Operation Baracki Freedom

David Weigel | December 20, 2006

Mere weeks after he didn't announce his campaign for the presidency, liberals at The New Republic and Media Matters are defending Barack Obama from a right-wing media assault. The tapeheads at MM find Dick Morris saying this:

[A]nybody who thinks about Obama for five minutes knows the guy's never introduced a bill. He's never been important. He's spent 100 weeks in the Senate. He's basically a -- no foreign policy experience.

This is both weird and inaccurate. Weird because Morris only exists to attack the Clintons and battle Hillary's presidential bid. He's written three books on the subject. If her bid collapsed, so would he, like an assassin choking down the cynanide capsule once the bullet sinks into the Generalissimo's brain. Inaccurate because, well Obama has introduced bills. Beyond what Media Matters lists, Obama co-sponsored, with Tom Coburn, a transparency bill that would let voters see every earmark their representatives inserted into a spending package. That right there is more impressive (to me) than anything John Kerry or John Edwards ever passed. And I'd bet it has more salience with voters than the mushy warmongering and video game bashing of the former First Lady.

At TNR, Conor Clarke argues that the media is trying to create an anti-Obama scandal out of a story about the senator getting a cushy Chicagoland real estate deal from a friend who was later indicted.

Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz writes forthrightly that this "may not be a big deal in the larger scheme of things." In fact, he "mentions" the issue only because his reading and "sense of political dynamics" tells him the story "is about to break out of the Chicago media and go national." By "go national," Kurtz apparently means something other than receive 1,500-word treatment from The Washington Post, the seventh-biggest paper in the country. Slate commits basically the same offense. Dickerson writes that "we're going to hear a lot more" about Rezko if Obama runs for president--though he also insists that "this is not Obama's Whitewater" and "there's nothing here so far that seems politically life threatening." But we're already reading plenty about Rezko: We're reading about it in Slate, which titles Dickerson's piece "Barackwater" and lures you toward the link with a promise to bring you "inside Obama's shady land deal."

Well, so what? If the tone of the coverage is a bit much, the story still deserves coverage. When a politician gets as much glowing, contentless praise as Obama does, the responsibility of the media to uncover his past is even greater.

In any case, Obama's principled stance on earmarks - which was praised by more than a few Republicans I talked to for a story I'm working on - should really dispel claims that he's a lightweight or a media creation. He's not benefitting from the kind of pathetic man-crush I had on Jim Webb. But if in two years the Republicans vomit up nominee McCain and the Democrats pick Obama, and a land deal and some Dick Morris sneering are all of the knocks against him, I know who's got my vote.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

|12.20.06 @ 11:23AM|#

Shilling allegations in 3...2...1...

|12.20.06 @ 11:28AM|#

Here we go...

Oh, man, why did the Democrats have to nominate Obama? If only they had nominated (list competing primary candidates here), I wouldn't have had to hold my nose and vote Republican. But Obama is so uniquely loathesome. Why do the Democrats always choose the worst candidate, with the massive character flaws that the Republicans can highlight in their ads, every single time?

Feel free to replace "Obama" with the name of some other Democratic politician, the moment Obama falls to second place in two polls in a row.

|12.20.06 @ 11:36AM|#

please don't tell me reason is getting behind obama too. i don't have anything against especially..yet but he is so blown up. i don't see the big deal. now jim webb i more understood (and i voted for him based a lot on reason's influence to be honest) but obama i just don't get.

|12.20.06 @ 11:43AM|#

If you're running for President out of the Senate, you're a lot better off doing it after being there for just a couple of years as opposed to having a few terms worth of experience.

|12.20.06 @ 11:45AM|#

t.j.,

Calm down. Weigel's just saying that, as of now--very early in the 2008 cycle--he finds Obama to be more impressive than McCain. If you've read anything he's written about McCain, you know that's not exactly "getting behind" Obama.

Brian Defferding|12.20.06 @ 11:48AM|#

I wouldn't go so far to say Reason is supporting Obama, but if it did come to a McCain/Obama election I think Obama wins by default because, well, he's done less damage (or has attempted to do less damage) than McCain lately (the emphasis is on the word "lately" - I know McCain was fierce against government spending and government meddling in the past, but nowadays even baseball and the internet isn't safe from his grandstanding).

Of course I'm not even going to think about voting for one of the major party candidates for President regardless. Obama is still a Democrat through and through and still needs to prove to me just how libertarian he is, but that's just me.

|12.20.06 @ 11:50AM|#

Just to show how much things have turned around politically, Dick Morris pulled one of the old Hollywood liberal cliches out. He said if Hillary gets elected, he's leaving the country.

I've got a theory about Morris - that when he was working at the White House he made a pass at Hillary and she shot him down harshly. It would explain a hell of a lot.

VM|12.20.06 @ 11:53AM|#

t.j.,

some premature lamentation on your part.

How dare Reason talk about a politician who's nationally popular at the time? Wow.

("Well, so what? If the tone of the coverage is a bit much, the story still deserves coverage. When a politician gets as much glowing, contentless praise as Obama does, the responsibility of the media to uncover his past is even greater.")

but how did you know I'm such a big fan of the "I'm not against X, BUT" (or "Normally I'm for X, BUT") construction? Happy happy joy joy!

Finally, he's from Chicagoland, and he's a politician: if he didn't do something shady we'd be worried!

(Herr Weigel - be on the watch out for a real tough (sic) military lawyer type who's a green SEEL (sic) ranger airborne type - and he's an economist lawyer spelling chumpion (sic) to bout (sic). He can spot the partisans in his head nearly as fast as... um... nevermind)

|12.20.06 @ 11:55AM|#

VM-

The corect spelleeng is Weigal.

Brian E|12.20.06 @ 11:59AM|#

But if in two years the Republicans vomit up nominee McCain and the Democrats pick Obama, and a land deal and some Dick Morris sneering are all of the knocks against him, I know who's got my vote.

Yick. So do I: whatever yellow dog happens to be running under the LP. I refuse to vote for a senator. The last thing we need now is a president with less executive competence than W.

Not that it matters here in Illinois, anyway.

VM|12.20.06 @ 12:00PM|#

... Weigal.

wait a sec. WHY DO YOU WANT THE HIPPIES TO WIN?????

Dammit. Those years on the loonie koast rielly missed up your brane. You have bekame a hippie, what with your libral fisiks classes and all that. [opens up the... one.. two.... third. Third Blatz of the day]

I will phile the paperz to soo yoo in militaree kort bekauz yore so redequlus.

I bet you believe in the godless second law of therma-- thermy--- heat- heat something. The Second Law of Heating Something. Movement.

And that Creative Design you can't disprove. The color of the sky is cake. So there. Orly.

(The producers of this piece wish to say that the original author of this has been sacked. As have the people who have sacked the sackers. Only a military lawyer can take so much sack!)

|12.20.06 @ 12:02PM|#

Obama's principled stance on earmarks . . . should really dispel claims that he's a lightweight or a media creation.

Not so much. Co-sponsoring one bill, even a bill I like, is hardly a compleat portfolio. And being against earmarks hardly requires deep reservoirs of statesmanship.

If the rest of his policy positions weren't so totally off-the-shelf leftyDem, that would be one thing. But so far, he hasn't shown anything but a talent for dressing up standard Dem talking points for self-promotion.

There may be a hell of a President in there. Who knows? But that's kind of the point.

Sam Franklin|12.20.06 @ 12:04PM|#

When was the last time an HnR blog post supported a pending bill in Congress? The Cheeseburger Bill?

In the context of HnR, this is a dog bites man story.

Franklin Harris|12.20.06 @ 12:05PM|#

In any case, Obama's principled stance on earmarks - which was praised by more than a few Republicans I talked to for a story I'm working on - should really dispel claims that he's a lightweight or a media creation.

A man who writes books with vacuous self-helpish titles like "The Audacity of Hope" (what the hell is so audacious about it???) doesn't invite being taken seriously. He should be jumping up and down on Oprah's sofa.

|12.20.06 @ 12:05PM|#

We're reading about it in Slate, which titles Dickerson's piece "Barackwater"...

"Barackwater"? O.K....when you have to work that hard, it's time to admit your reach has exceeded you grasp.

Which leads me to this notion...one of Obama's singular strengths is the difficulty in wedging his name onto catchy scandal names.

Of course, one of his singular weaknesses is that his that his middle name is "Hussein."

In any case, Obama and Hillary have got some things going for them that a lot of other folks don't.

Like Bill Clinton - and unlike just about every other politician out there - they don't look or act like tight-asses.

Hillary and Obama laugh and act like they're enjoying themselves. It might be an act, but it's better than the act a lot of others have got going for them.

Here's my indicator...in any race, policies don't matter. The guy who most relaxed and has the best sense of humor always wins.

Kennedy beat Nixon, Reagan beat Carter, Clinton beat Bush. Comparitive policy lightweights with charm beat the wonks every time.

Warren|12.20.06 @ 12:26PM|#

but if it did come to a McCain/Obama

AARRRRRGGGG! Great googly moogly. I can't believe so many HnRers adhere to this false parameterization. It is never a choice between the Republicrat and the Democin. If you can't vote for the LP candidate you could stay home, or better yet vote for a write-in. I could respect someone who voted for Micky Mouse for POTUS. But voting for either a Communist like Obama or a Fascist like McCain doesn't just make you an idiot, it makes you an asshole.

|12.20.06 @ 12:26PM|#

Living in Chicagoland, I get to hear more about Barack than most of you, so I have been giving his soon-to-be-announced candidacy much thought. I disagree with the Senator's philosophy of gov't on nearly every issue, so despite that I believe he is a sincere, intelligent man, my vote is extremely unlikely to go to him. I have been wondering, however, if as President he could do wonders for the US in matters of foreign policy and security. He may be the man who could undo all the damage the current administration has done to our nation's reputation. I probably will request a Democratic ballot in the primary to give him my vote. As I said, in the general election my vote is not likely to go to him, but if the Republican's candidate is hawkish enough, and it looks like a tight race, I may be willing to sacrifice some of my principals for a quick boost to our international goodwill.

VikingMoose|12.20.06 @ 12:31PM|#

Highnumber:

does that mean we'll be seeing you at Bar Vertigo in the Ukranian Village tomorrow at 9pm to see our own Fyodor play?

that's right!

FYODOR is playing Chicago. Bar Vertigo (Chicago and Western) tomorrow, Thursday at 9pm. (http://www.barvertigo.com/)

Finally:
"Living in Chicagoland, I get to hear more about Barack than most of you"

are you boasting, lamenting, complaining, or philosophizing?

grin.

Warren|12.20.06 @ 12:32PM|#

highnumber,
Uh yeah, that'll work this time. Not like last time when W ran on that platform in 2000.
[Cue The Who power chord]
Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

|12.20.06 @ 12:44PM|#

Sigh. Yet another of the pre-anointed. Can we wait until we've seen the guy in action before placing a crown on his head? Heck, the same lack of due consideration got us the current president.

uncle sam|12.20.06 @ 12:45PM|#

I the mail yesterday, I received a petition from the "Global Warming Action Network". The letter of solicitation was "signed" by senator John McCain.

|12.20.06 @ 12:52PM|#

highnumber wrote "if as President he could do wonders for the US in matters of foreign policy and security. He may be the man who could undo all the damage the current administration has done to our nation's reputation."
What are the "wonders" Obama could do? Make sure dictators like Kim, Asaad, and the Iranain guy sleep well at night?
What "damage" has the current administration done to our nation's reputation? Freeing 25 million people and making sure the UN resolutions are enforced?
Specifics highnumber.

creech|12.20.06 @ 12:56PM|#

Let Obama serve two terms as governor of Illinois before anyone gets all ga-ga over him.
And, Devin, Hillary probably said "yes" to
Morris and turned out to be a terrible lay.

|12.20.06 @ 12:57PM|#

David wrote, "But if in two years the Republicans vomit up nominee McCain and the Democrats pick Obama, and a land deal and some Dick Morris sneering are all of the knocks against him, I know who's got my vote."
Obama has a 100 ranking from the ACLU or whatever organization ranks liberals and democrats.
Your a schmuck David, a real schmuck. You are not a libertarian because anyone who knows what that means would never vote for Obama.
Obama is an outright socialist.
You are a liar or insane because you think your a libertarian.
God, I just donated $100.00 to this organization.

|12.20.06 @ 1:07PM|#

Kim, who has successfully developed nuclear weapons, thereby innoculating himself from the possibility of an invasion, on George Bush's watch.

"The Iranian Guy," who has watched as we eliminated his country's long-time enemy and most powerful regional competitor, and installed an Iran-friendly goverment, on George Bush's watch.

You didn't mention Osama - is that because he is sleeping quite well right now, and the number of terror attacks his organization is carrying out has increased dramatically since Bush took over?

Face it, Terry, the Bush presidency has seen the most dangerous parties in the world expand their power tremendously. You'd think at this point that you'd have learned that wanting things really bad + killing lots of people + acting like a dick != a formula for success.

|12.20.06 @ 1:09PM|#

"Freeing 25 million people"

They're not freed yet, Terry. Take off the flight suit, tough guy.

|12.20.06 @ 1:11PM|#

madpad, do you seriously think Hillary doesn't come across as a total tightass?

highnumber, just why should I care about the US "reputation" abroad? Reputation with who?

Frankly, being disliked and despised by mass murderers, kleptocrats, and miscellaneous tranzis is more a badge of honor than anything else.

Who exactly are you worrying about, and how will our State Department flunkies getting invited to their cocktail parties help me as a US citizen?

"He's spent 100 weeks in the Senate. He's basically a -- no foreign policy experience."

I'm really surprised that this chesnut slipped so far down the thread without comment. Help me out here. Hasn't GW immunized anyone who decides to run for president against the "no foreign policy experience" charge? Just give me someone who isn't wholly resistent to learning new stuff about the world and spends valuable leisure time doing just that instead of praying for good results, and it would be a vast improvement over the current state of affairs.

I'm pretty sure that Obama has the curiosity and intelligence to pack more foreign policy learning into a weekend than GW has accomplished in his lifetime.

|12.20.06 @ 1:13PM|#

Kim, who has successfully developed nuclear weapons, thereby innoculating himself from the possibility of an invasion, on George Bush's watch.

Not so fast, joe. By my count, most of the damage was done on Clinton's watch, under the dreadful deal brokered by Albright. By the time Bush got on the scene, they had an advanced program and enriched uranium.

|12.20.06 @ 1:14PM|#

Kim has not. Hussein was violating the sanactions and Osama is dead.
Joe your a dip.

|12.20.06 @ 1:18PM|#

So . . . getting a high rating from the American Civil Liberties Union is supposed to prove he's not libertarian enough? That's the weirdest accusation I've ever heard.

|12.20.06 @ 1:20PM|#

"Joe your [sic] a dip."
Terry...crack open a basic grammar book. The butchered grammar and inane content of your postings taken together make you look pretty pathetic.

|12.20.06 @ 1:21PM|#

"I'm not voting for that al Qaeda guy."

That's five million votes right there :)

VM|12.20.06 @ 1:21PM|#

wow. Terry - can I schmear you up with zee Korn Syrup and watsch you flex. oooh. De Muscles. De Muscles! "Your" so tough. And I kann see that you went to same schkool as zee Military Lawyer. Tough guy in flight soot. a flight zoot suit. oh ja. Auch mit einem großen Schwanz. ooh! Sehr groß! uuuh! ja! mit einem Steiferl. ja ja!

[gyrates off]

|12.20.06 @ 1:22PM|#

Pinko what a cop out.
Content is right but being the schmuck you are, since you can't refute it, you change the subject.
Again another pinko bites the dust and they can't take it.

|12.20.06 @ 1:24PM|#

By my count, most of the damage was done on Clinton's watch, under the dreadful deal brokered by Albright. By the time Bush got on the scene, they had an advanced program and enriched uranium.

Actually, they had both those things before Clinton was president. The deal you're so against managed to keep their program running in place for several years. Bush came into office saying we needed to get tougher with them in order to get them to roll back their program completely. Result: they now officially have the bomb.

Nobody can say for sure whether N Korea would now have the bomb anyway, but it is certain that Bush said his new course would keep them from getting it and it did not.

Just sayin\'|12.20.06 @ 1:25PM|#

Not that Joe isn't a dip.

|12.20.06 @ 1:27PM|#

Is Terry another alias for Jane, or what?

|12.20.06 @ 1:28PM|#

VM,

I'll be getting the "holiday gift shopping" done or getting the house ready for family visiting on Christmas Eve. (Homemade tamales will be served for your dining pleasure if you can find me.) No Bar Vertigo for me. :-(
It would be cooler if he were playing at the Mutiny, anyway.

Warren,

I never expected any good to come from GWB's Presidency. I never even considered voting for either of those two jokers in 2000.
Thanks for putting that Who song in my head, though. I tell ya, that song cannot be overplayed.

R C Dean,

Pragmatically speaking, you should worry about our reputation abroad for a multitude of reasons, but primarily our national security. I would prefer that our citizens don't have to worry about targets on their backs because of a predilection for "nation building" that pisses off our allies, makes enemies of neutral parties, and gives our enemies a reason to actively plot against us. Ideally our foreign policy would be to leave other nations alone. As it stands, we have to much to clean up and too much to apologize for before we can think about letting the rest of the world be. I do not plan to vote for Obama, but I believe there are compelling reasons to contemplate it.

|12.20.06 @ 1:31PM|#

I left out an "o."
See if you can figure out where.

VM|12.20.06 @ 1:31PM|#

But zee Terry kann take it. Oh ja.

Srsly. These "ohmahgahwd! The Bushhitler politician is a heartbeat away from being a Nazi." vs. "oh.mah.gawd. the democrat is a heartbeat away from socialism" arguments really need a bit of subtlety and a bit of thought.

But Terry - switch to decaf, mellow out, and take your comments of "schmuck" etc. back to the NRO or whatever rock you're from.

Granted, I can see you're a tough, tough guy, and I'll have to find my night light again and my little bank-bank so I can sleep tonight, but jeez, dude, mellow out. And I'm really glad that there's no listing for me in my town. Um. Norway. Yeah, that's a town. right the town of Denmark in Sweden. That's right. I'm not listed there. I'd hate to have such an obvious physical and intellectual behemoth come after me!)

You and John and all the other quibbledicks who seem to equate {not 100% agreeing with me} with {being a Democratic or *gasp* worse SOCIALIST schill} are really fucking lame. (An extra ten points if you accuse me of being a dem schill or being a socialist)

So go back to taking it, unlike pinko (if that is his real name).

|12.20.06 @ 1:33PM|#

"change the subject"

Terry...this group blog thing requires the use of written language. You are butchering your mother tongue. Maybe English is your fifth or sixth language, but I'm going to take a wild guess and say that that's not the case. Since I can't see you drooling on your keyboard and waving your flag like a mongoloid, I have to go by the slop you decide to post.

That, unfortunately, is the subject.

|12.20.06 @ 1:36PM|#

"Hasn't GW immunized anyone who decides to run for president against the "no foreign policy experience" charge?"

Uh...no. Cue Candidate Obama, September 2008: "To the people who ask whether I have enough foreign policy experience, I say, look at the last eight years. Look how we've moved from success to success under the leadership of President Bush." Cue nervous laughter.

RC,

I'm really not interested in your partisan game of top-this. The North Koreans had no nuclear weapons when Bush took office; they have them now. Bush's efforts to prevent that from happening were a complete failure. Whether Clinton's efforts were better or worse is immateriall. Bush's foreign policy in this area - ie, do nothing, and act as if deigning to negotiate with them is some sort of favor we are doing them, which they need so much that we can make the achievement of our goals a precondition of talks, rather than pursuing them through talks - has been an abysmal failure.

Highnumber, before GWB we had your foreign policy and guess what? Did it stop Americans from being targets? No, on the contrary, we became bigger targets.
Self defense works. Appeasment doesn't.

Again we're your specifics?

|12.20.06 @ 1:37PM|#

obama is the PERFECT example of "cult of personality".

it's not that there's "bad stuff" about him (well, despite his overwhelmingly liberal voting record... but that's not "bad" if you are a liberal yourself), it's just that there is "no there there"

he's got some senatorial experience and that's about it.

he's a GREAT speaker, charismatic as hell, etc.

"Kim has not. Hussein was violating the sanactions and Osama is dead."

Shame on me for being taken in by such an obvious troll.

Piss off, "Terry."

|12.20.06 @ 1:38PM|#

Great come back Joe.
What a dip.

|12.20.06 @ 1:41PM|#

Terry,

"My foreign policy" has not been our nation's for centuries. I agree that appeasement does not work, but neither does aggression. If only our military were used strictly for self-defense...

Lortl|12.20.06 @ 1:41PM|#

he's a GREAT speaker, charismatic as hell, etc.

This is what people vote for, I think, when you get down to it.

I. Self. Divine.|12.20.06 @ 1:47PM|#

"Again we're your specifics?"

This grammatical travesty needs to inspire some serious wrist-slitting. I'm with Joe. "Piss off, Terry."

|12.20.06 @ 1:57PM|#

madpad, do you seriously think Hillary doesn't come across as a total tightass?

RC,

Since the point of my post was comparitive (and despite your use of the word "total") the only real response I can give is, "compared to who?"

Compared to Pelosi? Reid? Most emphatically, yes. Of all the interviews with lot's of politicians over the past few weeks, Obama and Hillary are among the few I've seen actually laugh.

This isn't my endorsement of them, btw. Just a casual observation that may explain their popularity.

|12.20.06 @ 2:22PM|#

madpad, If you believe you are really seeing Hillary laugh in interviews, you are more delusional than I thought. Calculated laughs may impress you, but to the rest of us, that woman comes off as cold as ice.

|12.20.06 @ 2:44PM|#

Jesus H. Christ on a popsickle stick, James,

Would you read my frigging posts. I know that. I never said I was impressed. But it's obvious others are and I was explaining the reason I saw for it. Goddam, I hate explaining stuff to kids.

|12.20.06 @ 3:01PM|#

And the question was whether ot not I thought she came across as a tight-ass. If you're cold as ice, you are by definition NOT a tight-ass.

Offended|12.20.06 @ 3:03PM|#

Yes, Terry's mastery of English grammar leaves a lot to be desired, but at least this time he has avoided using his favorite phrases: "f...ing" whatever and "head up his a.." Let's give him some credit for that at least.

|12.20.06 @ 3:12PM|#

Great come back Joe.

As long as we're picking on Terry for grammar, "comeback" is one word and a comma should be used to separate Joe's name for the preceding phrase...

|12.20.06 @ 3:28PM|#

I'll join the grammar game.

Highnumber, before GWB we had your foreign policy and guess what? Did it stop Americans from...

"Guess what" is not a question.

Pinko what a cop out.

Missing comma

Your a schmuck David...

Misspelling and missing a comma

...you think your a libertarian.

Misspelling

the Iranain guy

Misspelling

Specifics highnumber.

Missing comma

Have we covered everything?

Now Terry can get back to lamenting his subscription status and personally insulting the posters and commenters.

|12.20.06 @ 4:42PM|#

thoreau

Whatever happened to all that "divided government" stuff?

Yeah, I know...I never thought you were serious.

RSDavis|12.20.06 @ 4:52PM|#

A man who writes books with vacuous self-helpish titles like "The Audacity of Hope" (what the hell is so audacious about it???)

Well, you've clearly read the book - what did Obama say was the audacity of hope?

I like the guy. I know diddly-squat about his policy preferences, but I like him as a human being. I like Carter as a human being, too, though, haha...

- Rick

|12.20.06 @ 6:23PM|#

don't let them get you down about the grammar. assimilating to the culture is hard work!

to the post: i've been pleased with obama as my senator to this point. i'm not sure where i land on the need for "executive" experience like a governorship, though i'd love to see him replace blago. i'm not convinced that his lack of such experience would preclude him from my vote for the presidency.

re his record, etc.: i think it's helpful to rate a politician like you would a referee or an umpire. they're doing a good job when you don't even realize that they're there.

what i'm really interested in is his ability to survive a real large campaign. the illinois republicans are a repugnant clown show so his election to the senate was likely the biggest cakewalk ever.

Burr|12.20.06 @ 10:42PM|#

People only like Obama because they don't know what he stands for yet. At some point he's going to have pinned down though, because voters don't like complete uncertainty either.

I have a feeling he'd cave to social conservatives too easily with all his churchspeak, though.

|12.21.06 @ 9:34AM|#

Let's not forget what's most important here: Obama is a Gen X-er.

I say two Baby Boomer presidents are more than enough. Let's just cut our losses now, and jump ahead a whole generation. This country did it with Kennedy, and that didn't work our too badly.

Imagine: no more watching every issue turn into a proxy the "longhairs vs. the squares" battles of 1967. Imagine discussing a foreign policy question without having the conversation turn into a comparison with Vietnam. Imagine Bill Moyers launching into a reminiscence about the 60s, and Obama just staring at him quizzically.

Come on, people, we can do this. Obama 2008!

VikingMoose|12.21.06 @ 12:44PM|#

The conspiracies swarming and swirling around Obama never cease!

Someone sent me THIS LINK this morning.

Now I live in Chicago as do a whole slew of others. Between asking around and doing a google search, this story appears to be untrue. A lie. Whichever. I'd chalk it up to a deliberate lie, as there is no other source for this, no apparent research on this guy's part, etc.

Checking out the rest of the dude's blog, now with government people looking at my IP, he gives me the willies.

Heres' the text of the link:
*****
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Please give them a break!

A Chicago Illinois radio station recently conducted a live survey on a man called Barack Obama.

Question 1: Do you think Barack Obama is a dangerous terrorist?
# Calls flooded to the radio station and the listeners unanimously and assertively agreed that Barack Obama was a dangerous terrorist and that the US military should relentlessly track him until he was killed.

# Question 2: Which country is Mr Obama the President of? Sudan, Algeria, Egypt or Saudi Arabia?
# Most listeners confidently replied one of these countries, with a majority opting for Algeria. Obviously, the term Islamist was born in Algeria. So where else could Barack Obama be living other than in Algeria?

# Why I am bothering you with this?
# Well, it turns out that Barack Obama is the US Senator for Illinois and Chicago (where the survey was conducted) is a big city in the state of Illinois.
# So if the wise and powerful Americans do not even know who their own Senator is and consider him as a dangerous terrorist, why are you expecting them to understand what?s happening in Iraq or Palestine?

# Please give them a break!

posted by Mystic River at 8:35 PM
*******

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements