Althouse: "Obama's new anti-smear website... It's the new go-to spot for Obama dirt."

June 16, 2008

"Obama's new anti-smear website... It's the new go-to spot for Obama dirt."

Kaus quips.

Actually, I'm disappointed. That site hasn't fed us any new dirt since last week. Or am I wrong to try to read it like a blog and look for the newest stuff at the top?

15 comments:

vet66 said...: The only smears I have seen so far have been put forth by the far left then blamed on conservatives. Larry Johnson seems to be behind the Michelle Obama "Whitey" tape supposedly taped at Trinity.

Of course, no tape has been provided. The anti-smear website proves that the best defense is an aggressive offense. In this case, offensive is an apt word.; 6/16/08, 10:49 AM
Ann Althouse said...: Steve, if you are right, why does it help conservatism to elect McCain? If Obama and his politics are really so terrible, wouldn't it be better to learn that through one cycle of the presidency that to reject it without seeing it in action?; 6/16/08, 11:10 AM
Ann Althouse said...: Steve, if you are right, why does it help conservatism to elect McCain? If Obama and his politics are really so terrible, wouldn't it be better to learn that through one cycle of the presidency than to reject it without seeing it in action?; 6/16/08, 11:11 AM
John Stodder said...: The site is useless. It's web 1.0 or lower. You can't ask about a smear you might have heard about. You can't even e-mail them via the site. And their idea of refuting a smear is to say "No, it's not true," without any citations. Who would be satisfied by that in an era when you can hyperlink to primary sources?

This is just a creative but unsuccessful repackaging of campaign talking points. They'll only discuss the ones it's to their advantage to discuss. The tip-off is how they frame the Michelle/"whitey" tape hoax. They want you to think it was started by Rush Limbaugh and spread by Fox News, when in fact it was started by Hillary partisans.

The kinds of "smears" I think it would be worth discussing all have to do with policy and ideology. Is Obama the most liberal member of the Senate? It would be helpful to see what evidence his campaign has to refute that smear.; 6/16/08, 11:42 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: If Obama and his politics are really so terrible, wouldn't it be better to learn that through one cycle of the presidency than to reject it without seeing it in action?

Wasn't Carter enough or do you think we need a refresher course?; 6/16/08, 11:43 AM
former law student said...: And their idea of refuting a smear is to say "No, it's not true," without any citations. Who would be satisfied by that in an era when you can hyperlink to primary sources?

Did you click on any of the blue "Continue reading" links? Because they link to book passages, YouTube videos, etc.

You can't ask about a smear you might have heard about. You can't even e-mail them via the site.

True that you have to use your own email program to send the site an email:

Received a smear? Forward the email to

mailto:watchdog@barackobama.com; 6/16/08, 11:52 AM
AllenS said...: Who's Steve?
Who's Steve?; 6/16/08, 12:24 PM
John Stodder said...: Did you click on any of the blue "Continue reading" links?

Those links must have just gone up. When the site was announced last week, nothing was linkable. Literally nothing. I was wondering why the blogosphere was so excited about it. It was like a corporate website c. 1995.

The adding of links addresses most of my complaints. It's still no great shakes, but it's not worthless.; 6/16/08, 12:43 PM
al said...: The site, even with links, is pretty close to worthless. Anything even remotely critical of the messiah will probably be labeled a smear and put here.

Now the parody site that was up for a few hours last week - that was funny.; 6/16/08, 2:08 PM
Simon said...: Ann Althouse said...
"[W]hy does it help conservatism to elect McCain? If Obama and his politics are really so terrible, wouldn't it be better to learn that through one cycle of the presidency than to reject it without seeing it in action?"

This is the argument made by some, including some commenters on this site. It has always struck me as totally oblivious to the harm that can be done in four years with a pliant Congress.

Obama's website isn't very innovative, it must be said - the Clinton campaign had almost the same thing. And as Vet66 alludes to, the constant implication by Obama's surrogates (including this month's TIME magazine, IIRC) that the "whitey" tape rumor was propagated by conservatives is a little much.; 6/16/08, 2:54 PM
Ann Althouse said...: "Who's Steve?/Who's Steve?"

LOL.

Oh, no. Here's what happened (apparently). Padre Steve wrote:

"Obama is really a combination of Clinton and Carter. He has the charm of Bill Clinton and the leftist ideas of Carter. I pray that the country realizes what a difficult time we are going through and are not sold on the smooth talk. I do believe the people of this country are basically conservative. Let's pray those values come to the fore come November! "

I then responded to him, made a typo, reposted to correct my typo, and, intending to delete my comment with the typo, accidentally deleted Steve.

Sorry!; 6/16/08, 4:08 PM
blake said...: Carter was 30 years ago. A lot of people don't remember 30 years ago. Not a lot of those people vote, proportionately speaking, but still.

Hell, forget Carter, most people don't seem to remember Reagan. Wait, most people don't seem to remember Clinton. The whole "Bush lied, people died" thing is predicated on people not really remembering the '90s.; 6/16/08, 4:38 PM
Kirby Olson said...: Here's a smear for them to report. Obama's first title for his bestselling book was:

The Mendacity of A Creep,

but his agent changed it, and that has made all the difference.; 6/16/08, 7:18 PM
TWM said...: Steve, if you are right, why does it help conservatism to elect McCain? If Obama and his politics are really so terrible, wouldn't it be better to learn that through one cycle of the presidency than to reject it without seeing it in action?

I'm not Steve, but I hope you don't mind my answering I will give it a shot. The problem is that as liberal as McCain is he is far better for the country than Obama. The damage this man will do to the country in four short years will take decades to undo - SOTUS appointments, national health care, major appeasement of our enemies, tax increases - all things that cannot be undone in a short time.

Like hoosierdaddy said, "Wasn't Carter enough; 6/16/08, 7:35 PM
AllenS said...: "Sorry!" No problem.

You provide us with lots of fun.; 6/16/08, 7:55 PM