Barack Obama is no soclialist. Take it from an actual card-carrying member of the party. – By Billy Wharton

Excerpts:

During his campaign, the ever-desperate McCain, his hard-charging running mate Sarah Palin and even a plumber named Joe lined up to call Barack Obama a “socialist.” Last month, Huckabee even exclaimed that, “The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics may be dead, but the Union of American Socialist Republics is being born.”

We appreciated the newfound attention. But we also cringed as the debate took on the hysterical tone of a farcical McCarthyism. The question “Is Obama a socialist?” spread rapidly through a network of rightwing blogs, conservative television outlets and alarmist radio talk shows and quickly moved into the mainstream. “We Are All Socialists Now,” declared a Newsweek cover last month. A New York Times reporter recently pinned Obama down with the question, “Are you a socialist, as some people have suggested?” The normally unflappable politician stumbled through a response so unconvincing that it required a follow-up call in which Obama claimed impeccable free market credentials.

The funny thing is, of course, that socialists know that Barack Obama is not one of us. Not only is he not a socialist, he may in fact not even be a liberal. Socialists understand him more as a hedge-fund Democrat — one of a generation of neoliberal politicians firmly committed to free-market policies.

The first clear indication that Obama is not, in fact, a socialist, is the way his administration is avoiding structural changes to the financial system. Nationalization is simply not in the playbook of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and his team. They favor costly, temporary measures that can easily be dismantled should the economy stabilize. Socialists support nationalization and see it as a means of creating a banking system that acts like a highly regulated public utility. The banks would then cease to be sinkholes for public funds or financial versions of casinos and would become essential to reenergizing productive sectors of the economy.

| Read More |

Morris concludes Obama is an “incompetent socialist,” and NEO-NAZI Sean ‘Klannity’ gleefully agrees with him. Hannity replies, “I told you so”

….and Media repeatedly declare that Obama’s “honeymoon” is “over” — but the cliché lives on

A Media Matters analysis found that since the day after President Obama’s inauguration, broadcast and cable news figures have been stating that Obama’s “honeymoon” is “over” or questioning whether it is, rendering the cliché all but meaningless. During this period, media figures have suggested Obama’s “honeymoon” is “over” with respect to “some … die-hard Republicans,” the media, African-Americans, Cuban President Fidel Castro, “Republican critics of his economic recovery plan,” and economists.

What Honeymoon? — Media Prostitutes Weigh In

| Read more |

———————————————————————————————————————————

———————————————————————————————————————————

1. Previous Episodes: http://www.factcheck.org/justarchive/
2. Fact Check Archive: http://www.factcheck.org/archive/

• FactChecking McCain — September 5, 2008 | He made some flubs in accepting the nomination.

• GOP Convention Spin PART 1 — September 3, 2008 | Lieberman and Thompson make misleading claims about Obama on Day Two of the party in St. Paul.

• GOP Convention Spin PART 2 — Palin trips up on her facts, and Giuliani and Huckabee have their own stumbles on Night 3 of the Republican confab.

Primaries ‘08: The highlight reel

Video: Countdown takes a look back at the highs and lows of the 5-month 2008 primary season. And to think, this was just spring training…

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Does Hillary Clinton really believe she can overtake Barack Obama among elected delegates? No way. The math is dead against her and she’s a realist. Even after Pennsylvania, Obama still leads by more than 140 in elected delegates. They’ll likely break even in Indiana and he’ll win North Carolina where one third of the vote is African-American. After that? If she wins Kentucky, West Virginia, and Puerto Rico by 15 points and they break about even in Guam, North Dakota, Montana, and Oregon, she’ll still trail him by at least 130 votes among elected delegates.

Does she believe she can persuade super delegates to vote for her? Again, probably not. Obama has steadily eroded her edge among super delegates and now they are almost tied among committed super delegates. And the prevailing sentiment among those that remain is not to overturn the will of the voters.

So why is Hillary still running so hard? Why is she especially focused on pushing up Obama’s negatives?

Until the last vote is counted on June 3rd, we can chalk up her persistence to determination, courage and sheer obstinacy. But if she persists in her candidacy after the last primary, we must begin to consider whether she has an ulterior motive.

Does Hillary want to beat up Obama so that he can’t win the general election in November, assuring McCain of the presidency so that she can have a clear field to run again in 2012? Obviously, if Obama beats McCain, Hillary is out of the picture until 2016, by which time, at 69 years old, she might be too old to run. But if McCain wins, she would have to be considered the presumptive front runner for the nomination, a status which she might parlay into a nomination more successfully than she has been able to do this year.

Every day that she stays in the race and punches Barack Obama, she must realize that she is decreasing his chances of getting elected in November. Each time that she waves the bloody shirt and says that only she is strong enough to fight the war on terror, she obviously raises doubts about Obama’s strength and leadership. Every time she criticizes him for not switching pastors or for saying downscale white voters are bitter, she raises issues that are very destructive to Obama should he win the nomination.

When does fighting for the nomination in 2008 end and seeking to sabotoge Obama’s chances in November to keep her options alive for 2012 begin? Doubts about Hillary’s motivation are going to keep on growing with each inconclusive primary. After she loses North Carolina and fails to carry Indiana by any significant margin (North Carolina has twice as many delegates as Indiana), people will begin to wonder out loud about why she is staying in the race. And if she remains obdurate after the last votes are cast on June 3rd, it will become an increasingly accepted presumption that she is running a campaign of sabotage against Obama.

There is a way to run without waging a scorched earth campaign. Mike Huckabee continued to fight for the Republican nomination until McCain reached the magic number to clench the battle and did not attack McCain. He waged a positive campaign and exercised his right to stay in the contest as long as it was undecided without hurting the party’s chances in November. Obviously, Huckabee could have attacked McCain and drawn more votes for his candidacy, but, in the interests of party victory, he chose not to do so.

Why isn’t Hillary making the same choice?

In 2004, it is pretty obvious that Hillary did nothing to help John Kerry beyond giving a speech at the convention and waging a token campaign on his behalf. Bill did even less. Their goal was obvious: they wanted Kerry to lose to Bush so that Hillary could run in 2008. Is she playing the same game now? Only time will tell.

Go To DickMorris.com to read all of Dick’s columns!