Obama's New Smear Debunking Website

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:18:51 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Barack Obama now has a webpage, Fight the Smears, debunking right wing smears concerning him and Michelle. He lists the smears, who is promoting them and details why they are false.

TalkLeft has banned discussion of the smears, particularly the one claiming there is a tape of Michelle using racially charged words, because there has not been a shred of credible reporting to back up its existence. There still isn't. But now that Obama has brought it into the open, our ban is pointless.

So, here's a place to discuss his new website debunking the false assertions about him and Michelle. One caveat: Personal insults against the Obamas or insinuations that the debunked items are true will not be allowed. In other words, you can't perpetuate the falsities. [More...]

I'm wondering if a website like this can make a difference. Normally I would say no, however I thought one feature on the site could make a difference. It allows readers to e-mail any particular debunk to others. So if, for example, a person was at work and heard someone claim one of the smears was true, he or she could have the debunk emailed to everyone they think might have heard it.

On the other hand, I wonder if people who are inclined to believe the smears would be satisfied with a statement from the Obama campaign as opposed to an independent source.

My second thought is on the birth certificate: I've received several e-mails over the past months from professional astrologers in response to this post, telling me they can't cast Obama's birth chart because they don't have his birth time. (Although I did find this one which used 1:04 AHST). The time on the birth certificate is 7:24, but I can't tell if it is am or pm. I assume the astrologers will blow it up and figure it out, and then cast his chart.

Third: How important is Michelle Obama in the presidential race? Would someone really not vote for Barack because they don't like her? I suspect focus groups and polling will redefine her role and make her much more likable in the coming months. Just as Obama grew as a campaigner over the past several months, I suspect she will too.

< DNA Testing For Innocence Funded in Dallas | Undisclosed Evidence Calls Des Moines Murder Conviction Into Question >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Obama's New Smear Debunking Website | 202 comments (202 topical)

I think the initial effect... (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by OrangeFur on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:29:30 PM EST

... will likely be negative, because now there are lots of news stories out there in which Obama denies [smear #1] or [smear #2]. A lot of people probably never heard either of them in the first place.

I tend to agree that websites are generally unhelpful. They're not like TV commercials--people don't stumble on them unintentionally.

It only lists four 'smears' (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by catfish on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:31:02 PM EST

and it is odd the first is the Michelle Whitey tape smear.

The entire site is odd.....very unprofessional (5.00 / 6) (#18)
by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:36:51 PM EST

looking...reminds me of something a teenager might put up to fend off on-line bullies. RE: his birth certificate...if he had only been born three years earlier, he wouldn't even need that site... :)

[ Parent ]

Why didn't they call it obamafactcheck (5.00 / 3) (#40)
by catfish on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:50:08 PM EST

or something. Yes, the language and copy is very defensive and my first impression was it was written by a middle schooler. Probably it was created by one of his wunderkind staffers.

Factcheck.org sets a more sober tone, not so defensive.

[ Parent ]

The stuff that comes across on Christian lists (5.00 / 1) (#132)
by Newt on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:58:18 PM EST

are definitely intentional smears of Obama & Michelle. It's not stuff where someone got the facts wrong.

[ Parent ]

'Smears' is so schoolyard, too (5.00 / 2) (#142)
by Ellie on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:06:49 AM EST

Fact check would have been better, as "smears" implies a more juvenile obsession with rep and image. (Wahhh, someone said I was ...)

The serve and return is the purpose, but just don't call it that and come off as pre-emptively hyer-sensitive.

In passing, after an exhaustive search I finally nailed the sister that wrote "Ellie is a Fink" on a shared-gift boardgame. It was my beloved next sister, who masked her fiendish work by printing it out and casting suspicion on the next sister down who could print but didn't have the skill of handwriting yet. If only I had a Smear Site back when!

[ Parent ]

: Which reminds me of the story my (5.00 / 2) (#168)
by oculus on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:29:06 AM EST

ex used to tell. His oldest sister carved the initials of the younger sister into the side of the maple TV cabinet.

[ Parent ]

I thought the birth certificate rumor absurd (5.00 / 2) (#52)
by catfish on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:58:40 PM EST

until kos posted an image of the birth certificate, but didn't link to a source. Thought that a little odd. Now it's on a "fight the smears" website. Something so funny about the name of the site.

But I still think the birth certificate rumor is absurd.

[ Parent ]

Kos' document is not the BC.... (none / 0) (#57)
by Shainzona on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:06:04 PM EST

...it's something contemporary (look at the style - that didn't exit in 1961) and looks to be the type of document you would get as a "certificate of birth" (e.g., to get a passport, etc.) but is NOT the birth certificate.

[ Parent ]

Really, what's the point of this? (5.00 / 1) (#61)
by andgarden on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:07:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]

: Are you admitting you have (none / 0) (#169)
by oculus on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:29:56 AM EST

no curiousity about Obama's horoscope? However will you determine whether to vote for him?

[ Parent ]

It's a certificate of Live Birth (5.00 / 1) (#78)
by MonaL on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:14:20 PM EST

the state of HI issues this as proof of birth. I don't have a copy of my original birth certificate, I have one of these. You're splitting hairs.

And I saw that Obama was born at 7:24 p.m.

[ Parent ]

Needs a seal (5.00 / 1) (#143)
by Andy08 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:08:37 AM EST

or a signature or the original to get a passport. That one would not be enough to get your first passport.

[ Parent ]

: It appears to be missing a lot of things (5.00 / 1) (#207)
by Grace on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:58:20 AM EST

my BC from Georgia has including where he was born (hospital, doctor, street address, whatever) and just other little goofy details like that. Mother's age or DOB. Don't most birth certificates have more stuff on them than that one has? That one seems awfully empty... Seems there would be a signature or a stamp on it somewhere.

[ Parent ]

Well If Obama's mother (none / 0) (#160)
by talex on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:25:14 AM EST

was an American citizen as he says she was then it does not matter where he was born. That is what is weird about this birth certificate thing to me.

With an American citizen mother he could have been born in Portugal and still been an American citizen by birthright of his mother. So why not come forth with the birth certificate as others are saying here. His mother is his mother.

[ Parent ]

The birth certificate thing was to prevent (none / 0) (#108)
by Newt on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:39:00 PM EST

this kind of stuff from being done.

;)

[ Parent ]

The point of the birth certificate (none / 0) (#213)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:12:35 AM EST

is to remind voters that Obama is (in Pat Buchanan's phrase) "exotic".

The GOP seems to be doing a Gabby Johnson act- "What did he say?" "The new sheriff is near".

This is pathetic.

[ Parent ]

his bloggers are twentysomething year (5.00 / 2) (#120)
by thereyougo on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:48:50 PM EST

olds. Some of the commenters give their ages away by the silliness and vileness they spewed against Hillary.They just seemed juvenile.

They'd say stuff like 'she's evil' -- no reasons,just baseless meaness.Or when they were shouting for her to drop out of the race.

I guess its what the Obamas are trying to head off. Funny how he never told them to stop, just towards the end when he finally said that Mrs. Clinton should stay in the race. How nice of him.

He believes in the internet,so lets see how he can contain the 'smears' by addressing them early.

[ Parent ]

The burned a lot of credibility on Derangement (5.00 / 1) (#186)
by Ellie on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:01:22 AM EST

That collective idiocy about Bad Monster Lady "smearing" Obama by releasing already public documents of him in Muslim garb expediently fed the media CDS sport of being outraged -- OUTRAGED -- about Sen Clinton.

In retrospect, outside the early thrill of the avalanche, the focus looks silly.

As was noted here, it wasn't an anti-Obama smear if the pictures were truthful and public, but definitely a cheesy excuse to go after Clinton.

I wonder who the media will peg as overly excitable, way too sensitive and perhaps too easily distracted by irrelevant static?

[ Parent ]

: I miss Bad Monster Lady :( (none / 0) (#220)
by kempis on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:37:04 AM EST

I'm not sure how helpful the "contexts" provided for his out-of-context quotes from Dreams From My Father are.
Dreams From My Father is a fine piece of contemporary, autobiographical, multiracial literature that would be great to assign college students.
In a political campaign on the national level, however, it is a goldmine of "scary-foreign-stuff" for his opponents. They don't have to make it up, just rip out a few quotes and circulate them. The context does not make them less shocking to the vast numbers of people in this country who have not been trained to "situate" them in an academic context.
I am truly curious to see if Obama can win in November with all of this baggage....

[ Parent ]

Does it look "heavenly" to you? (4.22 / 9) (#20)
by Shainzona on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:39:57 PM EST

And the eagle that they use looks, well, I can't say what it looks like because I will get banned...but think 1942 in Germany.

So just because this site declares something as "TRUTH" it's true.

I. Don't. Think. So.

[ Parent ]

: Yeah, that eagle hit me (none / 0) (#149)
by FemB4dem on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:15:05 AM EST

that way too. Yikes!

[ Parent ]

I think that one is worth denying. (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Jerrymcl89 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:41:38 PM EST

To me, if Obama's willing to say categorically that there can't be a tape like that, because she never said it, that's good enough for me (and I really haven't thought there was a tape anyway). The perception of Michelle is something his campaign needs to work on. Obviously, in denying it, he needs to be right, though.

[ Parent ]

I wouldn't have cared if there was one (5.00 / 3) (#48)
by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:55:26 PM EST

I already don't like her attitude and it wouldn't have changed anything. But, if Obama ends up being wrong, that will really go against him. It would add to his judgment in people problem.

[ Parent ]

If the tape existed, would not make difference (5.00 / 2) (#54)
by catfish on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:03:08 PM EST

we already saw the church tapes. If the entire congregation standing and clapping while Wright and Pfleger personally insulted Hillary for being white was not enough to derail his candidacy, some tape of Michelle will not either.

[ Parent ]

: Oh? (none / 0) (#124)
by talex on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:51:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]

She doesn't even need to be smeared (5.00 / 4) (#58)
by Ellie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:06:14 PM EST

She's not gracious in interviews and tends to pounce on opportunities to perpetuate or inflate already debunked slams against others. Example: her appearance on Larry King Live resurrecting zombie talking points about Sen Clinton AKA The Clintons being racists.

No smears required. Just running a few minutes of her being herself during the campaign to take out Clinton speaks for itself.

[ Parent ]

Although I do find Michelle (4.50 / 2) (#97)
by seeker on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:28:45 PM EST

somewhat objectionable, I fear that all of us who attack her for her bearing, etc, may be falling into our own unconscious sexism. And I am a Hillary supporter who will probably vote for Obama in the end.

[ Parent ]

I don't hold her gender against her (5.00 / 2) (#105)
by Ellie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:37:38 PM EST

Her own statements and actions are self-evident.

As a woman in the public sphere, she'll probably also be hit with attacks that are misogynistic.

[ Parent ]

: see post #126 below (none / 0) (#140)
by Rhouse on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:05:56 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Missed that about Larry King (none / 0) (#70)
by catfish on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:12:53 PM EST

I watched some of it but was so distracted by the fact that she rarely smiles that I didn't notice her say anything about the Clintons.

[ Parent ]

: I always believed that she was more (5.00 / 2) (#163)
by hairspray on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:25:55 AM EST

taken in by Jeremiah's anger than Obama. That may be why she is so stiff and defensive IMHO.

[ Parent ]

That's why I'm looking forward (none / 0) (#127)
by shannon on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:52:40 PM EST

to her appearance on The View next week. Not sure what day -- anyone know?

[ Parent ]

It doesn't say that she never said (4.33 / 3) (#123)
by shannon on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:51:08 PM EST

such a thing. It just says that there is no tape. Hey, in politics something like that is not usually just an accidental choice of words.

[ Parent ]

: the wording is very odd (5.00 / 2) (#195)
by boredmpa on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:25:44 AM EST

but it does say that she never used that word. of course with the "why'd he" version of the rant it's also safe to say that.
I'm also a little confused as to why they say this and then link to a schedule:
"Michelle Obama was not on a panel, and the Rainbow Push Conference was at the Sheraton."
She was at the sheraton and was a special guest, not a panelist. Did she speak or not?
Sheesh, if you're going to debunk something, don't do it halfway. Otherwise you look like you're playing rhetorical chairs.

[ Parent ]

why is that odd? (none / 0) (#13)
by bjorn on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:32:35 PM EST

: Well - the smear was only on blogs (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by catfish on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:36:35 PM EST

except when Bob Beckel, a Democrat and Obama supporter, appeared on Fox and spoke about the tape and he looked pretty worried. But the fight the smears website only mentions Rush Limbaugh and a blog, no quarter. And it mentions Roger Stone.

[ Parent ]

I suppose I shouldn't ask... (5.00 / 13) (#12)
by OrangeFur on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:31:31 PM EST

Does the policy of fighting smears extend retroactively to smears against Hillary Clinton? Because I can think of a candidate who promoted a lot of those.

Something has rattled Obama. (5.00 / 6) (#53)
by Salo on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:59:21 PM EST

Pre-emptive spin?

Seems like that to me.

It's not quite as neutral as the idea of the "War Room". It's far more public, anticipatory, reactive. Indicative of his expectation of playing a defensive battle in the summer.

[ Parent ]

That's it - it strikes an odd tone (5.00 / 3) (#64)
by catfish on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:08:46 PM EST

very un war room like. For example, what's the difference between a "myth" and a "smear". Oddly defensive language to not call these "myths".

I heard he's moving the DNC to Chicago. Is that a smear? I would like him to debunk that because I really hope it isn't true.

[ Parent ]

If he's rattled, (5.00 / 1) (#74)
by indy in sc on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:13:21 PM EST

it might have something to do with being the presumptive Democratic nominee and yet being forced to publicly release your birth certificate (or certification of birth) to prove you are a natural born American. It's just ridiculous that he should have to do that.

[ Parent ]

Why is it ridiculous. It is written in (5.00 / 3) (#85)
by zfran on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:17:34 PM EST

the constitution that you must be born in this country to run for pres. Sen. McCain was born on an american base outside of the u.s., he has put forth his certificate. Not an out of line thing to ask of a candidate?

[ Parent ]

no it doesn't (5.00 / 1) (#114)
by tben on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:44:23 PM EST

it says you must be a "natural born citizen".

What that means has been argued, but it certainly does not mean you must have been born in this country.

George Romney (Mitt's father) for example, was born in a Mormon mission in Mexico - but he ran a credible campaign for President and was a frontrunner for a while.

[ Parent ]

I think most reasonable people agree (5.00 / 1) (#116)
by andgarden on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:45:30 PM EST

that "natural born" means you've always been an American.

[ Parent ]

sure, obviously (5.00 / 2) (#138)
by tben on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:02:20 AM EST

been an American since birth - but that doesnt necessarily mean born on US soil.

[ Parent ]

: Why did you rate my post on te (none / 0) (#148)
by lorelynn on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:14:35 AM EST

reconnaissance mission a 1?

[ Parent ]

Since Obama Has a History (5.00 / 4) (#200)
by creeper on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:42:43 AM EST

of getting his opponents disqualified using "teh roolz" this would seem to be fair game.

[ Parent ]

Funny, (none / 0) (#92)
by indy in sc on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:22:18 PM EST

I don't remember any other candidate being asked publicly. I'm certain there is a background check process that goes along with filing the necessary candidacy papers with the FEC. If the FEC says he is an eligible candidate, that ought to be the end of the inquiry on technical qualifications.

[ Parent ]

Well, considering the hue and cry made over (5.00 / 4) (#99)
by Just another person on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:30:25 PM EST

Clinton's tax returns, it's only fair we're sure about Obama's eligibility. If there's any doubt, best to allay the rumours with proof.

[ Parent ]

: The BC thing (5.00 / 3) (#109)
by Valhalla on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:39:00 PM EST

did make me think about the stupidity about the tax returns.
Of course, when she released them, there was no more talk.
Maybe turnabout is fair play, I don't know.

[ Parent ]

What about the Hue and cry about John McCain and, (none / 0) (#119)
by Rhouse on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:48:19 PM EST

if I remember correctly, his being born outside of the US. His father was serving in the Panama canal zone when he was born, I think.

[ Parent ]

But... (5.00 / 4) (#125)
by Emma on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:52:23 PM EST

where was McCain's mother when he was born?

[ Parent ]

: LOL (5.00 / 1) (#133)
by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:00:20 AM EST

great one :)

[ Parent ]

Very similar (none / 0) (#146)
by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:12:26 AM EST

If McCain was born on the base, that would be considered U.S. soil.

I almost delivered my son in Australia. He would have had dual citizenship until he turned 21 because both parents are U.S. Citizens.

I don't know if Obama is a dual citizen to Kenya. His citizenship could probably be challenged for eligibility easier than McCain's could be.

[ Parent ]

You (none / 0) (#215)
by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:17:45 AM EST

have to consider the fact that Obama's exotic background lends credence to rumors about his citizenship. But you also have to realize that McCain was hit with the same thing and released his birth certificate too.

[ Parent ]

Well it is silly (5.00 / 5) (#86)
by Valhalla on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:18:38 PM EST

but I don't understand why he doesn't just release it. I'm not saying I think he's not a US citizen bc he won't release it. I think the whole idea is rather silly. But why not just do it so people will shut up about it?

It's not as if there's anything particularly shaming in one's birth certificate.

[ Parent ]

: That's just the point. Why not just (5.00 / 3) (#89)
by zfran on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:21:22 PM EST

release it if there is a question?

[ Parent ]
: My multi-hyphenated family has different paper (5.00 / 0) (#102)
by Ellie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:32:50 PM EST

... having been born in different countries, and given the fluid nature of nationality at some borders (eg, visas sometimes required for travel) at any given time one or more of us can easily be classified as "illegal".
Stoopid policies like slapped-together no-fly lists and whimsical political petulance don't help. (What was that Condi/Rummy idiocy about snubbing France, being rude to Fredonia and giving the ma'baffan'culo to Russia?)

[ Parent ]

I know that this is very controversial, but (5.00 / 3) (#130)
by shannon on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:57:23 PM EST

since the National Press Club is hosting Larry Sinclair next week, it brings a certain legitamacy to him that the Obama camp is surely getting prepared for. They've been ignoring him publicly until now, but will have to hit it directly once he's done the NPC. Please note that I am not a person suggesting that LS is truthful at all. The point is that he can't be ignored until November.

[ Parent ]

Shannon....one would wonder why this (5.00 / 4) (#141)
by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:06:29 AM EST

isn't on his smear site...Larry Sinclair's video was the first of the smears I heard about, then Rezko.

[ Parent ]

: I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#155)
by shannon on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:20:19 AM EST

why there is such an aversion to addressing this. When I first heard it, I thought "Well, I'm sure Obama will be out debunking this immediately." He never has. Just come out and say "It's all BS." You can be sure the republicans aren't afraid to ask the question.

[ Parent ]
: I wondered that too (5.00 / 0) (#189)
by CHDmom on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:02:27 AM EST

I would have thought that would be one of the first things they posted.
I think this could cause more problems that do good. IF people hear something and it isn't on the smear page, then they might think it must be true. Also probably alot more people heard about the tape because of this, especially people that don't go online.

[ Parent ]
: oh that (5.00 / 0) (#201)
by boredmpa on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:44:19 AM EST

hearing about that produced more laughter than perhaps any other scandal i've ever heard because it's so insanely stupid.
if i recall, I posted a comment to that effect on an open thread. deleted right quick.
---
personally i wish we'd have a scandal day after the election to discuss the most ridiculous, most amusing, and most disgust scandals. a scandal award ceremony so to speak.

[ Parent ]

It's Off Topic and should not be discussed (none / 0) (#137)
by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:02:15 AM EST

the thread is about the web site.

[ Parent ]

The point being that (none / 0) (#152)
by shannon on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:18:11 AM EST

it was suggested that his smear website is probably being set up to be pre-emptive. So I mentioned something that they will have to address. I can't help but think they are ready to use this website to address this specific smear.

[ Parent ]

They will never and should never (none / 0) (#157)
by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:22:03 AM EST

address this. Larry Sinclair will self-destruct with his absence of credibility and the outrageous level of his claim.

[ Parent ]

: OK. I'll fold. (5.00 / 2) (#164)
by shannon on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:26:04 AM EST

Not trying to stir anything up. I just don't know why the Obama camp would want to keep their heads in the sand about something that is about to be talked about at the National Press Club.
But no more from me on this. I'm happy to be here at TalkLeft and like the community here.

[ Parent ]

Preemptive (5.00 / 5) (#134)
by Athena on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:00:45 AM EST

The site is to function as a garbage can for designating any unpleasantries as "smears" and hence unworthy of discourse. Agree that there is something desperate and juvenile about the whole thing - it almost sounds like a send-up.

It's all part of Obama's MO - to designate many concerns as "distractions" from the real issues - which are only those he wants to talk about. Ultimately, the voters decide what information they need - not the candidate.

[ Parent ]

: Well that's a train-wreck waiting to happen (5.00 / 2) (#172)
by Ellie on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:31:22 AM EST

He doesn't ad lib well and already has an "aloofness" problem. His inner circle of imperious spokespeople are too hungrily enamored of their power. I don't think the move to keep Obama above the fray will work the same way it did for GWB.
Also, it helps to have real goons and thugs on the perimeter, plus the formidably vicious flying monkey squadrons taking to the air to keep the media scraping and bowing for "access".
Team Obama has laughable, deletable uncoordinated pests doing that.

[ Parent ]
: This was not well thought out at ALL!!! (5.00 / 1) (#208)
by Grace on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:08:15 AM EST

First off, the first thing that is proven to be true when the Obama "Fight the Smears" website says it is a Lie is going to cast doubt over EVERY SINGLE THING THAT EVER APPEARED ON THE WEBSITE.
Secondly, items they REFUSE to refute on the website are instantly going to be considered TRUE! Why? Because Obama won't say it's a smear!
What a MESS he created for himself!!!
This is what happens when you are INEXPERIENCED in whatever it is you are doing.

[ Parent ]

Only time will tell sadly (5.00 / 5) (#26)
by suisser on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:41:41 PM EST

I don't really get the birth certificate thing... would be easier if he just released the B.C. and let it go at that.
On the tape... my only feeling here is that if a tape similar to what has been described, surfaces in Oct. I will be livid. Well, I'm already livid so I will be ... something worse.
I think the most interesting thing I have heard said on this concerns the attempt by Obama to control his "Google". Being aggressive on this will put HIS spin at the top of the list and that, I believe is the gold nugget in this action. YMHO

I actually don't think the smears... (5.00 / 4) (#27)
by Alec82 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:42:37 PM EST

...will be effective. The efficacy of a website is questionable. Personally I don't think most voters will be persuaded by this.

The efficacy of the noise machine is questionable, these days. We're oversaturated.

I don't believe that VOTERS (5.00 / 4) (#49)
by suisser on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:56:09 PM EST

are the target audience here, or perhaps they are but they won't be the consumers. Who will go and look? We might, the MSM sure will, PUMA and others looking for any clink in the armour. This could be a very bad move if there are any factual missteps. This could either be a great control mechanism or a site that spins out of control fast.

[ Parent ]

I'm Thinking (5.00 / 3) (#202)
by creeper on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:45:59 AM EST

that the target here may be Obama's own supporters. Perhaps he's sensing a weakening of their loyalty and this is aimed at shoring up his own base.

[ Parent ]

Yes I thought so too. (5.00 / 2) (#203)
by LoisInCo on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:49:09 AM EST

Gives them something to do and keeps the rage up.

[ Parent ]

: Well, there's a point (5.00 / 2) (#206)
by Valhalla on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:55:59 AM EST

I was thinking about this smear website offline and suddenly it hit me how hilarious it is that Obama would have a website to help his supporters with smears.

[ Parent ]

It doesn't hurt (none / 0) (#214)
by magisterludi on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:14:38 AM EST

that Suzanne Malveaux on CNN uses the site as the Golden Arbiter of Truth of All Things Obama. The tentacles the O campaign has worming their way inside the media is evident. That so many "journalists" are willingly to provide political cover for any candidate is deeply unsettling.

[ Parent ]

Hillary had a sort of fact check (5.00 / 14) (#47)
by Joan in VA on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:55:24 PM EST

section on her website. It looked like the rest of the website and didn't use charged words like smear. His website looks kinda cheap and sensational and designed to anger some of his supporters. They do not need any encouragement in that regard. Some are already quite abusive to those who do not agree with them. imo.

Some supporters do Obama no favors (5.00 / 1) (#67)
by catfish on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:11:30 PM EST

they are a turnoff.

[ Parent ]

Sen Clinton was actually under siege though (5.00 / 9) (#69)
by Ellie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:12:46 PM EST

Really, a historically unprecedented onslaught leveling not only misogynistic bigotry at her, but media demands (for no good reason) that she fold.

Undemocratic and uncalled-for.

[ Parent ]

: I was saying that hers was more (5.00 / 7) (#104)
by Joan in VA on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:35:40 PM EST

restrained and non-inflammatory. Given the siege she was under, it was evidence of what a pro she is. I think he should have incorporated something similar into his website instead of a separate "smear" site.

[ Parent ]

The media ignored Hillary's (5.00 / 5) (#136)
by shannon on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:02:10 AM EST

fact check. I always read it and appreciated the clarifications, which were well-written and provided clear evidence.

Unfortunately, the Obama media fan club never went there, I'm sure because they would consistently pursue the false charges.

I suppose that Obama will have more success with his site, because the media is more than eager to defend him.

[ Parent ]

Yes now the media (5.00 / 4) (#147)
by LoisInCo on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:14:08 AM EST

can just quote his site as fact. So much easier for them.

[ Parent ]

: lol (5.00 / 3) (#173)
by Valhalla on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:31:52 AM EST

Except wouldn't going to a website be more work than they do now?

[ Parent ]

L'affaire Michelle looks like a reconaissance (5.00 / 5) (#51)
by lorelynn on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:57:33 PM EST

mission to me. We now know that Obama will avoid addressing smears that he feels are beneath him - sorta like John Kerry and the SBVT. If you consider yourself Obama's opponent, it's been a very informative exploration.

Larry has always been clear that he has never seen the tape and does not know, by name, who has seen it. He's reporting third hand information as third hand information. And Obama let the smear perpeturate for weeks rather than adddress it.

As Carville taught us in 1992, any political lie not answered within 24 hours becomes a political truth. If Obama is telling the truth, and Michelle has never used that work, then he has failed the first necessary test for a Democrat. He allowed a highly combustible lie to catch fire and burn untended for too long. what Republicans now know is that they can spread really ugly lies about Obama and he won't say a peep.

But reporting third hand information (5.00 / 0) (#90)
by shoephone on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:21:51 PM EST

as truth is totally unprofessional. Whatever one's personal biases may be for or against a candidate, truth and accuracy in reporting are paramount in my book -- whether the report comes from the MSM, a right-wing radio host or a blog.

I don't believe the tape exists.

[ Parent ]

He was always very clear that he had (4.80 / 5) (#110)
by lorelynn on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:40:24 PM EST

not seen the tape nor spoken with anyone directly who had. He said repeatedly that he was talking to people who knew someone who had seen it. Period. And he said it over and over and over again.

If you have other impressions, it didn't come from anything Larry wrote.

[ Parent ]

interesting (5.00 / 1) (#194)
by CHDmom on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:21:42 AM EST

according to the Time article about the site, Larry started this "smear" in Late May, but the Obama camp asked Michelle about it in April and mid may since they kept hearing about the tape.

[ Parent ]

I'll drop it because Jeralyn requested us to do so (4.20 / 5) (#117)
by shoephone on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:47:45 PM EST

but I know what I've read over at that site.

There is a reason I am here and not there.

Thank G*d for civility and accuracy.

*The end!

[ Parent ]

: What you read is that Larry did not see the (5.00 / 2) (#198)
by lorelynn on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:33:34 AM EST

tape, did not have the tape, didn't know who had it and was looking for it. Further, you read that he only spoken with people who knew someone who had seen it.

[ Parent ]

It's entirely likely she has used that word. (none / 0) (#129)
by Newt on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:56:03 PM EST

So have I, and I'm white. But I haven't used it to put down whites, only in discussions of race relations or in joking with friends who understand what I'm saying. My black relatives call me whitey to make fun of me occasionally.

I would imagine it's like the word n*gger being used in some circles. It's not necessarily intended to be an insult, and unless you expect to be in the public eye, you say things throughout your life that you probably shouldn't have. I have friends who use the word f*ck in common everyday speech, like WTF. But I speak properly around my kids and at the in laws.

The questions was whether or not someone actually had it on tape. I'm guessing it took a little time to figure out if the threat of a tape was real.

[ Parent ]

Now why is it entirely likely (none / 0) (#144)
by mbuchel on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:09:18 AM EST

that she used the word? This is pure speculation and projection on your part and has no basis in fact. Your characterization of MO is something I'd expect to read on redstate, not TL.

[ Parent ]

Yeah, you're right. (5.00 / 1) (#167)
by Newt on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:26:08 AM EST

I'm just coming from the perspective of knowing that oppressed people say things about the oppressor group that don't get expressed in mixed company. For instance, I've called heterosexuals "breeders" before. It's silly, and now I have kids of my own so I guess I'm one too, but when I was younger there were plenty of times I spouted off because I was mad at straight people not understanding or deliberately hurting gays.

I don't know if Michelle has ever used the term whitey, but if she did, I'd understand where she's coming from. I hope there's no tape, but it wouldn't be hard to make a fake one and send it around the Internet just before the November election.

[ Parent ]

From all the denials, (5.00 / 1) (#210)
by Grace on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:26:26 AM EST

I'm understanding:

She didn't say it from the pulpit because she has not spoken from the pulpit of Trinity Church.

Larry Johnson posted no update so there was no update.

Roger Stone hasn't met anyone who has seen the tape.

Michelle Obama was not on a panel, and the Rainbow Push Conference was at the Sheraton.

Unfortunately, none of this really answers the basic question: Does a tape like this exist? Very good attempt to debunk the smears by parsing. I give them 3 out of 5 stars. :)

[ Parent ]

: but Michelle is in pic with Farrakhan's wife (none / 0) (#216)
by Josey on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:23:41 AM EST

One pic is not disastrous, but the Obamas love Trinity, Trinity loves the Farrakhans, the Farrakhans love the Nation of Islam...which feeds into the "Obama's father and step-father were Muslims"....
And all during the primary the media and press identified Hillary with her full name - Hillary Rodham Clinton, but identified Obama as Barack Obama -
no Hussein. And those including Obama's middle name are identified as
anti-Obama.
Will Obama's middle name - Hussein - also be omitted from the history books?

[ Parent ]
: Stephen Frey's The Power Broker (none / 0) (#217)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:27:06 AM EST

Perhaps the NRO would help here, with the Whitey claim.

Why Does the Michelle Obama Tape Rumor Match a 2006 Novel?
Sometimes, this rumor of this alleged tape of Michelle Obama denouncing "whitey" sounds like something out of a clichéd political thriller novel.
Actually, it sounds exactly like something out of a clichéd political thriller novel. Specifically, Stephen Frey's The Power Broker, published in 2006 by Ballantine Books.
You can read the rest for yourself.

[ Parent ]

A military analogy (5.00 / 4) (#59)
by Salo on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:06:45 PM EST

Does this indicate that Obama is apprehensive about something? Is this website a nervous flinch or a good precaution?

The GOP probably have their calendar of attacks worked out to the last detail. Everyday til the election itself has probably been planned out. All the oppo propped and ready to go. They appear to have provoked this website into being.

I think it's a necessary precaution. (4.50 / 2) (#72)
by lorelynn on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:13:02 PM EST

Once the campaign is definitively on record, rumors tend to die down. The site's efficacy will depend up whether it's used to debunk smears when Obama feels he shouldn't have to respond to them.

If someone starts reporting that Michelle got a better grade in a class at Harvard because she did X,Y and Z with so and so, will he ignore it or will he respond? If he continues to ignore the genuinely scurrilous rumors then it won't help him.

It appears to me that a net is being woven around him that he feels he doesn't need to dignify.

[ Parent ]

It might be a precaution but it might be more spin (5.00 / 1) (#188)
by Mark Woods on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:02:12 AM EST

Like instances when the agents of celebrities deliberately release nasty rumors about their clients, just to to keep them in the public eye.

This news does, admittedly, have everyone here chatting about Obama and NOT thinking about Clinton.

Isn't that in some way a media coup for the pony?

[ Parent ]

Well it depends (none / 0) (#193)
by Valhalla on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:20:17 AM EST

As soon as I saw that link I went to the site bc I was curious.

Even though the smears are 'debunked', that doesn't mean the original smears get deleted from your head, even if you don't believe them. The info's out there.

I'm now thinking it's more just so he can direct media to his website whenever they ask a hard question.

[ Parent ]

: the site also continues the rage factor (none / 0) (#218)
by Josey on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:27:12 AM EST

a very necessary component for Obama's followers, since Hillary left.

[ Parent ]

I think it's a bad idea.... (5.00 / 2) (#75)
by Addison on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:13:38 PM EST

...now any time a smear comes up if Obama doesn't respond to it, with facts, on his website instantly that will be talking about endlessly by the defunct media. And the clear loophole there is that if a smear comes up that is completely out of left field and not based on anything, he won't be able to debunk it with facts because disproved a complete negative is impossible.

We'll see.

: Haha... (5.00 / 2) (#81)
by Addison on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:15:46 PM EST

...don't try to smear me with my grammatical verb tense errors please, cause from the looks of the above comment I'll have to start 1,000 web sites to try to debunk that, and even then it won't be persuasive.

[ Parent ]

Maybe those that prepared the (5.00 / 1) (#76)
by zfran on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:14:00 PM EST

website wanted to make it appear retro or something so that it would appeal to certain demographics. Personally, I don't believe everything I read, this includes debunking websites, candidate websites, and many articles. To me, if something seems questionable, it probably is.

I would note (5.00 / 0) (#79)
by Steve M on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:15:13 PM EST

I think Obama had pages debunking two of the most common smears - the Muslim thing and, I think, the Pledge of Allegiance one - on his official campaign site, since very early in the campaign.

I think it's a useful process. Not everyone who believes this stuff is a hater, some are just regular people who get an email from a friend and think oh, I guess this must be true. The strategy of ignoring it and hoping it goes away doesn't really apply these days, particularly when the Internet catapults every crazy rumor around the world.

I confess I had real trouble understanding why Obama didn't release his birth certificate much sooner. I mean, I guess there's some sort of principle involved, but it's a dumb principle.

The acid test, howsomeever, is (none / 0) (#111)
by oculus on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:42:36 PM EST

snopes.com. What does snopes have to say about these rumors about Obama?

[ Parent ]

: Heh (5.00 / 4) (#139)
by Steve M on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:05:26 AM EST

Snopes.com generally sticks up for Obama. Here is one of my favorites: Is Barack Obama the Anti-Christ? (Hint: No.)

[ Parent ]

If I had my own website, I could write (5.00 / 2) (#93)
by zfran on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:23:38 PM EST

whatever I wanted on it to debunk rumors and such. Then, if reporters asked me about things, I could just answer them by saying, see my website, and therefore the answers would always be the same. It's like reading something in a newspaper, it doesn't make it so, it just makes it read, imo.

How Michelle can hurt Barack (5.00 / 2) (#135)
by daryl herbert on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:01:38 AM EST

How important is Michelle Obama in the presidential race? Would someone really not vote for Barack because they don't like her?

She's important, because she can turn white voters off to Barack Obama if they think he buys into her anger and negativity. She trashed the Clinton years, complained about how hard it is to raise her family on way, way over $100k/year, said things suggesting she has not had much pride in America for a long time, and has said that America has been going downhill for the past 50 years or so.

It's not that anyone would say "I hate Michelle Obama, so I'm voting for McCain." It's that she would cause them to have second thoughts about Obama that they might not even realize were triggered by her. His greatest strength is the perception that he's something new and different. She can undermine that.

The woman is a P.R. professional. But just as doctors shouldn't operate on themselves, and lawyers shouldn't represent themselves, I think she needs other P.R. professionals to keep her in line and on message.

: Wives are important (5.00 / 1) (#211)
by Grace on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:35:07 AM EST

Look at Laura Bush this past week. I personally think that Laura is the best thing in the entire Bush administration. She's out there giving speeches for GWB in Europe and Afghanistan because he's not very well liked in a lot of places.
So, wives are important.

[ Parent ]

Heh (5.00 / 1) (#156)
by Steve M on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:20:51 AM EST

Here is Juan Cole on the silly apostate theory.

Well then: (none / 0) (#165)
by oculus on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:26:07 AM EST

Peters and DeVries are Arabists and are among the foremost scholars on Islamic law, unlike Luttwak, who does not have the slightest idea what he is talking about.

Luttwak is military theorist (none / 0) (#177)
by Salo on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:35:36 AM EST

He was a British intelligence officer in ww2 or something. He was originally from Poland and now he has a farm in Paraguay.

shady bio.

[ Parent ]

Which part of the above do you (none / 0) (#179)
by oculus on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:38:04 AM EST

consider "shady"?

[ Parent ]

It's not his bio. (none / 0) (#182)
by Salo on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:49:48 AM EST

Google is your Friend.

It's not his bio but it's plausibly close.

[ Parent ]

: Oh, come on. Spit it out. (none / 0) (#185)
by oculus on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:59:44 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Obama's New Smear Debunking Website

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

Menu

Premium Ads

Blog Ads

Search

Login

Creator and Principal Author

Contributors

TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections

Site Credits

Legal

Stats