Sore Losers Continue Attacks on Obama

While many Clinton supporters are now backing Barack Obama, unfortunately there remain segments who were so deluded by the distortions of the Clinton campaign that they still believe their own fictitious talking points. Perhaps the worst example of a liberal blog which exudes hatred of Obama on a regular basis is the blog I left to form this blog–The Democratic Daily. They continue to distort Obama’s positions in order to portray him as someone who does not respect Democratic values, while they supported a candidate who is significantly to the right of Obama on these issues.

Yesterday they had an inaccurate post on Obama’s support for faith based institutions, repeating the claim which AP later corrected that Obama would let “religious charities that receive federal funding consider religion in employment decision. This was corrected later in the day which may or not be apparent to readers of that rambling post,  If they paid attention to Obama’s actual speech they would have found he said:

“Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don’t believe this partnership will endanger that idea – so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can’t discriminate against them – or against the people you hire – on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we’ll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work.”

The post further distorts Obama’s views on religion, ignoring the fact that he has taken the strongest stance of any of the candidates on defending separation of church and state.

The pathetic thing about Clinton supporters is that while the criticize Obama for moving towards the center during a political campaign, they fail to realize that Hillary Clinton has been moving towards the right for several years in preparation for running.  While they criticize Obama for supporting faith based initiatives (with appropariate protections to respect separation of church and state) they ignore the fact that Hillary Clinton has been a supporter of faith based initiatves for quite a while.  Even worse, Clinton has been heavily influenced by the religious right for years. This has had a negative influence on her policy positions, including her support for laws against flag burning and her vendetta against video games.

This same anti-Obama meme is seen again today with Stuart O’Neill quoting from Taylor Marsh to support his attacks. He might as well quote from Ann Coulter. Nothing which either has to say about Obama should be taken very seriously or considered to have any factual basis. O’Neill writes, ” I was busy writing about Hillary Clinton and didn’t study the details of Obama’s positions. As I’ve said here many times, I think the guy is an empty shirt.”

He didn’t, by his own admission, study the detail of his positions and yet he has the gall to clasify Obama as an empty shirt. It is hard to justify such an assessment of someone when you have not paid attention to what they have been saying.

His latest post is based upon Obama’s support for the FISA compromise. While I disagree with Obama on this, it is rather unfair, as well as dishonest, to deny his support for liberal values, especially when supporting someone far to the right of him on civil liberties issues. Besides, Clinton has come under plenty of criticism on her own for her weak opposition to the FISA bill. It is also Clinton, and not Obama who supported the war, even if the same blog has attempted to obfuscate the facts on this issue. It is also Clinton who has repeatedly resorted to pandering to fear of terrorism to attempt to scare voters into supporting her. It is this mind set which Clinton promotes which has created the entire problem with FISA.

Criticism of Obama, from the left or the right, is fair game. I’ve criticized a couple of his positions myself (on FISA and same-sex marriage) in the past week. However to criticize a specific policy is one thing. To continue to run the same type of campaign of distortion which we’ve seen from the Clintonistas even after their leader is out of the race is another thing entirely. If they would actually make the effort to study what Obama actually believes they would find that he has been the strongest supporter of liberal values and civil liberties to run for president this year. Besides, if they are concerned about Obama’s inevitable move towards the center, just imagine what would have happened if the candidate was Hillary Clinton, who started out far to the right of Obama on these issues. Finding faults in Obama does not mean that the alternatives were any better.

Be Sociable, Share!

14 Comments

  1. 1
    Pamela Leavey says:

    Ron

    As the owner editor of the Dem Daily, I went on recrod saying I was ready to support Obama as the nominee before Hillary Clinton conceded. I have posted post after post since then supporting Obama and urging readers to get on board and support him, and to donate to his campaign.

    There is no hatred of Obama exuding from the Dem Daily at this point, only an opinion from one author on the faith based initiatives which quite a few liberal bloggers were surprised by yesterday.

  2. 2
    Ron Chusid says:

    Pamela,

    I don’t doubt that you will vote for Obama over a Republican, but your “support” for Obama can only bring up the old phrase that with friends like you he doesn’t need enemies.

    Your blog, in the two posts I linked to and in many others, continues to bring up every dishonest Clinton smear from the campaign. This is not only on faith based initiatives, which in itself a pretty poor attack considering Obama’s strong support for separation of church and state and Clinton’s conservative views on this issue.

    You yourself encouraged the meme that Obama didn’t win fairly when you wrote, “Unfortunately the way our election system is all our nominees are selected instead of elected.”

    This is especially uncalled for considering the manner that Clinton repeatedly ignored the basic principles of Democracy while she campaigned. This is an especially sore point for those of us in Michigan considering the way she tried to steal our votes.

  3. 3
    Sensico says:

    ok dudes calm down.  This really my first time visiting either of your sites and I have to say that the Dem Daily site is laughable but even though i didn’t read all the post about Obama, it isn’t as negative as other blogs aka PUMA blogs who organization was started by republicans. 
    I wouldn’t visit the Dem Daily site again escpecially after they posted a story about Obama not giving a kid the fist pound and then had to correct the post because one of their bloggers didn’t get their facts straight and thus was corrected by a commentor of the post. 
    I like this blog, it seems less bitter.

  4. 4
    Pamela Leavey says:

    Ron

    Incase you missed it, Hillary Clinton conceded a few weeks ago. Interpret my comment any way you like Ron, my posts supporting Obama speak for themselves.

  5. 5
    Ricky Johnson says:

    There is an option besides voting for McCain.  I’m voting for Barr because he is opposed to faith-based initiatives, opposed to FISA, has a stronger message on Iraq and a much much stronger message on Iran.  I’m beginning to wonder if Obama is turning into a Republican.
    Barr’s position on FISA is in the link.

  6. 6
    Pamela Leavey says:

    And Ron… Also, as you well know, the writers at the Dem Daily don’t speak for the owner of the Dem Daily. All of our newer writers who were supporting HRC, no longer post there because I jumped right on the Obama bandwagon and refused to be part of the PUMA movement which I think is totally wrongminded and have said as much repeatedly in posts.

    And Stuart can speak for himself, but I do know that he is also committed to supporting Obama and getting him elected as well. If he disagrees with Obama on an issue it doesn’t make him a “hater.” That’s absurd and rather childish to insinuate.

  7. 7
    Ron Chusid says:

    Pamela,

    Of course Clinton conceded. That’s why it is ridiculous for your site to continue to push the same dishonest talking points which were used during the campaign. It’s over. You can stop your Obama bashing now.

    Supporting Obama because you would vote for any Democrat over McCain is not necessarily supporting him, especially when your blog is used to keep all the anti-Obama talking points alive.

  8. 8
    Ron Chusid says:

    Ricky,

    I don’t really want to get into a debate about Barr now (as I’m in the midst of packing to go away for a long holiday weekend, and I certainly don’t mind if he could put some pressure on Obama with regards to FISA) but at least I must say it makes for more sense to back Barr if you object to Obama’s compromises on civil liberties issues as opposed to wishing it was Clinton who won the nomination. You might think twice about accusing anyone of having Republican tendencies when supporting Barr.

    A major difference between Obama and Barr is that Obama believes he has to compromise to get elected. Barr knows he will be lucky to get much more than 1% of the vote so he can say whatever he wants without concern for the political repercussions.

    Barr’s opposition to faith based initiatives is more a matter of opposing government programs in general than of concern for the church-state issues. Looking for a candidate who can get elected, I find Obama a fair compromise on religious matters. I’m willing to tolerate him going after the religious vote as long as he continues to stress separation of church and state as strongly as he has.

  9. 9
    Ron Chusid says:

    Pamela,

    Speaking of other writers at The Democratic Daily, what’s the deal with Hart? I take it he is no longer there considering the tone of the stuff he sent me about you.

  10. 10
    Pamela Leavey says:

    Ron

    Like I said my posts since I said I would be supporting Obama speak for themselves — they support Obama. Just as you posted things when you worte there that I didn’t not agree with, so do other writers there. That’s why there is a disclaimer at the top of the blog that states: “The opinions of the authors and contributors on The Democratic Daily are their own and not the opinion of the Editor.”

    I have no idea what’s up with Hart. He’s been gone for some time and I don’t read his blog at all and I rarely ever read yours.

    Take care.

  11. 11
    Stuart O'Neill says:

    Well, having been well and truly attacked, rather than having someone simply disagree with an article, I hardly know what to say.
    Everything I wrote was based in hopefully solid sources. When those sources admitted error the article was corrected. [Now that I think of it, I may remove the entire ‘fist bumping’ article now that it’s been solidly the traditional pool reporter got it entirely wrong. When the pool reporter gets it wrong the rest will follow what they believe is an accurate report. In this case the reporter screwed the pooch and the rest, relying on his reporting, made the same mistake. That includes my article.]
    As to my criticism of Barack Obama’s positions on issues or his campaign events, that political criticism is my own and usually based on quotes from the candidate himself. If you believe differently based on different information, or even the same information, that’s your American Right of Free Speech. My interpretation of those words or events are always my own and not meant to represent any group or movement.
    If you have a issue with one of my posts that’s also your business. The owner of DemDaily has no input on what I write and when. Every other author on the blog has the same set of rights. FrenchDoc, for example, has given some real insight into issues that don’t pertain to this election.
    If you choose to disagree with anything I may write please bring that to my attention and perhaps we’ll have an online exchange. There is no need to attack an entire blog for my writing. And I certainly don’t monitor any source to see if they disagree with me.
    I make clear in any comment about Barack Obama, he certainly has my support. If his actions or words worry me is another issue. I will continue to support the effort to take complete control of the Hill and The White House.
    After 40 years of Democratic political activity I could, like you, do no less.
    After re-reading your piece on me as I was about to post this comment….well…if you’ve never had the experience of watching the public statements of a candidate and forming your opinion of that candidate on those statements then you are certainly an unusual person.
    Few, if any, people read the entire library of policy statements. They rely on the person,…the candidate, to accurately portray themselves.
    I watched Obama years ago at the Convention. Impressive! I watched when he denied any intention of running then announced his run within 60 days. I watched the campaign closely. I watched endless debates. Until early in the year I didn’t have a candidate I would solidly back. But I had formed an opinion, just my personal opinion, of Senator Obama.
    I knew, just as my personal reaction, that I felt that Barack Obama wasn’t the right person at the right time for the office. He struck me as an ’empty shirt’. By that I meant, I felt he was all image and rhetorical skills.
    However, The wave he was riding was, as was predicted, unstoppable.
    So today I support his election, his administration and the hopefully positive policy outcomes under a Democratic administration and Congress. If I offer any disagreements then they are to express my concern. They are not opposition to his campaign.
    Your blog has a nice design. Congratulations.

  12. 12
    Ron Chusid says:

    Stuart,

    Of course you have the right to express your opinions. You and everyone else at your blog have the right to utterly distort the views of Obama as you and other writers at The Democratic Daily have been doing on a regular basis.

    The dishonest Clinton talking points were annoying enough during the campaign, but at least back then there was a point to it in terms of trying to help Clinton win the nomination (for those who supported such an outcome). There is no point to endlessly repeating them at present.

    You certainly do fit in well at The Democratic Daily, showing almost as great a skill in this passive/aggressive act as Pamela.

    If you really wish to support Obama you might learn to accept that Obama really won the nomination–not because of image and rhetorical skills, but because he is  more qualified than Hillary Clinton and his views were preferred by a majority of voters.

    At very least you might accurately represent the views of the candidates when discussing them.  It makes little sense to show such concern for Obama’s support of faith based initatives while ignoring the fact that Hillary Clinton also supports them, but lacks Obama’s strong support for separation of church and state. It makes little sense to attack Obama’s views on civil liberties when supporting a candidate who is far to the right of Obama on these issues.

    You might also consider the fact that a professor of Constitutional law such as Barack Obama just might be more than an empty shirt and may have laid out far stronger arguments in defense of separation of church and state, and in defense of civil liberties, than we normally see from a politician.

  13. 13
    Stuart O'Neill says:

    Thanks for the comments and advise.

  14. 14
    AverageJoeRepublican says:

    Sheesh ……I hope Pam Leavy did not really write that 1st comment.Terrible grammar. It’s spelled “record” by the way.She is the owner of “Democratic Daily?” Guess anyone can be the owner of anything in our great land.God Bless America (Not “god damn america” in case you didn’t know.)

Leave a comment