truly of the left, he wouldn't hire Libertarians like Goolsbee or Liebman to fix our economic ills, and he would not have Libertarians like Markos Moulitsas and Arianna Huffington in his corner. Obama's politics of unity means unity with Republicans, not with the core of the Democratic party, who have been treated like sewage.

Which brings us to these words from HillBuzz:

HillBuzz wonders if the year of brutal attacks on Clinton and her supporters could ever be forgotten by the 17 million people who have so far cast their votes for Hillary Clinton. These attacks were made, deliberately, not just by Tim Russert and Chris Matthews and the ilk of Olbermann: they were made on a daily, energetic basis, by the legion of Obama supporters online, encouraged by the Obama campaign.

We can't speak for everyone, but we can speak for ourselves: as lifelong Democrats who always considered ourselves dyed-in-the-wool true party loyalists, we have to be honest and admit the way Hillary Clinton and her supporters have been treated in this primary race, by Obama, the DNC, and Obama's supporters has caused us to question our party affiliation.

You think I'm going support Obama after receiving insults and threats? Like hell.