Quit Posting Obama smear emails on DU.

We've seen them a hundred times already. Some of you need to quit acting all shocked that someone you know emailed you the smear email and then post it on DU anyway.

If you're a member of DU, then you should know already to look it up on Snopes and send the correct information to your "friend" who sent you the email in the first place.

It's really getting suspicious that just this week alone, the same Obama smear emails have been posted on DU several times with people acting "shocked and surprised" that someone emailed it to them.

I call bullshit.

Sick of it. It's highly offensive.

On the day that Obama receives the endorsement of John Kerry, and news leaks that Janet Napolitano is coming on board, the months old "madrassa" smear suddenly shows up in at least half a dozen posts.

No, nothing staged about this...:eyes:

:thumbsup:

being said by other people. Maybe we should just give the smears titles instead of copying them over line by line. Right now I count the Obama hates the flag and the Obama is a secret Muslim smears floating around.


on edit - I forgot the one about "Obama goes to a weird church".

and what they say. There is no reason to keep posting it over and over again.

so we can come up with methods of fighting them.

a little civility all around goes a long way.

On edit: The only Hillary smear email I've seen was posted by a Hillary supporter asking for Obama to denounce the email, even though he had nothing to do with it.

gotcha!

last week about this. It did no good. People posting this crap have an ugly agenda. I'm gonna slam whoever posts it, each and every time I see it.

Whenever I see a thread with "Is this email true"? in the title, I immediately run for snopes!

Enough is enough. Maybe post a sticky on top with the correct snopes link...

right wing ploy. "Hey look, Snopes says its true." So they are lying to compound their lying. Incredibly limbaughesghue; where truth has no place in the conversation if the subject is smear someone we hate.

and it should be for all Dem candidates. I can't believe anyone on DU would believe the garbage in that email.

Of course, odds are that the poster has known this fact (or spin) for a long time, is hardly suprised, and wants to pretend to be an innocent bumbler who just stumbled across some new tidbit of information that he needs confirmed.

Is this true? Obama's church?

An Obama email I got from my RW (coworker, MIL, sister, etc), please help debunk.

Have you seen this Obama email that's going around? Disgusting!

Look at this Obama email about him being Muslim. WTF?

I can't believe this email about Obama I just got. Comments?

And on and on and on.

Although I didn't click on them, I presume the entire text of the smear emails were posted each time.

It certainly appeared to have a pattern to it, ne c'est pas? MKJ

I know they are BS, but I need to know what is being said so if I hear someone "parrot" a line, I have an immmediate response. The emails posted yesterday contained new smears i hadn't heard yet, so yes I went to snopes and got the real info so I can respond if need arises. I haven't chosen a candidate yet, but I want to be armed to support any of them if they are unfairly attacked. Does that make me complicit?

are we going to have much success asking Republicans not to do it? Are we naive enough to think such smears don't work or somehow won't matter because Obama is somehow more capable than Kerry or Cleland or any number of other decent, honorable men and women who have been brought down by far MORE laughably incorrect attacks at deflecting them? I mean a multiple amputee veteran wasn't patriotic enough and a decorated combat veteran wasn't competent enough to be a CIC compared to someone who may or may not have completed a soft and shortened spot in an obsolescent statebound TANG program when he leapfrogged higher scoring applicants? Somehow people bought that but will be too noble and engaged and fairminded to buy the bullshit that someone is a Muslim because he lived in a Muslim country and has Hussein as a middle name?

I mean I'm not exactly cowering in fear here but it's an important topic and if Obama follows the same tack - just asking people to stop and not fighting back - then we're going to have a tough time. This whole idea (not the silly accusation - but how he will respond) is the main reason I'm not ready to jump on the BO bandwagon. The guy's smart and has charisma in spades and his policy positions on most issues are just fine by me but hell he's GOT to be able to be shown and proven to be able to withstand absolutely horrible attacks - far worse than even the most vehement HRC partisan on DU would ever contemplate. That's what he'll get as the nominee. Non stop. For months. Not just posted on partisan websites but hammered in hundred and hundreds of primetime TV and radio spots and newspapers and speeches. Don't even THINK of pretending he's being tested by these softball and innuendo-level Clinton "attacks" everyone seems so worried and upset about. If you can't imagine a thousand times worse then you're not thinking or you're betting that the magic charisma thing will work on wingnuts, or that somehow in the last eight years all the uninformed masses have become political junkies who are fully engaged and track down the truth status of every rumor before they take it into account. I ain't that optimistic.

I'm talking specifically about people on DU who should know better. I rarely start a thread, but these emails being posted on DU over and over again just this week alone was ridiculous, and I found it suspicious, like it was an orchestrated effort to keep posting this crap here on DU.

I received the same emails, and I sent those people the information from Snopes. I didn't have to act "shocked" and come here to DU and post the whole damn thing. "Look what my friend just emailed me about Obama!"

But tell me - do we not need someone who has proven he can handle these things? People point to HRC's negatives, which are indeed prodigious, and forget that that's because she is pre-smeared. Kerry's unfavorables shot up after he was attacked, because he didn't fight back. He lost. Obama's a better speaker than Kerry, but he needs to prove he's a better fighter too.

or truthful about Obama allowed to be posted? :eyes:

Your post is ridiculous.

But, go ahead and think that if it makes you feel better.

I would say the same thing if it were Hillary smear emails being posted here ad nauseum. The only Hillary smear email that was posted here was from a Hillary supporter.

If you can't tell the difference between posting legitimate criticisms and posting smears, then that's your problem.

Both of them have lied to our faces and yet people here on DU worship them like rock stars.

Sorry, but neither Obama or Hillary are going to go to bat for us, the people. They are bought and paid for by corporate interests. Just look at their campaign contributions if you don't believe me.

I can only speak for myself. I don't have a problem with people having legitimate criticisms of any of the candidates. But, you have to be pretty stupid to think that an obvious smear email is anything but.

As far as "worshipping candidates like rock stars", that's your perception. I just like my candidate better than yours. Obama is far from perfect. None of the candidate are. But, I prefer him over the others. That's all.

over you or your loved ones?

Because I'd bet everything I own that Obama will screw you over some day. Obama's loyalty is first and foremost to corporate entities. NOT YOU.

The stranglehold these corporations have over us is killing us all off. We've lost jobs, we're in a war that only benefits corporate interests, and worst of all, corporations are responsible for the poisoning of and warming of our planet.

How any one who cares about themselves, their children and their childrens future, or the planet can support a candidate that puts corporations first before people and the planet, I will NEVER understand.

If you can't see beyond your love of your candidate and accept that fact, then your love of that candidate is BLINDING you to the truth.

as long as it IS true, or at least subjective opinion based on facts - not silly crap because some wingnuts can't stand anyone with any melanin at all or anyone who doesn't have an Anglo sounding name. I mean yes we should be above such things. We should expect them, we sahould prepare tactics to defeat them, but we should not spread them. And we should absolutely not believe or use them.

of support for him around here.

But Obama Is NOT Walking The Talk, that's the problem.

Meanwhile Obama people want to jump to the conclusion that it's about color when it's not.

The fact of the matter is that it's about integrity and not being bought by the corporate bastards, who we all know would sell their own mothers for a dollar.

and a minuscule part of the electorate. Most people understand a serious canduidate needs serious money. In any event there is little real difference. If you look at the RATIO of money you'll see Edwards (and I'll be voting for Edwards) raised about the same proportion of money from most industries as Obama did - he just got a lot less money.

It's also worth noting that "corporate campaign contributions" are misrepresented. If you're looking at things like opensecrets and see a big bunch of money under "pharmacuetical and health care" that number includes any nurses or dock workers at Pfizer or hospital accountants who donated - not just the big pharma PACs. That's why the ratios are as close.

Finally - why does passing on crap about him being a Muslim even become an option if the concern is all about the fact he gets more money from X?

Why does Obama need all that money if he is so loved and so popular? That's the question.

The fact that Edwards has done so well on so little money is quite telling.

FYI...

The media is NOT going to focus on campaign contributions EVER. That's not how they will bring Obama down if they want to bring him down. They will bring out the hate and the lies and the smear. You should know that by now-they attack the messenger, not the message.

With Edwards, there is NOTHING they can find to smear or lie about him with. So they ignore him instead. Annihilate him by making him invisible.

They can't ignore Obama because he's got ESTABLISHMENT aka corporate money behind him. So they're looking for other ways to pick him off and take him out. Which is what they do to those they don't want in the running, like Howard Dean.


Last, but not least...

It is obvious to me that Obama wants to be president so badly he will do whatever it takes to get there. Sell his soul to the corporate bastards? No problem.

And that is just so sad, because Obama could and should be so much better than that.

It's amazing to me how many people think they can guess what future presidents will do based on electioneering minutiae. People with your priorities will never be happy because if you think Edwards is going to be some pseudo-socialist savior who will massively raise worker pay and cut corporate greed (what do they pay workers out of again?) by some hitherto undiscovered executive power you're nuts. If he would, I wouldn't be voting for heim and neither would a whole hell of a lot of people.

Rhetoric is not governance. Fundraising is not legislation.

And Edwards will do it without being beholden to the corporate bastards and their disgusting lowlife lobbyists.



Excuse me, but Obama can't proclaim to be about change if he is still doing things the way they've been done for years.

If Obama wants change, then he should BE THE CHANGE.

The fact is, is that Obama can NOT serve both his corporate masters and the people and be the "change" he's spouting. It's impossible.


Therefore, Obama's "change" is simply more TWO FACED BULLSH*T & LIES we've come to know and hate from the status quo.

PBS-NOW


Smear campaigns are nothing new in U.S. politics, but during the 2008 presidential race, the Internet has assumed a bigger role in transmitting misinformation and negative claims about candidates. The lightning speed at which these rumors spread and the lack of scrutiny they receive threaten to seriously undermine public discourse. The good news is that this campaign season the public has access to a slew of fact-checking websites, including FactCheck.org, PolitiFact.com, and Snopes.com that are squelching Internet rumors and separating fact from fiction.


To illustrate how a rumor based on falsehoods can spread, NOW takes a look at one claim that has received a lot of media attention recently: the "Barack Obama is Muslim" rumor. This unsubstantiated claim originated from chain e-mails that started circulating some time in 2006. They contend that Obama is a Muslim (false) and that Obama attended a radical Muslim school (false). There's also a more recent rumor that Obama did not have his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance.



Timeline of a Smear



2006: The first chain e-mail circulated on the Internet contending that Obama is Muslim. (Politifact and other fact-checking websites have been unable to pinpoint the exact date)



Jan. 17, 2007: A discredited news story from InsightMag.com, "Hillary's team has questions about Obama's Muslim background," reported that Obama had attended a madrassa, an Islamic religious school, as a child.



Jan. 19, 2007: Fox News' Fox & Friend First and Fox & Friends highlighted the report from InsightMag in its coverage without discrediting it. The weblog Think Progress noted that Fox even took caller comments about the allegations.



Jan. 20, 2007: New York Post article titled 'Osama' Mud Flies at Obama quoted Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson saying, "We have no connection to this story."



The week of Jan. 20, 2007: CNN, ABC-TV and the Associated Press sent reporters to the school Obama attended and reported that it was not a religious school but a public school.



Jan. 23, 2007: Washington Post article by media columnist Howard Kurtz, "Headmaster Disputes Claim That Obama Attended Islamic School", reported that the school Obama attended was not a religious school but a public school.


Jan 28, 2007: Washington Post editorial, "Sticks, Stones and Mr. Obama; Misleading aspersions about the senator's background only make the perpetrators look bad", criticized the Insight Magazine article.



March, 15, 2007: A Snopes.com website article titled "The Enemy Within" dispelled the claim that Obama is a "radical, ideological Muslim."



Sept. 16, 2007: A photo of Obama that would later be used as the basis for another negative rumor was taken in Indianola, Iowa, at the Harkin Steak Fry, an annual political event hosted by Sen. Tom Harkin. The caption on the Time photo read, "Respect: Senator Barack Obama, Governor Bill Richardson, Senator Hillary Clinton and Ruth Harkin stand during the national anthem."



Oct. 2007: The first chain e-mail accompanying some version of an e-mailed photo circulated on the Internet questioning Obama's patriotism based on its contention that Obama refused to put his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. One of the e-mails read: "He refused to not only put his hand on his heart during the pledge of allegiance, but refused to say the pledge ... how in the hell can a man like this expect to be our next Commander-in-Chief?"



Oct. 27, 2007: Snopes could not find any information substantiating the claim that Obama refused to put his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. However, they did say that the following claim, "Photograph shows Barack Obama without his hand over his heart while the U.S. national anthem is being played," is true.



Nov. 9, 2007: The St. Petersburg Times publishes an article "E-mail assailing Obama's patriotism misses mark" pointing to the original Time photograph as evidence that the e-mail rumor makes a false claim. The article also discusses the new phenomenon of chain e-mails "ricocheting" around Internet.



Nov. 11, 2007: A video from ABC News confirmed that the photo was taken during the singing of "The Star-Spangled Banner."



Nov. 29, 2007: The Washington Post publishes an article, "Foes Use Obama's Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him", by political reporter Perry Bacon Jr. exploring the rumors that Obama was Muslim. The article did not explicitly dispel those rumors.



Dec. 9, 2007: Taking issue with Bacon's story, Washington Post columnist Deborah Howell looks at how mainstream journalists tackle stories about rumors. In "Refuting, or Feeding, the Rumor Mill?, she writes: "My problems with the story...were that Obama's connections to Islam are slender at best; that the rumors were old; and that convincing evidence of their falsity wasn't included in the story."



Dec. 13, 2007: Despite being debunked by mainstream news organizations, the claim that Obama didn't place his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance is repeated on Bill O' Reilly's show. In response to a caller who says she's disturbed by Obama's alleged action, O'Reilly doesn't correct her and, according to MediaMatters.org, replies: "I think that Obama needs to answer some questions about his point of view, not only on the USA, but on a lot of
things."



Damage Lasts Longer Than Rumors Themselves


Taken together, InsightMag.com's anonymously-sourced report inspired numerous "baseless" accusations about Sen. Barack Obama in the media and widespread coverage from mainstream news sites and other news sources. Whether this rumor had any significant negative impact on Obama's campaign is unclear.


One of the most frustrating things about rumors on the Internet is that it is often impossible to pinpoint their origin, particularly since chain e-mails can come from multiple people. Another challenge is that they circulate under the radar for so long.


But some websites are working to combat rumors with truth and correction. Politifact.com features a "Truth-o-meter" section that examines who laid claim to a rumor, who the rumor is about, the extent to which the rumor is true and what was alleged by the informant. The Truth-o-meter recently dispelled the Obama "hand over his heart rumor" by giving it a "false" rating. Snopes.com, the site with a reputation for debunking urban legends, has a similar system of checking rumors, but they do it through a "ratings key" which allows for more ambiguity in the case of rumors that are partially based on truth, but ultimately incorrect. The audience for these websites remains marginal. Only when major media outlets take it upon themselves to verify a rumor before repeating it or invest resources in debunking it, as CNN did with the Obama-is-Muslim rumor, will the power of unfounded rumors and smear campaigns dissipate.


Sources: Information for this article is based partly on a timeline from MediaMatters.org's timeline of the smear and leads from Politifact.com.

2008 Election Debunking Resources


FACTCHECK.ORG: Analysis of ads and statements



POLITIFACT.COM: Analysis of attacks and statistics



COLUMBIA JOURNALISM REVIEW: Fact checking the Media


SNOPES.COM: Urban Legends Reference Pages



WASHINGTONPOST.COM: The "Pinocchio" test



FactChecker: The Washington Post Fact-Checker



MEDIA MATTERS: Media Matters for America

BS.

If you object to the post, you and a group need to use the correct snopes.com page:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

with a summary of the lies. No sarcasm, no dumbass remarks.

If 8-15 people post the same debunking message, it will stop. If your response is "it's not true, don't post," the email will be reposted.

They are looking to put doubt in the minds of the blue dogs.

their position is entirely one of strong stance against budget deficits and fiscal irresponsibility. The coalition is socially indistinguishable from mainstream Democrats. That's a disgusting baseless attack on a vital component of the party without whom we have no chance of winning.

I wrote an impassioned defense of Kerry and hit reply to all.

I received several emails in response.

But do I continue to get factually challenged emails from my cousin?

I do. Now I just ignore them. She's hopeless.

It should be removed.

I like it better when they preface that they got the email from their "very liberal friend."

I call bullshit.