The Associated Press reports that the Obama campaign is trying to force broadcast stations not to air an ad critical of of Obama’s ties with unrepentant 60s domestic terrorist William Ayers.
Barack Obama is striking back fiercely and swiftly to stamp out an ad that links him to a 1960s radical, eager to demonstrate a far more aggressive response to attacks than John Kerry did when faced with the 2004 “Swift Boat” campaign….
Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said Obama supporters have inundated stations that are airing the ad, many of them owned by Sinclair Communications, with 93,000 e-mails. He called the ad false, despicable and outrageous.
“Other stations that follow Sinclair’s lead should expect a similar response from people who don’t want the political discourse cheapened with these false, negative attacks,” Vietor said.
Those ads have run in Virginia, among other places, and the Obama attack machine was quick to move into action, spurting out emails to all its supporters — and in at least one case, that of my wife, Helene, supposed supporters — calling for assistance in intimidating broadcasters.
Alas, this effort is almost humorous. Here’s the email Helene received:
Yesterday, a right-wing smear group launched a full-fledge attack against Barack, pulling in every baseless lie and re-hashed false assertion in their playbook.
Not only that — it turns out the ad may be illegal. Campaign finance experts are weighing in about violations of election law. And the ad is so ridiculous that CNN and even Fox News have both refused to run it.
This is exactly the kind of politics Barack is running to change.
Unfortunately, some TV stations in Virginia are running the ad right now.
Contact stations in Virginia and tell them this kind of garbage shouldn’t be run on the public’s airwaves — no matter how much money they are making to run it.
John McCain claims he had nothing to do with this attack, but a former McCain consultant leads the so called ‘third-party’ group behind these lies.
The primary funder of the ads, Harrold Simmons, is one of the main culprits behind the Swift Boating of John Kerry and a top bundler for John McCain. The spokesman for the group also has ties to the Kerry Swift Boat attacks.
The McCain camp and the Swift Boaters must be truly desperate to change the subject from John McCain’s shocking disconnect with the economic struggles of the American people.
Take action right now to make sure this trash doesn’t pollute another election:
http://va.barackobama.com/offtheairVA
Keep fighting the good fight,
Obama Action Wire
Helene (who was on the Obama email list because she had requested information about campaign contributions), noting that the Obama email simply denounced the ad but provided no evidence or argument refuting it or pointing out errors, replied:
what is the smear about? how can I send a message when I don’t know what it is about? what am I? a potted plant?
That, in turn, elicited the following response from the Obama campaign:
Dear Friend,
Thank you for contacting Senator Barack Obama and Obama for America.
Barack is gratified by the overwhelming response to his candidacy, and we appreciate hearing from you. Please note, though, that we are now replying only to emails sent through our webform….
You can view the ad yourself, and a letter from its sponsor refuting charges against it, here.
John writes:
>>>”The Associated Press reports that the Obama campaign is trying to force broadcast stations not to air an ad critical of of Obama’s ties with unrepentant 60s domestic terrorist William Ayers.”
What was William Ayers convicted of?
Absolutely nothing, at least not terrorism related.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_weatherman_connection.html
>>>”Both Obama and Ayers were members of the board of an anti-poverty group, the Woods Fund of Chicago, between 1999 and 2002. In addition, Ayers contributed $200 to Obama’s re-election fund to the Illinois State Senate in April 2001, as reported here. They lived within a few blocks of each other in the trendy Hyde Park section of Chicago, and moved in the same liberal-progressive circles.”
The Woods Fund:
http://www.woodsfund.org/about/mission
>>>”Woods Fund of Chicago is a grantmaking foundation whose goal is to increase opportunities for less advantaged people and communities in the metropolitan area, including the opportunity to shape decisions affecting them. The foundation works primarily as a funding partner with nonprofit organizations. Woods supports nonprofits in their important roles of engaging people in civic life, addressing the causes of poverty and other challenges facing the region, promoting more effective public policies, reducing racism and other barriers to equal opportunity, and building a sense of community and common ground.”
????
This is the big deal, right wingers?
You have to do better than this.
Why, when the Bush Campaign went after John McCain in 2000, they really knew how to play the game:
>>>”Bush’s paid TV ads were the least of McCain’s problems. On a scale of 1 for innocent to 10 for ugly, McCain’s media adviser Mike Murphy, himself an attack artist (Murphy’s license plate reads goneg), rated them no worse than a 5 or 6.
The deadlier assault was waged under the radar, by blast fax, e-mail, talk-show rants, phone banks and old-fashioned leaflets. On Murphy’s scale of 1 to 10, the invisible campaign rated an 11. Some of it was traceable: evangelist Pat Robertson blitzed the state with recorded phone calls attacking former senator Warren Rudman, McCain’s nation-al campaign chairman, as a bigot who dared speak out against the Christian right. Most of the smear campaign was impossible to track, and the discernible footprints do not reveal what was organized and what was freelance, what was scripted and what was merely street gossip repeated into a telephone or open mike. But it was all pretty vicious.
Voters were told that McCain was a liar, a hypocrite, a philanderer and a jerk. They were told he was not a hero at all but a Manchurian Candidate, brainwashed or broken in captivity and sent home to betray his comrades in arms. They were told that he had had sex with some of his jailers; that he had married a drug addict; that he had had extramarital affairs, one with the singer Connie Stevens; and that he had arranged a murder to cover his tracks. They were informed that the McCains had adopted a black child (an allusion to their dark-skinned 8-year-old Bridget, whom his wife, Cindy, had brought home from one of Mother Teresa’s orphanages in Bangladesh). They were told that Bridget actually was not Bangladeshi at all but McCain’s own love child, one of several he had sired with American black hookers. They were told that the McCains had to adopt because he had infected Cindy with a venereal disease that destroyed her uterus.”
http://www.newsweek.com/id/86763/page/8
Now there are some authentic, hihg brow Republican campaign values right there, John. And this was before the blogosphere and You Tube.
This over-hyped, jibberish about William Ayers isn’t even “Bush league.”
–Cobra
Didn’t the Obama’s have Ayers babysit their kids?
Cobra – it is fairly unwise to defend Bill Ayers. Heck, no matter what you think of Ayers or what he has done, he is an absolute disaster waiting to happen for the Obama campaign. Obama and should continue to find ways to distance himself from him. The fact of the matter is when one starts their political career in progressive community organizing and then moves on to liberal academia, there is bound to be some association or contact with some fairly radical people who are completely out of step with the American population. The last thing Obama needs is defenses like yours – it will only draw more attention to him and Ayers, who, whether you agree or not, is absolutely toxic for a political campaign. He is an unrepentant Maoist who has left lots of misery in his wake. Every candidate has less than desirable associations – this is one Obama ought to lose real fast. Obama ought to relate (if he plausibly can) that as his career has progressed he has come across some fairly radical and extreme characters, but make it clear that he does not share their views. This only works, of course, if his association with Ayers has been light enough to permit him plausible denial. Your post in my view should not be about defending Ayers; rather, it should speak to the view that Obama has real talent and ought to be able to use it by disassociating himself from people like Ayers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brinks_robbery_(1981)
That link above gives you another look at who guys like Ayers was involved with. Apparently Obama thinks this type of stuff is A-OK. I guess Ayers was right, he didn’t do enough!
Willowglen writes:
>>>”This only works, of course, if his association with Ayers has been light enough to permit him plausible denial. Your post in my view should not be about defending Ayers; rather, it should speak to the view that Obama has real talent and ought to be able to use it by disassociating himself from people like Ayers.”
Oh, I’m not providing any defense line for Obama. That’s for he and his staff to handle, and they will certainly have their hands full next week when the GOP descends on Minneapolis.
I’m just pointing out how absolutely SILLY this “Ayers connection” story is.
Ayers donated $200 to an Obama State Senate re-election campaign in 2001.
Two Hundred dollars???
If a candidate has to vet EVERY SINGLE donor to his or her political campaign starting at the $200 level, now…I can’t WAIT to run the list of donors for John McCain.
This is another media creation of right winged political hit squads and Sean “I hang out with neo-nazis like Hal Turner” Hannity.
Willowglen writes:
>>>”Obama ought to relate (if he plausibly can) that as his career has progressed he has come across some fairly radical and extreme characters, but make it clear that he does not share their views.”
Haven’t you seen enough “rejecting and denouncing” in the last 8 months to understand that to the people who are working against a candidate, NO amount of clarification or distancing will ever be enough?
Don’t you understand Fox News America?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjvNSpsPu1k&feature=related
You no longer need “whisper campaigns” like the ones George W. Bush used against John McCain.
Karl Rove and his coven has an entire cable news outlet at their beck and call. That and some well placed viral emails and You Tube clips, and you can turn a NON-STORY like Ayers into something that people actually need Obama to answer to.
And Willow, if THAT’S fine with you…would you be alright if some 527’s fired up some of those Bush push-polls from 2000 on McCain?
–Cobra
“Ayers donated $200 to an Obama State Senate re-election campaign in 2001.” Thanks for demonstrating to us just how clueless you are.
what I notice about people who object to linking ayers with obama, is that they don’t say that ayers is wrong. They realize that for some strange reason most americans like their country and don’t like people who hate it. They realize that to win obama has to please at least some of those people. It’s a terrible injustice, but he has to give the impression of not hating the country. It’s an image thing for obama people, not a question of values. Their values tell them that the US is no good. That is how some folks I know regard michelle obama’s speech. Unfortunate but necessary catering to alot of dummies. Oh, what a black man has to do to become president!
Not smart. His friendly media were already minimizing the issue. Now even they have to report this effort to silence the ad, and in order to do that they have to at least outline the ad. So he’s hit twice among friendly leaners, once for running in circles where terrorists are welcome, and once for trying to stongarm critics. In exchange he gets people who are already 100% for him a little more outraged. Bad trade.
I think he and his advisors are so used to operating in an environment where the constituents agree with everything they say they don’t really understand how to act outside that environment. The campaign note reinforces this belief, since it doesn’t argue anything it just leaps directly to expressing outrage.
“Karl Rove and his coven has an entire cable news outlet at their beck and call.”
If only you knew what vast power Rove has and what dark arts he can call upon, you’d never sleep well again. He or one of his minions is probably monitoring this website as well. I’d be very careful.
cobra – you refuse to see the obvious, practical, non-intellectual point. It’s not about McCain, or evil Republicans of Fox News – or any other narrative or ism. MJ has it right. Ayers is simply bad news. Period. You in fact can argue that Ayers is not such a bad guy, or that his involvement with Obama is minimal, and in fact you can argue all day long – but it doesn’t matter – Ayers views are so out of step with the American populace he is not salvageable. If one thinks it is, Obama loses. And Obama’s response to Ayers is indeed a bad trade, and is not smart, and will call even more attention to a relationship he should disavow. As David Duke is to the right, Ayers is to the left. No Republican candidate in his right mind would currently associate with Duke; and Obama should take the same attitude towards Ayers, pronto. What’s with the risk? Alienating a small cadre of hard core leftists that won’t matter in the election and who further spend most of their time expressing so much outrage one never knows, if ever, when they are sincere? Trust me – he can take that risk. Clinging on to and defending or bullying to deflect Ayers is a death knell – Obama was smart enough to throw Reverend Wright off the boat, and he sure as heck should do the same with Ayers. Political races are intensely competitive and not fair by any means, but that does not mean that candidates cannot control their own destiny. Obama can. If you truly support him (my guess is that you do), a siren call to put Ayers on the metaphorical first bus out of town is in order.
” What was William Ayers convicted of?
Absolutely nothing, at least not terrorism related.”
Sheesh. And Dillinger wasn’t convicted of bank robbery. Yes, Ayers was a terrorist. Procedural safeguards may leave him unconvicted, but he scarcely disputes his guilt, he’s quite proud of the blood on his hands. His only defense is that what the Weathermen were doing wasn’t “terrorism” because their cause was just.
He still thinks what he did was right; If tomorrow he thought it an effective tactic, he’d be killing people again by next Monday.
Why should Obama become a terrorist that is protesting the war when he can just end the war after he is your President.