RECENT POSTS
- Oprah, Health Care Lobbyists, Among Recent Visitors to White House
- An Obama Thanksgiving Menu, with an Extra Serving of Pie
- White House Thanksgiving Traditions: Broken and Observed
- Obama, GOP Air Differences Over Jobs, Economy In Thanksgiving Addresses
- White House State Dinner Party Crashers
- Obama to Lay Out Emissions Goals in Copenhagen
- Free Bird
- The "Good" War
- The Presidential Planner
- Under the Stars, Obama Toasts India’s Prime Minister
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
The Obama Anti-Smear Website
June 13, 2008 8:51 AM
Some commentators have noted that on Sen. Barack Obama's new website he set up to combat untrue internet rumors the "TRUTH" Obama proclaims on the homepage about the innuendo that somewhere there's a tape of Michelle Obama using the word "whitey" is merely that "No such tape exists."
But actually if you read the whole entry the pushback is stronger than that. "Truth: No such tape exists. Michelle Obama has not spoken from the pulpit at Trinity and has not used that word," it says.
The campaign has even posted a copy of Obama's birth certificate to disprove a whole host of rumors that some apparently feel no compunction about sharing.
(This fits in with a theory we've discussed on this blog before -- that some Republicans seem to feel that the only way they can win this election is by sliming Obama with unfounded innuendo and personal attacks, instead of the ideas, experience, and proposals put forward by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. I do not share that view. In a relatively clean campaign, I think either candidate could win.)
**
For Good Morning America this morning we interviewed Drew Westen, author of "The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation" and a professor of psychology and psychiatry at Emory University.
Watch it HERE.
Westen thinks Obama's website is a "great idea" -- but he thinks it's coming a bit late in the game.
"I would have gone after them (the rumors) the day they first showed up on the internet," Westen told us.
Initially Obama didn't want to deign to respond to the rumors, thinking he would only be giving them credibility and a wider platform.
"That is one of the biggest fallacies in politics that people have had for many years," Westen said, "that if you respond to an attack is somehow your dignifying it. The reality is that if you don't respond to an attack just from the point of view of how our brains work. What you're allowing the other side to do is to shape the associations people have to your candidates in their mind, shape the ideas they gradually form. If you don't offer any counter association, they come to believe those things. And those things will stick."
Westen's study is of the neuropsychology of the brain, and he says the way we're wired, initial impressions mean a great deal -- even if those impressions are false.
"We consciously process information all the time and so when people first hear this information if they don't hear something counter to it, they might think it is credible," Westen said. "They might not they will at least nod along and listen. It does however start to make those impressions subconsciously, people start to form what is called network association interconnected thoughts, images or ideas and feelings about the candidates. Even though three months later you might come back and learn that it's not true, those associations have been well formed. We process information both consciously and unconsciously in fact different parts of the brain are involved."
"Ideally what you don’t want to happen is you don't want to have even a day between the time the other side makes a charge about you, the pundits discuss it, and then you respond. You want to make sure you telescope that process into no more than an hour or two hours max…James Carville once said that 'it's hard for the other guy to talk trash about you when you've got your fist in their mouth.'... I think that is probably a good way of saying the same thing."
You may recall McCain combated some ugly and untrue rumors during his South Carolina primary campaign eight years ago. I wonder how he would have fared if he'd dealt with them differently?
- jpt
June 13, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (237)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
>>>>Crapola | Jun 13, 2008 3:55:35 PM:
_____
Hillary DIDN'T lose!
They tried to force feed Obama to us, and Hillary was forced to the sidelines, BUT IT WAS HILLARY WHO WON THE POPULAR VOTE when Michigan was finally included in the tally!
It is remarkable that despite the pre-selection and push push of Obama by the DNC, Hillary achieved the success that she did..... especially after the media joined the fray and blacked out any positive Clinton news
After that,even the returns of the last primaries were kept from us starting just before Indiana.. .we had to go to BBC to how magnificently Hillary had scored on most of thos subsequent primaries!
Unfortunately though, in this democratic union the popular vote doesn't count.
Besides, our votes, in the guise of supposedly open-minded delegates, went up for sale.
(Mark those delegates open minded, money hungry and biddable to the largest political pocketbook)!!
And look what we lost!
Access to the mind of a brilliant woman who has already brought health care to more than 16,000,000 of our children... and economic solutions which outshine all those left behind on the table.
Hillary's ability to think as she speaks... clearly and sensibly without electronic assistance. Her voice might not sound as dulcet as some.... but it fills us with hope in the form of viable solutions!
The kind of change we can believe in!
And, as a bonus...:
We would have had input from Bill Clinton who despite his apparent impatience with the competitor's smear tactics and the DNC's preferential treatment to it's baby BO, has proven himself to still in command of all of his thinking mechanisms..... the ones
which effected years of prosperity and content for us all.
And speaking of smear tactics...... BO's supporters were the dirtiest and most provocative of any.
They had no scruples and have shown no remorse for the lies and hurt they've slung throughout the internet.... atopical crap which had no business being in an election between two grown-ups!
One of the worst was how they labeled the Clintons "racists"... when they have done and GIVEN more to minorities than Obama has every THOUGHT of doing!
Until Obama, no one ever questioned the friendship and affection of the Clintons for the blacks; in fact, aside from Warren Harding, Bill was jokingly referred to "our first black president".
So why is the anti-smear campaign starting NOW... after they've done so much damage?
Of which of the many stories rounding the bend is B O most afraid?
COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY!!!!!
Posted by: questioner | Jun 13, 2008 6:53:15 PM
Debra, I just announced on the Tim Russert article blog that I will never post again here as I am just too sick of the hate spewed by evil people. I don't think you're evil. We just disagree. I will think of you when Obama wins in November. ;)
Posted by: louielouie | Jun 13, 2008 5:27:17 PM
Posted by: Crapola | Jun 13, 2008 3:04:14 PM
Updated information on the Larry Sinclair Press Conference at the National Press Club next Wed.
Will any MSM show up, or prove themselves yet again to be kool-aid drinkers for Obama? No way any of this could be true...right?
Posted by: Barry
-------
Barry, I looked at this site, then went to the National Press Club to verify it (this may be a foreign concept to many of you). But not a word about this supposed appearance on the NPC website. Could you look there and tell me where it says that he will appear? They have other speakers listed that day...
===========
Sure thing Crapola, check out the calendar for 6/18. Just under the listing for "Is McCain Accountable" and just above the listing for "Boston Consulting Group". Its been on their for a couple of days.
Posted by: Barry | Jun 13, 2008 5:14:02 PM
And Debra, you and I disagree about most everything, but I do appreciate your gracious comments about Tim Russert. There are some awful things being written on the blog of the Political Punch story about his death. Disgusting stuff.
Posted by: louielouie | Jun 13, 2008 5:02:47 PM
Hahahaha, yes Debra, he did misspeak, but I believe the big difference is that he does know that there are 50 states, while McCain seriously does not know the difference between Shia and Sunni.
Even you can't truly believe that the only debates that mattered are the ones you thought Hillary won. I guess the only votes that matter are the ones for Hillary? The only people who matter are the ones who support Hillary? The only states that matter are the ones Hillary won?
Posted by: louielouie | Jun 13, 2008 4:57:05 PM
I STRONGLY BELIEVE HILLARY WILL COME BACK. SOMETHING MAY HAPPEN IN BETWEEN ... SOME EMBARRASSING SCANDALS ....
Posted by: neil1785 | Jun 13, 2008 4:38:51 PM
Why has a major American television network allowed its site to become the Official Headquarters for Obama-Bashing Wing Nuts?
Posted by: Brooklyn Democrat | Jun 13, 2008 4:38:32 PM
GOOGLE: "Black Liberation Theology" ... that's what Obama listened to for 20 years in his church!
Racism is racism (evil), whether it's from blacks or whites.
Posted by: CAL | Jun 13, 2008 4:37:52 PM
Debra, the nation saw 22 debates and elected Obama. You might be a little biased. Not everyone thought he did poorly. We'll see how it goes with McCain, but he'd better bone up on the difference between Shia and Sunni. It's kind of important, you know.
Posted by: louielouie | Jun 13, 2008 4:36:58 PM
louielouie wrote.
"He debated Hillary 22 times and won the primary. It's a fact"
DNC MADE A GRIM DECISION...THE GRAVEST MISTAKE OF ALL TIMES... AFTER THE OBAMA SCANDALS, HILLARY WON IN A STREAK, 9 PRIMARIES AS AGAINST 4 BY OBAMA AND THE TREND WOULD HAVE GO ON THROUGH GENERAL ELECTION IF HILLARY DIDN'T CONCEDE BUT INSTEAD RUN AS EITHER A DEM NOMINEE OR AN INDEPENDENT. PEOPLE WERE ABLE TO CONNECT TO HER DURING THE LAST PRIMARIES.
Posted by: neil1785 | Jun 13, 2008 4:36:20 PM
You can deny it twice and in all caps, Neil1785, but the fact remains: Obama debated Clinton 22 times and won the primary.
Posted by: louielouie | Jun 13, 2008 4:35:07 PM
louielouie wrote.
"He debated Hillary 22 times and won the primary. It's a fact"
THE FACT IS, OBAMA DEBATED HILLARY 22 TIMES AND HILLARY WON 22 TIMES ON THOSE DEBATES. OBAMA WON TEH CAUCUSES AND NOT THE PRIMARIES. OBAMA WAS "SELECTED" BY THE DNC AND NOT "ELECTED" BY THE PEOPLE.
Posted by: neil1785 | Jun 13, 2008 4:32:14 PM
Obama will debate McCain, don't worry. He doesn't have to do it on McCain's terms. For those who claim he is running away or that he ran away from Hillary or that he's a bad debater... He debated Hillary 22 times and won the primary. It's a fact.
Posted by: louielouie | Jun 13, 2008 4:26:24 PM
Crapola,
YES...THEY'RE COMING SOON....MORE SCANDALS FOR OBAMA....THOSE WILL SEAL HIS FATE AND HIS POLITICAL CAREER....
Posted by: neil1785 | Jun 13, 2008 4:08:44 PM
This Bush Admin has people so scared to believe in a good thing when they see it that they would rather play it safe and go for more of the same.
Posted by: Crapola | Jun 13, 2008 4:06:29 PM
neil1785,
I appreciate your concern, but are you talking about scandals more damaging than those brought against President Bush's stolen campaign?
Posted by: Crapola | Jun 13, 2008 4:02:45 PM
Triangleman,
You hit the nail on the head. Thanks.
"Obama is not Muslim. He lived in a muslim country and may have had a Muslim father but he chose Christianity. Whether it is a version of Christianity that is more focused on the Black experience rather than the European Caucasion experience is part of the blessing of freedom of religion in America. By virtue of his associations, Obama can promote diversity and cross-cultural understanding in a way no other candidate can."
Posted by: Crapola | Jun 13, 2008 3:59:40 PM
Crapola,
OBAMA HAS A LOT MORE SERIOUS BAGGAGE THAN HILLARY AND MCCAIN...MAKE THE SECOND THOUGHTS... SUPERDELATES CAN STILL CHANGE THEIR MINDS UNTIL THE DAY BEFORE THE ELECTION IF PROVEN THAT OBAMA'S MORE UPCOMING SCANDALS (WHICH I THINK TEHRE WILL BE MORE TO COME) WILL CRIPPLE HIM AND RENDER HIM TOTALLY NON-ELECTABLE.
Posted by: neil1785 | Jun 13, 2008 3:59:12 PM
What a shock Tim Russert's death is. We've lost a great journalist, way too young. There is little to be proud of in our media these days. Russert was a hero to many of us.
Posted by: louielouie | Jun 13, 2008 3:56:16 PM
BRING TEH CLINTONS BACK TO WHITE HOUSE NOW!!!!
The Bill Clinton administration brought
the U.S. 22 million new jobs and the lowest unemployment since the 1960s. It was an unprecedented period of peace and prosperity. Alot of very bad stuff could have happened but didn't because he just did the job well. It may take a little more time for folks to truly understand how extraordinarily well he did and how hard that job is. Hillary would have grown our economy with the new green industries, which equaled jobs, better environment and far less reliance on foreign energy. Neither one of these guys will do as well on the economy as Hillary would have.
obama,
Whatever promises and pledges you make about salvaging the economy, they will fall on deaf ears. Don''t you know why Senator Clinton earned 18 MILLION votes? Then I''ll be happy to fill you in. The economy was never so GREAT as when William Jefferson Clinton was in power.
When he was harrassed and stalked by that Stupid Bimbo, Monique what''s her face, Bill soldierded on, and the economy did not falter. That is what I call showing courage in the face of adversity. I was among millions of people, who wanted this POINTLESS WITCH HUNT of President Clinton to cease, and indeed, the American People did not suffer any ill effect from this senseless onslaught of Clinton, who continued fighting hard to keep the economy STRONG AND RESILLIENT.
Obama, look at yourself in the mirror. You possess neither the FLAIR, PANACHE, NOR THE WISDOM That Bill Clinton had, and you will ot be able to salvage the decrepid state of the American economy.
What this economy desperately needed was another CLINTON to salvage it. Now it will fall into the hands of Senator McCain, who is far more capable and qualified to salvage it than you are.
obama......dream on, and on and.......
Clinton didn''t salvage the economy with pinache, he salvaged it with sensible policy.
The same policies are needed now. We need to practice fiscal discipline by paying for programs as we go. Lowering the deficit will decrease the government footprint in the capital markets and help business and consumers.
We need to adopt tax policies which share the burden fairly and expect that those who benefit the most from society(the wealthy)are not given breaks which the rest of us have to pay for. We need to help those struggling to make ends meet by not adding to their burden.
We need to make wise investments to create jobs where they''re needed. 2/3 of all job growth since 2001 has been in health care and education. As the populations of retirees needing healthcare and school age children needing educational opportunities grows, it doesn''t take a rocket scientist to recognize where te investments need to be made to get America working again in jobs that can''t be outsourced. Republicans are not rocket scientists.
The Democrats support the policies which gave us peace and prosperity in the 1990s and those same policies will bring us back in the next decade.
The Clinton's as far as I remember had the best economic record ever in the history of the United States. That's not too bad, as far as the rest, the petty matters...? I'm not too concerned with them. Barack Obama is going to have serious problems without the Clintons. personally, I would advise Hillary to let B fall on his own. So that she can comeback and run again 2012. B could lose by a pretty wide margin if these "momentum stats" of the last half of the primaries continue to ring true. It reminds me very much when the democrats voted Joe Liebermann out and the people voted him back in again. There's a possibility of this happening, even in the face of these overwhelming historic odds. What else would explain these incredibly close polling numbers? John McCain is in a statistical tie for the White House. This should not be. FDR blew his competition right out of the water. Why aren't the stats reflecting the historic politikal in balance?
Posted by: neil1785 | Jun 13, 2008 3:55:42 PM
Post a comment


