Worms, Trojans and Clinton

The first item in my news feed this afternoon was this clip of an Al-Jezeera interview with Barack Obama’s Kenyan step-grandmother. Lots of mentions of his “Muslim family” origins, nice shot of his father’s headstone (who shares his name) and of course, much pride from step-grandma about how a ‘native son’ has made good in America.

None of it is bad. None of it paints Barack Obama in a negative light. On its face, it’s all light and sweetness. Sort of like that helpful popup window telling you that there might be a virus on your computer. But when you click on that helpful message, it infects your computer with an insidious virus, worm or trojan that chews your system files from the inside out, spewing all sorts of spam, your credit card numbers, and other personal data into the hands of criminals.

Stay with me here. Another report just popped up saying that of the anti-Obama Democrats, 25% of them believe he is a Muslim.

The Al Jazeera video was posted by Link TV, which on its face, looks like a solid progressive organization. Obama aide Susan Rice was once a director of Internews. Internews is LinkTV’s partner and sponsor of LinkMedia, the non-profit organization that runs LinkTV. Think of this interwoven organizational structure relationship as the helpful popop ad, lying to you.

The obvious question is this: Why would an organization seeking to do good, solid, progressive things post a video from February 6th which subtly reminds the audience that: a) Barack Obama is a black guy; and b) Barack Obama has African family with Muslim-in-name-only associations?

David Michaelis is the Director of Current Affairs at Link TV. David Michaelis is the board liason between Internews and LinkTV too.

David Michaelis is a hefty contributor to Hillary Clinton and has been for some time.

Reviewing the bidding here for a minute:

  1. Big Clinton donors send extortion letter to Nancy Pelosi. (Be sure to read that link, lots of great info about those donors)
  2. Clinton revives the Jeremiah Wright dead horse, reinforcing the “he’s a black guy, be afraid” vulnerability in Pennsylvania voters.
  3. On the other side, Clinton donors release the backdoor trojan, an interview slyly giving rise to the fears of those anti-Obama Democrats that are sure he’s Muslim.
  4. Clinton stands at a rally and reassures the entire country that we will reunite once the nominee is selected, firmly placing herself right in the middle of two opposite fears.

Barack Obama a Muslim or a Black Extremist? Doesn’t matter to Clinton, because she’s right in the middle of either position, like any good moderate should be.

This is why Hillary has lost the nomination, and it is why she deserved to lose the nomination. This is triangulation, the art of creating two extremes and then appearing moderate, while watching the worm work its way through the press slowly, subtly, first slowing them down a bit before the payload hits, and they go off, shredding and melting down any fact while feeding the ignorance of the electorate lapping at the Limbaugh trough.

All of this goes to prove that Samantha Power was right. Hillary Clinton is a monster. Or perhaps more to my metaphor, malware.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Published by


I'm a 50-something, card-carrying white middle class Democrat, Christian mom of three who abhors just about everything the Republicans stand for. War, bigotry, hypocrisy and hate are un-American.

20 thoughts on “Worms, Trojans and Clinton”

  1. Delegates they should of done away with them. Since they are in effect they should be able to vote any way they want accorrding to party rules.

    Caucus are a stupid Democrat thing also. If they did not exist such as the Republican winner takes all delegates. Hillary would of already won by a landslide.

  2. Democrats wanted the Suer Delegates but they should of done away with them. Since they are in effect they should be able to vote any way they want accorrding to party rules.

    Caucus are a stupid Democrat thing also. If they did not exist such as the Republican winner takes all delegates. Hillary would of already won by a landslide.

  3. Very interesting comparison and analysis of a political tactic. I am a registered Republican but my positions make me more of a Libertarian. After things settled with the current candidates I supported Obama mostly because of the atmosphere of optimism. Now after the reverend Wright controversy I am afraid of the ties to Jesse Jackson, Farrakan and the anti Italian, anti Israeli, and anti white hateful atmosphere that has been rightly shown to the public. Where will I go now, certainly not “I wanted to join the Marines” “I was named after Sir Edmund Hillary” “gee thanks for that money your giving me of my earnings that I never invested in”
    back to an uninspiring John McCain and wait another four years for the candidate I can really get behind.

  4. Excellent analysis of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s strategies. He willingness to engage in such strategies has earned her the distrust of a substantial and growing portion of the electorate.
    Regarding caucuses, had caucuses not existed, Barack Obama would not have invested time, energy and resources in them. He would have invested those resources in the approach to delegate selection that did exist.
    Given the downward trajectory of Ms. Clinton’s approval ratings and other outcomes, it is reasonable to argue that the outcome would have been essentially the same. She was doomed by her personality, not caucuses.
    If through some fluke she still wins the Democratic nomination, her untrustworthiness will prevent even McCain’s absent-mindedness from keeping him out of the oval office.
    At this point, the Democratic Party might be better off to run that fabled yellow dog for president than to offer Ms. Clinton to the voting public.

  5. sibby,

    I would urge you to look more carefully at the Reverend Wright statements and most particularly to take them in full context. He is no more anti-Israeli than Hagee is. I understand how all of the spin around him can suggest negatives, but I’d also say that unless those negatives can be proven and not insinuated, it’s worth keeping an open mind.


    If I’m faced with the choice of a compulsive liar or an absent-minded clueless guy, it’ll be tough for me, too. I’m still a believer in truth being more powerful than lies and innuendo, but I’d like to see some truth-telling on the part of the cable folks too.


  7. Al Sharpton: What does “would of” mean?

    I think it means “would’ve”… which is a contraction of “would have” (look up “contraction” if you don’t know what that means, you dolt) There is no such phrase as “would of”!!!

  8. Al Sharpton: What could “would of” possibly mean?

    I think it means “would’ve”… which is a contraction of “would have” (look up “contraction” if you don’t know what that means, you dolt) There is no such phrase as “would of”!!!

  9. Oh, for heaven’s sake. What a noise about nothing. Especially when the media and practically everyone else as a result of bad education carefully say “I” when it should be “me”. As in, “They gave George and I a dinner.” You would never say, “They gave I a dinner” but somehow adding another person changes basic grammar. Not. Or TV announcers pronouncing Colorado as if all four vowels have the same pronunciation. Same with Halloween, which is now pronounced with a Latin “a” as in Hollow, although one would never say All Hollows Day. Or, “Like I say,” for god’s sake. They can’t get anything right, but no one calls them on it, perhaps because they don’t know the difference.

    In today’s world, thought, such minor issues need to be left for later, when maybe humanity won’t survive the decade, when billions go hungry and/or sick, when male violence is amok across the face of the earth and no one even puts a name to it (see: school violence, gun violence, teen violence, marketplace violence, anything in fact except the obvious: male violence).

  10. Yeah, there are lots of things like that… one is, “I could care less,” which doesn’t really make sense; it should be, “I couldn’t care less.” Does anyone really care? Probably not… Of course, there are much greater and vital issues that need the world’s attention, and you’re certainly right that this is not going to change the world…

    But I don’t really consider it a “noise about nothing.” The less people care about grammar and spelling, the poorer we become as a society. The depth of thought needed to create meaningful communication, and the resulting understanding that comes with it, is lost, and much of the expressive power of language continues to be diminished.

    This has been going on for decades, of course. As a society, we no longer speak or write very well. What does that say about us, and the abilities we have lost?

    So occasionally, I think it’s important for someone to say something, even if it’s considered by some as “noise about nothing.” Some of us, who have been saddened to observe the steady deterioration of our society’s language skills, just don’t feel that way.

  11. How did a discussion around smearing candidates end up being a debate over grammar? I’m a bit of a spelling and grammar nut myself, but not to the extent of caring if someone writes the perfectly composed comment. How about moving back to the topic?

  12. You got it so wrong. First, Link TV is a great channel – browse their programming guide. Friends and supporters (who let their faces be on the Link TV site, asking for support for the channel) include Harry Belafonte, Danny Glover and Dave Mathews – wow, what a bunch of evil anti-Obamaites! Second, I know David Michaelis of link TV. He lives in San Francisco, and the link you provided to David Michaelis, the “hefty contributor” to Clinton, shows TWO DIFFERENT David Michaelis’s, one in DC and one in New York! Wow get yer facts straight

  13. Rose, the more I dig, the more the road leads back to Clinton. If you can supply a link that shows me wrong I’ll gladly correct what I said. Haven’t found it yet, though.

  14. Karoli,

    I used the very complicated journalist technique of googling “David Michaelis”, and got this, about the real David Michaelis, on a blog called Intrepid Liberal Journal. This is him, his photo and bio:


    Then I clicked the link YOU provided above, called “hefty contributor” and performed another trick only journalists know about – I SCROLLED DOWN the page, and found the contribution details. These may or may not be one person who moved from DC to NY, but not our David of SF; as a self-described self-employed writer he/them cant work for Link TV. Oh right, maybe he was lying to hide his “hefty contributions” to Clinton, since hes probably really embarrassed that as a democrat, he gave $8000 over 2 years (and he gave $1000 to Evan Bayh).

    I ask you if it makes sense to conduct sloppy investigations, and jump to paranoid conclusions, not even about McCAIN but about a fellow democrat? I hope anyone who takes you seriously stops reading this blog unless you apologize for the mistakes you have made.

    Name & Location Employer/Occupation Dollar Amount

    Michaelis, David Self/Writer $2,000 08/21/2006 PHILL PAC
    WASHINGTON, DC 20007
    NEW YORK, NY 10024 WHITEHOUSE 06 – Democrat
    NEW YORK, NY 10024 WHITEHOUSE 06 – Democrat
    MICHAELIS, DAVID T SELF/WRITER $1,000 12/27/2005
    MICHAELIS, DAVID T SELF/WRITER $1,900 09/13/2005
    MICHAELIS, DAVID T SELF/WRITER $2,000 08/16/2005

  15. Rose,

    Sarcasm aside, compare the photo on the blog you linked (which I also saw) with the photo on his most recent resume here and the David Michaelis blog here. The contribution dates dovetail quite nicely with his transition from writer/producer to board member at Link TV, because he is would now be precluded from making political contributions in the 2008 election cycle by virtue of his service on a 501(c)(3) organization.

    The pictures prove they are the same person, and the blog is further proof.

    This isn’t new in politics. Surrogates in the media and press do this all the time, and yeah, fellow Democrats do it to fellow Democrats because somehow they can push it all down when it’s said and done and kiss and make up.

    You are right — a little investigation and Google work comes in handy. I did mine, and at this point I’d say the one who should apologize is YOU, not me.

  16. Oh yeah I forgot a couple things:

    – David is not an American. With your profound investigative skills, you might find that non-Americans cant make political contributions.
    – He is Israeli. Lest this spin your paranoid wheels, he is a long-time member of Peace Now. The post I sent you to describes a film he made with his Palestinian colleague.
    – He is an ardent supporter of Barack Obama (althuogh he cant vote, as he is not an American). I can vote and did, for Obama.
    – David is very amused and flattered that you think he is so important.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *