Coulter Ups Violent Rhetoric on Obama

Posted April 24, 2008 | 12:50 PM (EST)

Although Ann Coulter originally achieved fame as a right-wing pundit by talking about President Clinton's  on national TV, since 9/11 she has turned most of her attention to framing Democrats as terrorists.

During one TV spot in 2003, Coulter said, "Liberals...want there to be lots of 9/11s" (see Outright Barbarous, 74-75), followed by an entire book (Treason) in which she argued that the goal of Liberalism is the destruction of American civil society -- the violent idea that frames most of Coulter's writing since 2002.

Lately, Coulter has focused her violent rhetoric at Sen. Barack Obama, in particular on spreading the defamatory idea that the sitting Senator and leading candidate for president is a terrorist. Coulter kicked this rhetoric into high-gear in her Apr 23 column which includes the line:

"Obama pals around with terrorists."

Coulter's Violent Framing of Obama: First Hitler, Then Terrorism
Ever since Sen. Obama became the likely 2008 nominee for the Democratic Party, Coulter has been trying to define him in the minds of her listeners as a Muslim terrorist.  She has done this by referring to him as "B. Hussein Obama" and by making endless jokes suggesting that he is in fact a terrorist, in addition to equating Sen. Obama with Hitler.

In her Apr 3, 2008 appearance on FOX's Hannity and Co., Coulter cited Sen. Obama's autobiography Dreams of My Father as evidence that he will become as dangerous as Adolf Hitler:

COULTER: Because -- the topic we were supposed to be talking about in this segment, Sean, my column this week. I'm the only person in America who has read Obama's biography.

COLMES: As a matter of fact...

COULTER: He has a racial hair-trigger, a complete loon. All he talks about is constantly being offended. And Mr. Unity attacks Sean Hannity and me.

COLMES: You said in your piece...

(CROSSTALK)

COLMES: We only have a second left. You said, if only -- you might want to take a peek at Obama when he writes, if only people had read "Mein Kampf." So in other words he would be as dangerous as Hitler?

COULTER: No. He's a dime store "Mein Kampf."

COLMES: Oh, he's a two-bit Hitler?

COULTER: Yes. It is absolute racialist. If you read "Mein Kampf."

COLMES: I see.

COULTER: It's all about his Germanic heritage. And this is -- OK, go read it if you don't believe me. Read the Cliff Notes version in my column.

COLMES: We should have be as wary of Obama as they should have been of Hitler in Nazi Germany?

COULTER: If only people had read "Mein Kampf." (LexisNexis)

Coulter also published her accusation that Obama will become the next Hitler in her syndicated column of Apr 3.

Taken together, Coulter's column and her appearance on FOX broadcast to millions of voters the blatantly false idea that Sen. Obama's writing shared something in common with Hitler's and that his autobiography suggested that Sn. Obama would behave like Hitler if elected President -- meaning that he would launch a genocidal program against non-African Americans.

Just to be clear, Coulter's Apr 3 column and FOX appearance (1) equated Sen. Obama with the most notorious genocidal dictator of modern history, (2) this accusation went out to millions of Americans, (3) there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for Coulter's assertions, and (4) it was never redressed by any watchdog group as being in violation of broadcast standards.

More recently, Coulter has turned to defining Sen. Obama as a  terrorist by dropping the end of his first name and referring to him as "B. Hussein Obama."  In addition to the Hitler smear, this framing also implies that Obama has a violent agenda that he will unleash on the American people.

Yesterday's column by Coulter opens up a second level in the 'terrorist' frame by equating Sen. Obama with the violent tactics of the 1970s group The Weathermen.  In addition to publishing the lie that Obama is 'pals' with The Weathermen --  Coulter also included the flagrant and defamatory lie that Obama specifically makes political alliances with people because they have committed acts of violence against the American government:

If he had only said he bombed the building in Oklahoma City to protest American "imperialism," McVeigh, too, could be teaching at Northwestern University, sitting on a board with and holding fundraisers for presidential candidate B. Hussein Obama.

The "he" in this case refers to Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma  City bomber.

Coulter's strategy for framing Obama in violent terms takes on a new depth in her latest column.  And as tends to be Coulter's pattern, the violent rhetoric she unfolds in her syndicated column will likely be broadcast to exponentially more viewers through an appearance on FOX.

Important To Shine A Light on This Problem
Many Americans are quick to dismiss this kind of language from Coulter as insignificant and not worth even noting.

To skeptics, I would simply point to the fact that Ann Coulter is one of the most dominant voices in American political media.  Coulter currently has multiple best-selling books on the Amazon.com ranking page, appears regularly on broadcast TV, and has the backing of a massive right-wing publishing and PR machine that promotes her work as part of a larger strategy to control political debate.

Why Hillary is still eating Obama's dust

Thursday, April 24th 2008, 9:37 AM

Raedle/Getty

Hillary Clinton addresses a crowd in Indianapolis on Wednesday.

Hillary Clinton says she is the one to fix everything, which these days means fixing only one thing: a Republican economy that has looted the country. Then, almost in the next breath, she acts as if she is willing to open a lemonade stand to keep her campaign going.

The way things are going for her - because she will say or do anything to be the Democratic nominee - her latest commercial message in Indiana and North Carolina will probably go something like this: "You're all in debt, but don't worry ... so am I!"

She raised more than $200 million to run for President. It wasn't nearly enough, and yet she continues to tell the voters and the country that she is the one who will put money back into everybody's pockets. Her own people issue press releases that trumpet her "commitment to jump-starting our economy" when she can't even jump-start her own.

Barack Obama has been better organized, raised more money, won more states, gained more delegates and had a better strategy than Clinton from the start.

On the other side, Mark Penn is gone as the chief "strategist" of the Clinton campaign and Patti Solis Doyle is long gone as campaign manager. Through it all, Clinton continues to run on the idea that she is ready "day one" to be President, when she wasn't ready on day one for a rookie like Obama.

If she had been, she wouldn't be in the rabbit hole she's in now. She would have put Obama away the way the front-loaded, Super Tuesday system was designed for her to put everybody away early. She is supposed to be the one with the great sweeping plan for America, and she didn't have one for Obama. Now she is where she is and so is her campaign.

So the Democrats don't run against John McCain or against the ruling party that has given us this President, the biggest lightweight and most unpopular of anybody's lifetime. The Democrats don't run against record disapproval ratings for a Republican President and record foreclosures and record oil and gas prices. They don't run to help people struggling to keep their cars on the road and a roof over their families' heads. They continue to run against each other. The campaign is about the campaign.

The wrestling show isn't the one we had with "Monday Night Raw" and those Obama and Clinton impersonators. The wrestling show is the real thing, with no end in sight. In a reality-TV world, people seem to keep voting to keep the show on the air.

Greg Craig, who comes out of the law firm of Williams and Connolly in Washington, was the coordinator of Bill Clinton's impeachment defense 10 years ago and is now a senior adviser with the Obama campaign. Yesterday he spoke about the campaign the Clintons have run against Obama, making it clear he wasn't speaking for the candidate, just for himself.

"They have run an intensely negative campaign on all fronts," Craig said. "And for them to pretend otherwise is in itself a misrepresentation of the truth."

Unless, of course, you are willing to say anything to get what you want. And what Hillary Clinton wants is for the whole thing to come down to the superdelegates. She plays to them, loudly, the way Ethel Merman used to play to the balcony. They are all she has left.

This system was tailor-made for her by Terry McAuliffe when he was running the Democratic National Committee, before he became Clinton's boy cheerleader. She had the name, the money, she was favored everywhere; the whole thing was supposed to be like a first-round knockout.

But the candidate who was supposed to have all the answers didn't have an answer for Obama.

Now she talks about "who would be the best candidate against McCain," as if only the superdelegates should get to decide, as if she wants this to be selection by committee. As if this is the NCAA basketball tournament.

So they slouch toward Indiana and North Carolina. She can't win, and won't quit. Maybe in two weeks. Clearly she and her finger-wagging husband, who makes Richard Nixon look like a model of grace as an ex-President, still can't believe it ever came to this.

You are allowed to be as cynical as you want about Obama, and ask the same question Clinton asks about why he can't put her away, even though a much better question is why she didn't put him away at the start of this.

Obama has a vision about how big politics should change in this country. Clinton IS big politics, but her vision is getting back on Air Force One.

The Clintonistas, especially the ones in the media, talk constantly about how she keeps changing the "narrative." But despite her victory in Pennsylvania, the narrative doesn't change any more than the math does.

Here is that narrative for Hillary Clinton: If I can't beat Obama, I couldn't care less if John McCain does.

Dems On North Carolina GOP Attack Ad: "Racist Gutter Politics"

Posted April 23, 2008 | 05:29 PM (EST)

Calling the attack ad "racist and gutter politics," the Democratic Party reacted to a North Carolina GOP attack ad that features Reverend Wright and that calls Barack Obama "extreme." The ad is drawing harsh criticism from both sides of the political aisle.

In an exclusive to Huffingtonpost by the leading Democratic presidential nominee, Senator Barack Obama said, "Well, my understanding is that the Republican National Committee and John McCain have both said the ad is inappropriate. I take them at their word. And I assume that if John McCain thinks that it's an inappropriate ad that he can get them to pull it down since he's their nominee and standard-bearer."

This is the first day of early primary voting in North Carolina and the Tar Heel (Hell) GOP wasted no time unleashing their first attack ad of the season against the near-presumptive Democratic presidential nominee from Illinois and two of his North Carolinian supporters -- Bev Perdue and Richard Moore -- both of whom are vying for their party's gubernatorial nomination.

The state GOP describes the ad on its website as an "Extreme Ad."

The spot opens with the voiceover: "For 20 years, Barack Obama sat in his pew listening to his pastor" then shows the oft-repeated Reverend Wright "God Damn, America" video clip followed by more voiceover: "Now Bev Perdue and Richard Moore endorse Barack Obama. They should know better. He's just too extreme for North Carolina."

A sweet looking older lady, North Carolina GOP Chairwoman Linda Daves, delivers the last swipe of the spot: "The North Carolina Republican Party sponsored this ad opposing Bev Perdue and Richard Moore for North Carolina Governor."

Bev Perdue, the current North Carolina Lt. Governor, told Huffingtonpost, "It's just more gutter politics that voters will see right through. The ad has absolutely nothing to do with North Carolina and is just a distraction from the real issues facing our state."

Richard Moore was traveling today with his press secretary and had not yet responded to our request for a statement.

John McCain released a letter sent to Linda Daves and her state party "imploring her not to run" the ad stating, "This ad does not live up to the very high standards we should hold ourselves to in this campaign...We need to not engage in political tactics that only seek to divide the American people...Once again, it is imperative that you withdraw this offensive advertisement."

"It's the height of hypocrisy that the NC GOP would start running this racist ad even as John McCain tours African-American communities this week, pretending to be a different brand of Republican politics," said Jerry Meek, North Carolina Democratic Party Chairman in a press release denouncing the "divisive ad."

Meek wants McCain to do more than just send a letter to Daves. In his press release, he said, "While we appreciate Senator McCain's willingness to keep the campaign on higher ground, he should have acted sooner. News of this story has been buzzing for the past 24 hours. If McCain really wanted North Carolina Republicans to be worthy of the principles he believes, he could have picked up the phone and called Ms. Daves."

What are Republicans doing sticking their noses into a Democratic primary race, anyway?

"Yeah, it's weird because they usually don't start sliming us until the general election, but the Republican Party in North Carolina isn't in good shape. They're probably using the ad as a way to raise money. That's what they usually do. This is just a sign of things to come," said one long-time Democratic operative working for a statewide candidate in Raleigh.

The NC GOP has yet to purchase any buys for the attack ad. It's running on YouTube and will doubtless be seen for free on the network news and political shows with talking heads who have time on their hands to fill before the May 6 primaries in North Carolina and Indiana.

Ed Rendell, Clinton Surrogate, Passionately Praised Farrakhan In 1997

April 21, 2008 01:28 PM

At last Tuesday's Democratic debate, Sen. Hillary Clinton drew out her objections to Sen. Barack Obama's relationship with his former pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright, saying that what troubled her was not just Wright's incendiary language, but his past praise for Louis Farrakhan, the controversial head of the Nation of Islam.

"It is clear that, as leaders, we have a choice who we associate with and who we apparently give some kind of seal of approval to," said Clinton. "And I think that it wasn't only the specific remarks but some of the relationships with Reverend Farrakhan, with giving the church bulletin over to the leader of Hamas, to put a message in."

But if an association to Farrakhan troubles Clinton, she may need to focus her attention and criticisms on one of her most prominent Pennsylvania supporters.

In April 1997, Ed Rendell -- then the mayor of Philadelphia and currently the governor of Pennsylvania and a major Clinton surrogate -- delivered a passion-filled speech lauding the work of Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam.

"I would like to thank the Nation of Islam here in Philadelphia," Rendell said to the crowd, as Farrakhan looked on approvingly. "To thank you for what you stand for and what you stand for all the good it does to so many people in Philadelphia. And if there is anybody out here... who doesn't know, this is a faith that has as its principles, the family. This is a faith that doesn't just talk about family values, it lives family values. This is a faith where men respect their women and children and they manifest that faith by staying in the home with them. This is a faith that doesn't just talk about being against drugs but is out there every single day and night fighting against drugs. This is a faith that just doesn't talk about the value of education, it imbues in their children and schools that education is the way to opportunity."

Those words strike a similar tone to the compliments that Wright himself bestowed upon Farrakhan in a Trumpet Magazine article in November and December of 2007.

"When Minister Farrakhan speaks, Black America listens," said the Reverend. "Everybody may not agree with him, but they listen ... His depth on analysis when it comes to the racial ills of this nation is astounding and eye opening. He brings a perspective that is helpful and honest... Minister Farrakhan will be remembered as one of the 20th and 21st century giants of the African American religious experience."

Of course, Clinton's issue with Farrakhan is not merely that the Nation of Islam leader has a relationship to Obama's old pastor and church. It's that Farrakhan himself has publicly praised the Illinois Democrat. But when Clinton held this over Obama's head during a late February Democratic debate, she again used words and phrasing that could very well apply to Rendell.

"There's a difference between denouncing and rejecting," she said. "And I think when it comes to this sort of, you know, inflammatory -- I have no doubt that everything that Barack just said is absolutely sincere. But I just think, we've got to be even stronger. We cannot let anyone in any way say these things because of the implications that they have, which can be so far reaching."

At issue is Farrakhan past remarks which have been widely criticized as anti-Semitic, including calling Judaism a "gutter religion." Obama has both "denounced and rejected" Farrakhan's praise for his candidacy. While, in contrast, Rendell, back in 1997, touted the need to reach out to the Nation of Islam so as to bridge the cultural and racial divides within cities.

Monday, April 21st, 2008
My Vote's for Obama (if I could vote) ...by Michael Moore

Friends,

I don't get to vote for President this primary season. I live in Michigan. The party leaders (both here and in D.C.) couldn't get their act together, and thus our votes will not be counted.

So, if you live in Pennsylvania, can you do me a favor? Will you please cast my vote -- and yours -- on Tuesday for Senator Barack Obama?

I haven't spoken publicly 'til now as to who I would vote for, primarily for two reasons: 1) Who cares?; and 2) I (and most people I know) don't give a rat's _ _ _  whose name is on the ballot in November, as long as there's a picture of JFK and FDR riding a donkey at the top of the ballot, and the word "Democratic" next to the candidate's name.

Seriously, I know so many people who don't care if the name under the Big "D" is Dancer, Prancer, Clinton or Blitzen. It can be Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Barry Obama or the Dalai Lama.

Well, that sounded good last year, but over the past two months, the actions and words of Hillary Clinton have gone from being merely disappointing to downright disgusting. I guess the debate last week was the final straw. I've watched Senator Clinton and her husband play this game of appealing to the worst side of white people, but last Wednesday, when she hurled the name "Farrakhan" out of nowhere, well that's when the silly season came to an early end for me. She said the "F" word to scare white people, pure and simple. Of course, Obama has no connection to Farrakhan. But, according to Senator Clinton, Obama's pastor does -- AND the "church bulletin" once included a Los Angeles Times op-ed from some guy with Hamas! No, not the church bulletin!

This sleazy attempt to smear Obama was brilliantly explained the following night by Stephen Colbert. He pointed out that if Obama is supported by Ted Kennedy, who is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is led by a Pope who was in the Hitler Youth, that can mean only one thing: OBAMA LOVES HITLER!

Yes, Senator Clinton, that's how you sounded. Like you were nuts. Like you were a bigot stoking the fires of stupidity. How sad that I would ever have to write those words about you. You have devoted your life to good causes and good deeds. And now to throw it all away for an office you can't win unless you smear the black man so much that the superdelegates cry "Uncle (Tom)" and give it all to you.

But that can't happen. You cast your die when you voted to start this bloody war. When you did that you were like Moses who lost it for a moment and, because of that, was prohibited from entering the Promised Land.

How sad for a country that wanted to see the first woman elected to the White House. That day will come -- but it won't be you. We'll have to wait for the current Democratic governor of Kansas to run in 2016 (you read it here first!).

There are those who say Obama isn't ready, or he's voted wrong on this or that. But that's looking at the trees and not the forest. What we are witnessing is not just a candidate but a profound, massive public movement for change. My endorsement is more for Obama The Movement than it is for Obama the candidate.

That is not to take anything away from this exceptional man. But what's going on is bigger than him at this point, and that's a good thing for the country. Because, when he wins in November, that Obama Movement is going to have to stay alert and active. Corporate America is not going to give up their hold on our government just because we say so. President Obama is going to need a nation of millions to stand behind him.

I know some of you will say, 'Mike, what have the Democrats done to deserve our vote?' That's a damn good question. In November of '06, the country loudly sent a message that we wanted the war to end. Yet the Democrats have done nothing. So why should we be so eager to line up happily behind them?

I'll tell you why. Because I can't stand one more friggin' minute of this administration and the permanent, irreversible damage it has done to our people and to this world. I'm almost at the point where I don't care if the Democrats don't have a backbone or a kneebone or a thought in their dizzy little heads. Just as long as their name ain't "Bush" and the word "Republican" is not beside theirs on the ballot, then that's good enough for me.

I, like the majority of Americans, have been pummeled senseless for 8 long years. That's why I will join millions of citizens and stagger into the voting booth come November, like a boxer in the 12th round, all bloodied and bruised with one eye swollen shut, looking for the only thing that matters -- that big "D" on the ballot.

Don't get me wrong. I lost my rose-colored glasses a long time ago.

It's foolish to see the Democrats as anything but a nicer version of a party that exists to do the bidding of the corporate elite in this country. Any endorsement of a Democrat must be done with this acknowledgement and a hope that one day we will have a party that'll represent the people first, and laws that allow that party an equal voice.

Finally, I want to say a word about the basic decency I have seen in Mr. Obama. Mrs. Clinton continues to throw the Rev. Wright up in his face as part of her mission to keep stoking the fears of White America. Every time she does this I shout at the TV, "Say it, Obama! Say that when she and her husband were having marital difficulties regarding Monica Lewinsky, who did she and Bill bring to the White House for 'spiritual counseling?' THE REVEREND JEREMIAH WRIGHT!"

But no, Obama won't throw that at her. It wouldn't be right. It wouldn't be decent. She's been through enough hurt. And so he remains silent and takes the mud she throws in his face.

That's why the crowds who come to see him are so large. That's why he'll take us down a more decent path. That's why I would vote for him if Michigan were allowed to have an election.

But the question I keep hearing is... 'can he win? Can he win in November?' In the distance we hear the siren of the death train called the Straight Talk Express. We know it's possible to hear the words "President McCain" on January 20th. We know there are still many Americans who will never vote for a black man. Hillary knows it, too. She's counting on it.

Pennsylvania, the state that gave birth to this great country, has a chance to set things right. It has not had a moment to shine like this since 1787 when our Constitution was written there. In that Constitution, they wrote that a black man or woman was only "three fifths" human. On Tuesday, the good people of Pennsylvania have a chance for redemption.