This message below was written by an Obama Campaign worker and was originally posted at http://www.lynettelong.com/ It is interesting to me that despite over 1500 people viewing this post in the last two days, the Obama supporters haven't denied her statements.
"After a long and careful consideration of all the implications and possible consequences of my actions today, I have decided to go through with this in the hope that our country can indeed be guided into the right direction.
"First, a little personal background… I am a female grad student in my 20’s, and a registered Democrat. During the primaries, I was a campaign worker for the Clinton candidacy. I believed in her and still do, staying all the way to the bitter end. And believe me, it was bitter. The snippets you’ve heard from various media outlets only grazed the surface. There was no love between the Clinton and Obama campaigns, and these feelings extended all the way to the top. Hillary was no dope though, and knew that any endorsement of Obama must appear to be a full-fledged one. She did this out of political survival. As a part of his overall effort to extend an olive branch to the Clinton camp and her supporters, Obama took on a few Hillary staff members into his campaign. I was one such worker. Though I was still bitterly loyal to Hillary, I still held out hope that he would choose her as VP. In fact, there was a consensus among us transplants that in the end, he HAD to choose her. It was the only logical choice. I also was committed to the Democratic cause and without much of a second thought, transferred my allegiance to Senator Obama.
"I’m going to let you in on a few secrets here, and this is not because I enjoy the gossip or the attention directed my way. I’m doing this because I doubt much of you know the true weaknesses of Obama. Another reason for my doing this is that I am lost faith in this campaign, and feel that this choice has been forced on many people in this country. Put simply, you are being manipulated. That was and is our job – to manipulate you (the electorate) and the media (we already had them months ago). Our goal is to create chaos with the other side, not hope. I’ve come to the realization (as the campaign already has) that if this comes to the issues, Barack Obama doesn’t have a chance. His only chance is to foster disorganization, chaos, despair, and a sense of inevitability among the Republicans. It has worked up until now. Joe the Plumber has put the focus on the issues again, and this scares us more than anything. Being in a position to know these things, I will rate what the Obama campaign already knows are their weak links from the most important on down.
"1 – Hillary voters. Internal polling suggests that at best, we are taking 70-75% of these voters. Other estimates are as low as 60% in some areas – particularly Ohio and western PA. My biggest problem with this campaign’s strategy was the decision NOT to offer Hillary the VP slot. She was ready and able to take this on, and would have campaigned enthusiastically for it. This selection would have also brought virtually all of her supporters into the fold, and the Obama campaign knew it. Though I have no way of knowing this for certain, and I do admit that I am relying on internal gossip, Senator Obama actually went against the advice of his top advisors. They wanted him to choose her, but the only significant opposition to this within the campaign came from Barack and Michelle Obama. In short, he let personal feelings take precedence over what was the most logical thing to do. Biden, by the way, has been a disaster inside the campaign. Everyone cringes whenever he gives an interview, and he creates so many headaches as the campaign has to stay on their toes in order to disseminate information and spin whatever it was he was trying to say.
"2 – Sarah Palin. Don’t believe what the media is telling you about how horrible a choice she was. Again, our internal polling suggest that though she has had a minimal impact on pulling disaffected Hillary Democrats to McCain, she has done wonders in mobilizing the base for McCain. Another thing – we were completely taken by surprise with her pick. In my capacity in the research department, I looked into the backgrounds of Leiberman, Romney, Pawlenty and Ridge, and prepared briefs. I don’t mind bragging that we had pretty good stuff on all of them. With Leiberman, the plan was to paint him as an erratic old-timer who didn’t have a clue as to what he was doing (pretty much a clone of McCain). In Romney, we had him pegged as an evil capitalist who cut jobs. Pawlenty was going to get the “Quayle treatment”, or more precisely: a pretty face, with no valid experience. Tom Ridge was going to be used to provide a direct link from McCain to Bush. As you can see, we were quite enamored of all of them. Then the unexpected happened – Sarah Palin. We had no clue as to how to handle her, and bungled it from the start. Though through our misinformation networks, we have successfully taken some of the shine off. But let there be no doubt. She remains a major obstacle. She has singlehanded solidified “soft” Republican support, mobilized the McCain ground game, and has even had some appeal to independents and Hillary voters. This is what our internal polling confirms.
"3 – Obama’s radical connections. Standards operating procedure has been to cry “racism” whenever one of these has been brought up. We even have a detailed strategy ready to go should McCain ever bring Rev. Wright up. Though by themselves they are of minimal worth, taken together, Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Father Pfelger, and now, Rashid Khalili, are exactly what the campaign does not need. The more focus on them, the more this election becomes a referendum on Obama. The campaign strategy from the very beginning was to make this election a referendum on Bush. Strategists have been banging their head on how successfully McCain has distanced himself from Bush. This has worked, and right now the tide is in his favor. People are taking a new look at Barack Obama, and our experience when this happens tells us this is not good news at all. When they take a look at him, one or more of these names are bound to be brought up. McCain has wisely not harped on this in recent weeks and let voters decide for themselves. This was a trap we set for him, and he never fully took the bait. Senator Obama openly dared him to bring up Ayers. This was not due to machismo on the part of Obama, but actually due to campaign strategy. Though McCain’s reference to Ayers fell flat in the last debate, people in the Obama campaign were actually disappointed that he didn’t follow through on it more and getting into it. Our focus groups found this out: When McCain brings these connections up, voters are turned off to him. They’d rather take this into consideration themselves, and when this happens, our numbers begin to tank.
"4 – The Bradley Effect. Don’t believe these polls for a second. I just went over our numbers and found that we have next to no chance in the following states: Missouri, Indiana, North Carolina, Florida, New Hampshire and Nevada. Ohio leans heavily to McCain, but is too close to call it for him. Virginia, Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Mexico and Iowa are the true “toss up states”. The only two of these the campaign feels “confident” in are Iowa and New Mexico. The reason for such polling discrepancy is the Bradley Effect, and this is a subject of much discussion in the campaign. In general, we tend to take a -10 point percentage in allowing for this, and are not comfortable until the polls give us a spread well over this mark. This is why we are still campaigning in Virginia and Pennsylvania! This is why Ohio is such a desperate hope for us! What truly bothers this campaign is the fact that some pollsters get up to an 80% “refuse to respond” result. You can’t possibly include these into the polls. The truth is, people are afraid to let people know who they are voting for. The vast majority of these respondents are McCain supporters. Obama is the “hip” choice, and we all know it.
"As part of my research duties, I scour right wing blogs and websites to get somewhat of a “feel” as to what is being talked about on the other side. Much of it is nonsense, but there are some exceptions which give the campaign jitters. A spirited campaign has been made to infiltrate many pro-Hillary sites and discredit them. A more disorganized, but genuine effort has also been made to sow doubts among the unapologetically right wing sites such as redstate.com. Don’t you guys get it? This has been the Obama campaign’s sole strategy from the very beginning! The only way he wins is over a dispirited, disorganized, and demobilized opposition. This is how it has been for all of his campaigns. What surprises me is that everyone has fallen for it. You may point to the polls as proof of the inevitability of all of this. If so, you have fallen for the oldest trick in the book. How did we skew these polls, you might ask? It all starts with the media “buzz” which has been generated over the campaign. Many stories are generated on the powerful Obama ground game, and how many new voters were registered. None of this happens by coincidence. It is all part of the poll-skewing process. This makes pollsters change their mixes to reflect these new voters and tilt the mix more towards Democratic voters. What is not mentioned or reported on is not the “under-reported cell phone users or young voters” we hear so much about. What is underreported is you.
"changed my somewhat positive opinion of this campaign during the unfair and sexist campaign against Sarah Palin. I will never agree with her on the issues and will probably never vote for her, but I am embarrassed of what has happened. I can’t ignore our own hand in all of this. What I do know is that I will not be voting for Obama this time around. Treat that as you will. "
http://www.lynettelong.com/
http://www.redstate.com/diaries/anon...-know-in-this/
13 comments:
Where is the link to Ayers? Board meetings? Palin was friends with plenty of people who are culpable for various things. Does this make her guilty of them.
Ayers is off the deep end, we know this. But he is not Obama. I think you need to just relax your mind on that topic.
You are correct that superficial associations with criminals doesn't mean one is guilty of their crimes. If it were so, then most of the people in our state and federal governments would be in trouble.
However, the point is the number of shady associations that Senator Obama has, and the extent to which he denies them. At one point, he had called Rev. Wright his mentor. He also claimed to have never heard Rev. Wright's angry liberation theology. However, once confronted with it, he dropped his former mentor like a rock. Then there is Rashid Khalidi, Acorn and Tony Rezco. As a mother, I pay attention to who my kids hang out with. Those who have hung out with trouble makers have gotten in trouble. Those who haven't, haven't. There are just too many people in Senator Obama's life that give us warning as to what types of methods Senator Obama might use to obtain his objectives, just as Jesse Jackson, Pastor Wright, Michelle Obama, and Louis Farrakhan have all given warning that Senator Obama might not view non-blacks in an equal and just manner.
But as far as Ayers goes, there is evidence that their relationship wasn't just in passing.
1. Bill Ayers and Barack Obama worked together on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was founded by Bill Ayers in 1995. Barack Obama served as chair of the Annenberg Challenge from 1995 to 1999. Together the two men raised and disbursed more than $100 million in funding. Best source: CNN, Retrieved October 21, 2008.
2. Bill Ayers and Barack Obama served together on the board of the Woods Fund. Obama served from 1993 to 2002. Ayers joined the board in 1999 and continues to serve to the present day. Their tenures overlapped from December 1999 to December 2002. Best source: Chicago Sun-Times, Retrieved October 20, 2008.
3. Barack Obama wrote a positive review of Bill Ayers’ book, which was published in its entirety at Google Books, in 1997 in the Chicago Tribune. The book was entitled “A Kind and Just Parent”, and Obama is mentioned in it briefly. (Best source to date: Fox News, Retrieved October 20, 2008.)
4. Barack Obama and Bill Ayers appeared together on a panel discussion of Ayers’ book, organized by Michelle Obama, in Chicago in November of 1997, in a joint effort to block proposed legislation regarding juvenile justice issues. Best source: Zombie Time, Retrieved October 20, 2008. They did work together on more than just boards.
5. Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn hosted a campaign event for Barack Obama’s state Senate campaign in their Chicago home in the fall of 1995. At the event, retiring state Senator Alice Palmer introduced Obama to her friends in Chicago’s liberal/left-wing community, in effect designating him as her heir apparent. Attendees at the event told CNN that there was also a solicitation of funds for Obama’s campaign effort. Best source: CNN, Retrieved October 21, 2008.
6. Bill Ayers contributed $200 to Barack Obama’s state Senate election campaign in 2001. Best source: Chicago Sun-Times, Retrieved October 20, 2008.
7. From 1991 to 1995, Ayers and Obama both had offices on the same floor of a University of Chicago office building. (Longtime Ayers associate Mike Klonsky, a self-avowed Maoist and the head of Ayers’ Small School Workshop, also had an office in the same location.) Best source to date: Verum Serum (original reporting), Retrieved October 20, 2008.
I hope this all answers some of your questions as what people are concerned about.
Bless you -
Why do conservatives spend so much more time thinking/talking/blogging about Obama than they do about McCain?
Ummm... The Obama campaign worker who bloogged the above said that she was a "registered Democrat," who during the primaries, "was a campaign worker for the Clinton candidacy," and "believed in her and still [does]."
That doesn't sound like a conservative.
You are so fearful. Are you that afraid of blacks? and black men in particular. The Republicans and Christians have shown the world how much hatred is in their heart and psyche.
GoOBAMA!!
No. My husband was American Indian. I have three Black/American Indian nephews, one of whom has lived with us and refers to me as his mom. My kids are all enrolled tribal members. My sister-in-law is Philipino. My other brother's girlfriend is Jamaican. Our family has taken two “vacations” helping out at a children’s home in Ciudad Juárez. Once was over Christmas - the first Christmas after my husband died. My kids opted to go and bring gifts to the children’s home rather than have a family Christmas at home and receive gifts themselves.
Race isn’t an issue.
At this point, I will now only publish intelligent comments directly related to the article posted.
lisa,
I have a question about #2 in your post:
How do you explain that a reported 53% of voters say McCain's choice of Gov. Palin is why they will not vote for McCain?
That's more people than those 39% who say that McCain's association with President Bush is the reason.
Also lisa, you say...
" I’ve come to the realization (as the campaign already has) that if this comes to the issues, Barack Obama doesn’t have a chance."
That is an incredible statement when it is almost universally agreed that the McCain strategy has been to be the attack dog.
In fact, McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis actually said (and he was quoted correctly and never denied it) that "This campaign will not be decided by issues, because if it is we will lose."
Let me ask you a question: Have you EVER seen a McCain or Palin rally or speech that did not contain attacks?
On the other hand, did you happen to watch Obama's 1/2 hour infomercial on all the major TV networks a few days ago? He did not even mention McCain or Palin much less attack them. Not once!
Can you imagine what Rick Davis would have had Sen. McCain or Gov. Palin saying if he had that opportunity? At least 50% of it would have been attacks or personal stuff.
I rest my case.
lisa,
You list 7 paragraphs about Obama's troubling relationship with Ayers. But what about McCain? Do you give him a free pass on these:
1. The "U.S. Council for World Freedom." It sounds decent enough, doesn’t it? But names can be misleading. Sen. McCain was associated with this group for years and finally earned a seat on it's board. He later resigned and asked that his name be removed from it's letterhead.
The U.S. Council for World Freedom became controversial when it became the public cover for the White House’s covert operation to fund the Contras without congressional approval, with Singlaub working in secret with Oliver North to raise money from foreign governments.
The group was also affiliated with, “former Nazi collaborators and ultra-right-wing death squads in Central America.”
But whether McCain is being truthful or not about how, whether, and when he dissociated himself from the group is only part of the problem. Sam Stein explained in a good piece that the real focus here is that McCain associated himself “with a group that reportedly circumvented law, financed right-wing military institutions, and engaged in sometimes brutal anti-communist tactics.”
2. The Keating Five. McCain was cited by the Senate ethics committee but not convicted of any crimes. But even McCain himself said "The Keating Five' will be engraved on my tombstone"
3. G. Gordon Liddy is a convicted felon who spent 5 years in prison for crimes against our nation.
In 1998 Liddy hosted a fundraiser at his house for John McCain's re-election campaign at which guests could have their pictures taken with McCain and Liddy. Over the years, Liddy, who has referred to McCain as "an old friend," has made at least four contributions totaling $5,000 to the senator's campaigns -- including $1,000 in 2008. When David Letterman asked McCain about his relationship with Liddy, McCain said, "I know Gordon Liddy. He paid his debt. He went to prison and paid his debt, as people do. I'm not in any way embarrassed to know Gordon Liddy."
This is the same Godon Liddy who said on his radio program "Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests. ... Kill the sons of bitches."
That's what I really call "paling around with terrorists" as Gov. Palin falsely said about Obama. Obama has rejected Ayers while McCain to this moment embraces Liddy!
4. Sen. McCain has at least two top members of his campaign who were lobbyists for many foreign nations. Among them were Somalia, Saudi Arabia, right wing radicals in Angola, and the dictator of Nigeria.
5. Jim Hensley, Convicted Felon.
6.Convicted Felon Raffaello Follieri.
7. Convicted Felon Rick Renzi.
8. Charles Black, Lobbyist for Dictators.
9. Richard Quinn, White Supremist.
10. Pastor John Hagee and Bigot
Pastor Rod Parsley.
Why are you not concerned about this huge group of McCain pals and associates?
Thanks for the note, Mr. Paine.
I see that I didn't post that letter correctly. I cited the web page it came from on the bottom, but wasn't clear at the beginning that it was a quote. I apologize.
I wasn't the writer of that letter. I will correct that oversight right away.
As far as her number two point, I understand that there are polls that say that Palin pushed people away. But it's been my experience around conservatives that she has drawn them in. Many people, myself included, have said that if it weren't for Palin, they would have sat this one out.
I also understand, as you noted, McCain's experience with Keating.
However, four of the Keating five were Democrats, and both McCain and John Glenn were actually held blameless. Later, Robert Bennett, Chief Counsel to the Democrats during the investigation, repeatedly said that McCain should not have been included in the investigation. He said that here was no evidence of any wrongdoing, and the Democratic controlled Senate simply kept McCain involved so it would be “bipartisan” scandal.
Also, McCain's involvement with Keating has been public knowledge for years. But when anyone attempts to take closer looks at issues concerning Senator Obama, They are chastised. This is one of my concerns.
I guess, knowing the history of Chicago politics, I am nervous about how Obama got to where he is today. Rumors concerning his connections, as well as a bribe taken while he was a state legislator, abound. It would have been good if all of that had been vetted properly so that all the answers were on the table from the start. As it is, there seems to be a new question every day. That all brings me to agree with Tucker Bounds, who said, “Americans need to ask themselves if they’ve ever befriended an unrepentant terrorist, or had a convicted felon help them buy their house — because those aren’t smears, those are true facts about Barack Obama.”
Thanks for your comment and question. I appreciate being able to talk about it civilly.
lisa, you say of Obama " It would have been good if all of that had been vetted properly so that all the answers were on the table from the start"
None of this stuff is new. It was common knowledge way back when Obama first ran for office in IL. The Chicago Tribune is a very conservative GOP newspaper (NEVER endorsed a Dem for president until Obama) and it researched all of Obama's sins during his run for the IL House and the US Senate. Except the Rev. Wright stuff. I never saw anything about that.
And then during the Dem primary the Hilary7 Clinton folks were not exactly in love with Obama and tried to dig up everything about his past when she realized she could not beat him on the issues. That was the root of his bad blood between them that was just recently settled.
So it's a bit of a stretch to pretend that Obama is some sort of unknown, unvetted candidate. He did not just burst upon the national scene in the past few months as did Sarah Palin.
Thanks for your second note.
I addressed the Keating issue in my last comment.
Except for that, Renzi, and an endorsement by Hagee, I hadn't heard any of the other names before. Perhaps Senator Obama would have done us a service by making sure we all had more information about these potential issues with McCain. After all, this is what the campaign season is for - a chance to get to know the candidates better.
The one thing about Senator Obama's connections is that there is evidence that contradicts his denials.
But I haven't seen any of the details for issues you are discussing. I need to see them the way I see the videos or hear the adios where Senator Obama has actually said certain things from his own mouth, or penned endorsements from his own hand.
However, if we move away from the character issues and back to the political issues; I'm not socially liberal and as such, wouldn't be a supporter of many of Senator Obama's policies.
Character issues are important, and when it came to the Senate race in Montana two years ago, I voted against the crook even though he represented my issues and his Dem opponent did not. Issues aside, I couldn't vote a crook like Conrad Burns back into office. I didn't have any information at the time that could tell me whether or not his opponent was also crooked. So I went with the only information I had - Burns was a crook and his opponent wasn't.
This is why this type of information is important. We do need to know who is crooked.
However, if Obama and McCain both have equally questionable pasts, things aren't so simple. I would have to go with the Conservative worm rather than the liberal worm.
And Sarah Palin, again, helps make that difference. She's more conservative than Senator McCain and is right in line on the issues with me. Well, most of the issues, anyway.
Thanks again for writing.
Linda: it's easier to dismiss people who disagree with you as racists than to engage their arguments
Tom: The media bias in favor of Obama is unbelievable in this campaign. The media has given him a free pass. Heard about the LA Times sitting on the tape of Obama at a party with Khalidi? What is McCain or Palin had been at a party with neo-Nazis or some similar group? Do you think for a minute that the LA Times wouldn't release the tape?
And what about poor Joe the Plumber? All he did was ask Obama a tough question, and his personal records have been invaded by Democratic state officials in Ohio. In Florida, Barbara West asked Joe Biden a few tough questions, and outrage followed. Her station is now banned from Obama/Biden interviews. So much for the openness of Obama. As long as people bow to the "Messiah," everything is fine. As soon as they refuse to fall down and worship, they're investigated, banned, and ridiculed.
Thank God that McCain will win.
Post a Comment