30 June 2008

Weak GOP Tricks: Fake "Pro-Hillary" Groups

Pandagon offers the not-so-shocking news that PUMA (take your pick: Party Unity My Ass or People United Means Action), the pro-Clinton political action committee, originated with Darragh Murphy, a woman who donated to $500.00 to John McCain in February. How much has she donated to Hillary Clinton? Nada.

Why is this not surprising? Well, it's awfully similar to the Clintons4McCain scenario. You know, the group of Clinton supporters who swear they'll vote for McCain? Oh, yeah. Republicans.
From 05 June, 2008 Wired:

The Republican National Committee appears ready to roll out the red carpet for Hillary Clinton supporters, over a newly-registered internet domain ClintonsForMcCain.com.

Though the web address does not yet go anywhere, the RNC registered the domain name on May 15, according to whois data from the registrar Network Solutions. That was nine days after Clinton's disappointing showing in the North Carolina primary, which prompted NBC's Tim Russert to declare the race effectively over for Clinton.

An e-mail to two RNC officials about their plans went unanswered Thursday.

The day before this story appeared, "ClintonsFor McCain" vanished, and "Clintons4McCain" was born. This time, the whois information is hidden. For more on the Clintons4McCain shenanigans, see here. One more giveaway? The list of Republican-style talking points that voice their opposition to Obama.

These groups are not "pro-Hillary," they're simply anti-Obama. If Hillary was the presumptive nominee, what do you think the chances are that these people would support her? It's nothing more than Operation Chaos, month six, and suckers are, well, sucking it up. Remember folks, ElRushbo is the one looking forward to (in jest, one hopes) a recreation of Chicago, 1968.

Okay, let me backtrack a little--I'm not saying that every member of PUMA or Clintons4McCain is a Republican in disguise, but I do wonder if knowing who is fronting their organizations means anything to them.

Aside: A comment left at Pandagon cracked me up:
I have it from an unimpeachable source (my pharmacist’s nephew’s dog-sitter’s next-door neighbor) that Darragh Murphy has a tape or DVD or major CinemaScope production of Larry Sinclair lashing out at “Whitey,” either in a sermon at Trinity United Church of Christ or the national convention of the American Nazi Party. Whatever. And I consider myself a loyal Democrat. I didn’t leave the party - the party left me, v.2.008

Andrew Sullivan on Sinclair

Have I mentioned lately that I (heart) Andrew Sullivan?

I don't know how I missed this, but Sullivan has deflated Sinclair properly (and then some). In referencing No Quarter's declaration that Larry Sinclair, he of warrants in Colorado and Delaware, is a political prisoner, Sullivan responds that "[t]his is beyond self-parody [. . . .] Sone of the Clintonites were just batshit I guess." Indeed. The currently popular analogies to the Gestapo, the SS, and Nazism in general are so wildly inappropriate, and so liberally applied, that one can only react with mouth agog. Do these people know anything about real fascism?

Of the National Press Club event itself, Sullivan offers,

Fun And Games At The National Press Club

18 Jun 2008 09:31 pm

Obama bottom-feeder Larry Sinclair got arrested. Dave Weigel's account is sad and hilarious in equal measure:

Sinclair was asked who funded the event (donors, over the internet), how he made his living (he's on disability), and whether Obama was "well hung" (I'm not going to dignify his answer here).

And the beat goes on.

Poor Sinclair.

When even Republicans consider you a "bottom feeder," things don't look too sparkling.

Aside: Okay, I recognize that the number of posts on Sinclair must indicate some kind of obsession, but, honestly, that's not the case. I will confess to being fascinated by how one person's unsupported allegations have attracted so much affirmation on one hand, and so much bile on the other--and no, he's no innocent player in any of this.

29 June 2008

New Information on Sinclair's Delaware Warrant?

This morning a little item appeared at Delaware Online, but there's no byline except a notice that "[t]he weblog Dialogue Delaware is updated daily by reporters and editors at The News Journal," and I can't locate confirmation. I post it as an element in the ongoing rumor wars.

Facts deflate conspiracy theory

Depending on what blogs you read, Delaware is at the center of a major conspiracy orchestrated to protect presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama by silencing a critic.

But like many rumors about a candidate during a presidential election year, this one just isn't true.

While we are certain this will do little to deter conspiracy theorists, we thought it would be worthwhile to inject some verifiable fact where we find it.

The rumor suggested that former Democratic presidential candidate and Delaware Sen. Joe Biden -- who has been named as a possible vice president running mate for Obama -- worked with his son, Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden, to have Obama critic Larry Sinclair arrested at the conclusion of a press conference Sinclair held in Washington earlier this month.

Sinclair, who has been making charges about Obama involving sex and drugs, allegedly was taken away at the conclusion of his remarks by U.S. marshals on an outstanding warrant from Delaware.

Some -- perhaps only those on Sinclair's Web site -- suggested this was concocted to embarrass Sinclair because there had been no record of a Delaware warrant after a detailed background check in January.

Well, yes, but no.

There was no warrant in January because it was issued in February after an October incident at a New Castle hotel involving Sinclair.

According to the Delaware State Police and Delaware Superior Court records, Sinclair allegedly paid for a three-week stay at the Rodeway Inn with $2,400 in money orders. The hotel manager later found they were counterfeit and called police.

In February -- long before Obama became the presumptive nominee -- a New Castle County grand jury indicted Sinclair for felony theft and a warrant was issued.

According to state prosecutors, Sinclair was released on $8,000 unsecured bond this week and is due back in court in July for an arraignment.

If this is true (and we'll find out soon enough), the Delaware allegations fit with a larger pattern of larceny that's emerged due to bloggers, such as those at The Mitch and Nan Show and DBKP, and discussed in Politico.

I do have some questions about this allegation, though, as Sinclair had a Wilmington phone number--a land-line--in autumn 2007 (he has previously given this phone number in support of his claims to have contacted the Obama campaign), so why the need for a three week stay at a Rodeway Inn?

Of course, there are a number of reasons that might explain the need for a hotel room, but I'll leave such hypothesizing aside for the moment. I'm sure there will be updates soon.

Meanwhile, in Sinclair-related news: Overlawyered has the final word on Montgomery Blair Sibley's suspension in DC (which stands), including links to Sibley's 133 page argument against his suspension. What with the Sinclair case floundering and having been removed from acting as Blanche Palfrey's attorney in the lingering "D C Madam" case, Sibley's not doing so well.

UPDATE: A blogger claims to have spoken to the manager of the New Castle, DE Rodeway Inn who confirms the story. Additionally, the blogger reports that, rather than being paid $24,000 for a hotel room, the manager was actually swindled out of $24,000 in cash. Please visit this link for details on the Delaware allegations. Again, I'm sure we'll hear significantly more about this story shortly.

UPDATE TWO: see Delaware Online from 7/12/08:

27 June 2008

The Morphing Multani: Will the Real Limo Driver Please Stand Up?

The Varying Manifestations of Sinclair’s Limo Driver: is it Paramjit, Rashpal, or Jagir?

So once upon a time, a fella had a dream—a dream of scandalizing the name of a presidential candidate. Of course, he only wished to do so for the best of reasons—to ensure that the American public was well informed before heading to the ballot box and deciding who should be the next president. So this fella made a YouTube video.

In the video, he claimed to have enjoyed an evening of drugs and sex with said presidential candidate. Both the drugs and the sex, by the way, occurred in the back seat of a limousine. The young man’s limousine. Moreover, the young man claimed that the limousine driver was a personal friend of the candidate, and it was the limo driver who introduced the young man to the candidate.

Many people commented on the YouTube video. Many who left comments were less than kind. They didn’t believe the young man. It didn’t help that the young man had undergone, and failed, a polygraph exam to “prove” that he was telling the truth.

Following the polygraph, people asked the fella to name the limo driver—the sole corroborating witness to his tale. So one night, the fella wrote on You Tube:

"The following is a gift to all in a 'pay it forward' dedicated to thedon, the name of the driver for 5 star limo service is P.Multani"

Now this excited people. Hundreds launched web searches for a “P Multani” who might have worked with “5 Star Limo Service.” The searches produced a likely-sounding name: Paramajit Multani. In fact, one man by this name has a record of driving limousines in the Chicago area (2000).

However, the fella changed his mind about sharing information. He denied having disclosed the limo driver’s name.

For months the fella and his opposition sparred—was the man named on YouTube the driver or not? Did the fella lie? What was he trying to hide?

The fella promised to reveal all. "Soon."

“Soon” arrived months later, at a news conference held at the National Press Club. According to The Daily Telegraph's Tim Shipman (who actually attended the PC), the fella,

named the limousine driver as Paramjit Multani and said that the two had been in contact during the early part of the year but that now Mr Multani and his family have disappeared. This is convenient to say the least. The documents he supplied listed a limo driver as Rashpal Multani instead.

Which is curious.

What is more curious is that, just the other day (eight days after the press conference), one of the fella's more avid supporters posted this clarification on his website:

There has been much confusion about the name of the Limo Driver for the alleged Larry Sinclair and Obama encounter in November 1999. The written news conference release, indicated the name was Paramjit Multani. The correct limo driver’s name is Jagir P Multani. If you listen to the news conference you will hear Larry stating this name.

So the name given in the news conference release was incorrect? This is more than a “typo”; a “typo” is a misspelling or a grammatical “oops.” A “typo” is not the inclusion of an altogether different name. It's also worth questioning why it took eight days to rectify the error.

I wonder if, when writing up his story, Tim Shipman relied on the news conference release as he had attended the event, and, I’d assume, taken notes, in person?

So why the discrepancy? Can this inconsistency be explained, or shall we simply add it to the pile of Sinclair’s contradictions? The fact of the matter is that, after months of leading both his supporters and his detractors on with promises of a corroborating witness, promises of "proof," Sinclair has produced nothing.

He has proved only that he is successful at the sleight-of-hand.

26 June 2008

Republican Sen. Gordon Smith Runs Ad Linking Self to Obama

I'm sure you've heard all about those GOP tactics to "harm" Dem candidates for the House and Senate by associating them with Barack Obama, but how about a Republican senator, up for re-election, who is running ads associating himself with Barack Obama? Oregon's Gordon Smith has kick-started a new ad campaign that notes his work with Obama and his approval of bipartisanship. No kidding.

Smith's opponent in the upcoming election, Democrat Jeff Merkley, has derided Smith's ad and declared it an act of "desperation." I think Merkley exaggerates; after all, Gordon Smith is a fairly popular figure in Oregon. He's even retained the endorsement of the local newspaper in heavily liberal Eugene. Smith is being canny in associating himself with Obama; thereby reminding voters --who are upset with Smith's prolonged support for President Bush and the war in Iraq--why they have approved of his work otherwise.

To be fair, although he stood by GWB and his Iraq policy for three years, Smith did announce that he no longer supported the war in December, 2006 (yeah...right after the Dems took "control" of Congress).

UPDATE: the GOP's strategy of portraying all Dems as "Obama liberals" just ain't doin' the job.
From UPI:

WASHINGTON, June 26 (UPI) -- Republican strategists are pulling back on a tactic to defeat Democratic U.S. congressional candidates by linking them with Sen. Barack Obama. GOP leaders say.

[. . . .]

Most notably, Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., praised Obama in an ad promoting his own re-election. A campaign spokeswoman called the unusual move "an excellent way" to show Smith's ability "to work across the aisle."

The new phase of enthusiasm is a far cry from the spring when Republican ads sought to paint Obama as out-of-touch liberal with a brand of politics that should be shunned.

Initially, some Democrats distanced themselves from Obama but now most are reported eager to get as closely associated as possible.

Republican leaders say the strategy will continue in selected areas, the Post said. But, a senior GOP strategist involved in U.S. House of Representative races said it is mostly a dead issue "except in rare instances" and added, "I'm not sure it was a good idea in the first place."
Remember when they tried the same thing prior to the 2006 midterms? The GOP aimed to define Democratic candidates as San Francisco-style Pelosi liberals. That worked out real well for them, didn't it?

Do you think they're out of ideas?

24 June 2008

Sinclair's Been Sprung (Updated post)

No details as yet, Delaware has released Larry Sinclair, so y'all can stop with the bleating about his being a "political prisoner," a victim of the machinations of the Illuminati, the Bilderberg, the Bohemian Grove, the Freemasons, the Mohocks, the Rosicrucians, the Carbonari, the Priory of Sion, the Calves Head Club, the Black Hand, the Martinists, the Ordo Templi Orientus, the Saudis, the Cult of the Red Rose, the Philomaths, Skull & Crossbones, the Sons of Ra, the Warburgs, the Order of the Dragon, the Molly Maguires, the Blind Templars, the Knights of Pythias, the Duk Duk, the Solar Lodge, the Hellfire club, the firm, the mafia, or Joe Biden.

He had a warrant. He wanted publicity. He got publicity. He got arrested. He's out on bail. Be comforted.

(hmmmm...do you think maybe, just maybe, he'd not have attracted the feds' attention if he'd have toned it down a notch or two? Okay. Just a thought).

UPDATE 6/26/08: Sinclair's due back in a Delaware court on 03 July. Charge? Theft of material valued at over $1000.00.* What was Sinclair charged with misappropriating? There's no telling--'cause he isn't. but he is letting folks know that he needs $10,000.00 to place an attorney on retainer. You have to ask: what happened to his legal fund? Apparently, Montgomery Blair Sibley took his case pro bono (according to comments by Sinclair's supporters). Sinclair has been collecting donations for "legal costs" since February (separate requests for funds provided for both trips to Washington DC and the NPC event), so why the sudden need for fresh cash? It does seem a tad questionable, don't you think?

UPDATE on the Delaware allegations (from 6/29/08). New bits from 7/12/08 as well.

* I've linked to The Mitch and Nan Show rather than Sinclair's site for the details. They've cited his statement in full and correctly.

23 June 2008

Back to White(y): Flowbee and Michelle Obama in the NYT

Dang, check out Ruben Navarrette’s new column on Michelle Obama as rumor-target. He blasts those who attempt to define her as some kind of priestess of militant black-power and he addresses the obviously fabricated TUCC dvd story as “a malicious rumor that Michelle had given a speech in her church in which she had used the word ‘whitey.’ Never happened. Shame on those who spread the lie, and shame on those who rushed to swallow it.” Oh, yes. And he goes right after Flowbee—but without naming him.

Yet, it was ironic. The rumor came from a liberal blogger, and a supporter of Hillary Clinton at that, who was eager to make a stink. And yet the folks who were most eager to buy it were conservative columnists, bloggers and radio talk show hosts.

Navarette shouldn’t really be surprised: Clinton herself used the conservative playbook in their competition for the nomination, and in her appeals to GOP moderates, so why wouldn’t her die-hard supporters take a cue from her actions? (In fairness to Clinton, she was in the middle of a real fight, and it's pretty evident that she'll back away from her earlier GOP-style critiques of Obama. A few of her supporters ain't giving up though).


What’s this? Flowbee gets another (kind of) shout out by Michael Powell and Jodi Kantor of The New York Times?

A blogger who supported Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton circulates unfounded claims that Mrs. Obama gave an accusatory speech in her church about the sins of “whitey.”

Frankly, the NYT should have just given Flowbee's name; he has written for them after all. His full-length article, "The Declining Terrorist Threat," appeared in the NYT on 10 July, 2001.

But what I really love is Michelle Obama’s own response to the rumor, as recorded by Powell and Kantor in the NYT:

Mrs. Obama shakes her head. “You are amazed sometimes at how deep the lies can be,” she says in an interview. Referring to a character in a 1970s sitcom, she adds: “I mean, ‘whitey’? That’s something that George Jefferson would say. Anyone who says that doesn’t know me. They don’t know the life I’ve lived. They don’t know anything about me.”

Ha! I called The Jeffersons reference yonks ago. Come on, people. Do you think that there is any way this intelligent, accomplished woman would model racial commentaries on George Jefferson’s snarks at Tom Willis and Mr. Bentley?

(aside: the man who played Mr. Bentley on The Jeffersons, Paul Benedict, was a yank. Who knew?)

Filthy Words (RIP George Carlin)

Goodbye, Mr. Carlin. Thanks a million for it all--you will be missed.
I hope that Jesus brings those pork chops soon.

The following is a verbatim transcript of "Filthy Words" (the George Carlin monologue at issue in the Supreme Court case of FCC v. Pacifica Foundation) prepared by the Federal Communications Commission:

Aruba-du, ruba-tu, ruba-tu. I was thinking about the curse words and the swear words, the cuss words and the words that you can't say, that you're not supposed to say all the time, ['cause] words or people into words want to hear your words. Some guys like to record your words and sell them back to you if they can, (laughter) listen in on the telephone, write down what words you say. A guy who used to be in Washington knew that his phone was tapped, used to answer, Fuck Hoover, yes, go ahead. (laughter) Okay, I was thinking one night about the words you couldn't say on the public, ah, airwaves, um, the ones you definitely wouldn't say, ever, [']cause I heard a lady say bitch one night on television, and it was cool like she was talking about, you know, ah, well, the bitch is the first one to notice that in the litter Johnie right (murmur) Right. And, uh, bastard you can say, and hell and damn so I have to figure out which ones you couldn't and ever and it came down to seven but the list is open to amendment, and in fact, has been changed, uh, by now, ha, a lot of people pointed things out to me, and I noticed some myself. The original seven words were, shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits. Those are the ones that will curve your spine, grow hair on your hands and (laughter) maybe, even bring us, God help us, peace without honor (laughter) um, and a bourbon. (laughter) And now the first thing that we noticed was that word fuck was really repeated in there because the word motherfucker is a compound word and it's another form of the word fuck. (laughter) You want to be a purist it doesn't really -- it can't be on the list of basic words. Also, cocksucker is a compound word and neither half of that is really dirty. The word -- the half sucker that's merely suggestive (laughter) and the word cock is a half-way dirty word, 50% dirty -- dirty half the time, depending on what you mean by it. (laughter) Uh, remember when you first heard it, like in 6th grade, you used to giggle. And the cock crowed three times, heh (laughter) the cock -- three times. It's in the Bible, cock in the Bible. (laughter) And the first time you heard about a cock-fight, remember -- What? Huh? naw. It ain't that, are you stupid? man. (laughter, clapping) It's chickens, you know, (laughter) Then you have the four letter words from the old Anglo-Saxon fame. Uh, shit and fuck. The word shit, uh, is an interesting kind of word in that the middle class has never really accepted it and approved it. They use it like, crazy but it's not really okay. It's still a rude, dirty, old kind of gushy word. (laughter) They don't like that, but they say it, like, they say it like, a lady now in a middle-class home, you'll hear most of the time she says it as an expletive, you know, it's out of her mouth before she knows. She says, Oh shit oh shit, (laughter) oh shit. If she drops something, Oh, the shit hurt the broccoli. Shit. Thank you. (footsteps fading away) (papers ruffling)

Read it! (from audience)

Shit! (laughter) I won the Grammy, man, for the comedy album. Isn't that groovy? (clapping, whistling) (murmur) That's true. Thank you. Thank you man. Yeah. (murmur) (continuous clapping) Thank you man. Thank you. Thank you very much, man. Thank, no, (end of continuous clapping) for that and for the Grammy, man, [']cause (laughter) that's based on people liking it man, yeh, that's ah, that's okay man. (laughter) Let's let that go, man. I got my Grammy. I can let my hair hang down now, shit. (laughter) Ha! So! Now the word shit is okay for the man. At work you can say it like crazy. Mostly figuratively, Get that shit out of here, will ya? I don't want to see that shit anymore. I can't cut that shit, buddy. I've had that shit up to here. I think you're full of shit myself. (laughter) He don't know shit from Shinola. (laughter) you know that? (laughter) Always wondered how the Shinola people feel about that (laughter) Hi, I'm the new man from Shinola. (laughter) Hi, how are ya? Nice to see ya. (laughter) How are ya? (laughter) Boy, I don't know whether to shit or wind my watch. (laughter) Guess, I'll shit on my watch. (laughter) Oh, the shit is going to hit de fan. (laughter) Built like a brick shit-house. (laughter) Up, he's up shit's creek. (laughter) He's had it. (laughter) He hit me, I'm sorry. (laughter) Hot shit, holy shit, tough shit, eat shit, (laughter) shit-eating grin. Uh, whoever thought of that was ill. (murmur laughter) He had a shit-eating grin! He had a what? (laughter) Shit on a stick. (laughter) Shit in a handbag. I always like that. He ain't worth shit in a handbag. (laughter) Shitty. He acted real shitty. (laughter) You know what I mean? (laughter) I got the money back, but a real shitty attitude. Heh, he had a shit-fit. (laughter) Wow! Shit-fit. Whew! Glad I wasn't there. (murmur, laughter) All the animals -- Bull shit, horse shit, cow shit, rat shit, bat shit. (laughter) First time I heard bat shit, I really came apart. A guy in Oklahoma, Boggs, said it, man. Aw! Bat shit. (laughter) Vera reminded me of that last night, ah (murmur). Snake shit, slicker than owl shit. (laughter) Get your shit together. Shit or get off the pot. (laughter) I got a shit-load full of them. (laughter) I got a shit-pot full, all right. Shit-head, shit-heel, shit in your heart, shit for brains, (laughter) shit-face, heh (laughter) I always try to think how that could have originated; the first guy that said that. Somebody got drunk and fell in some shit, you know. (laughter) Hey, I'm shit-face. (laughter) Shitface, today. (laughter) Anyway, enough of that shit. (laughter) The big one, the word fuck that's the one that hangs them up the most. [']Cause in a lot of cases that's the very act that hangs them up the most. So, it's natural that the word would, uh, have the same effect. It's a great word, fuck, nice word, easy word, cute word, kind of. Easy word to say. One syllable, short u. (laughter) Fuck. (Murmur) You know, it's easy. Starts with a nice soft sound fuh ends with a kuh. Right? (laughter) A little something for everyone. Fuck (laughter) Good word. Kind of a proud word, too. Who are you? I am FUCK. (laughter) FUCK OF THE MOUNTAIN. (laughter) Tune in again next week to FUCK OF THE MOUNTAIN. (laughter) It's an interesting word too, [']cause it's got a double kind of a life -- personality -- dual, you know, whatever the right phrase is. It leads a double life, the word fuck. First of all, it means, sometimes, most of the time, fuck. What does it mean? It means to make love. Right? We're going to make love, yeh, we're going to fuck, yeh, we're going to fuck, yeh, we're going to make love. (laughter) we're really going to fuck, yeah, we're going to make love. Right? And it also means the beginning of life, it's the act that begins life, so there's the word hanging around with words like love, and life, and yet on the other hand, it's also a word that we really use to hurt each other with, man. It's a heavy. It's one that you have toward the end of the argument. (laughter) Right? (laughter) You finally can't make out. Oh, fuck you man. I said, fuck you. (laughter, murmur) Stupid fuck. (laughter) Fuck you and everybody that looks like you. (laughter) man. It would be nice to change the movies that we already have and substitute the word fuck for the word kill, wherever we could, and some of those movie cliches would change a little bit. Madfuckers still on the loose. Stop me before I fuck again. Fuck the ump, fuck the ump, fuck the ump, fuck the ump, fuck the ump. Easy on the clutch Bill, you'll fuck that engine again. (laughter) The other shit one was, I don't give a shit. Like it's worth something, you know? (laughter) I don't give a shit. Hey, well, I don't take no shit, (laughter) you know what I mean? You know why I don't take no shit? (laughter) [']Cause I don't give a shit. (laughter) If I give a shit, I would have to pack shit. (laughter) But I don't pack no shit cause I don't give a shit. (laughter) You wouldn't shit me, would you? (laughter) That's a joke when you're a kid with a worm looking out the bird's ass. You wouldn't shit me, would you? (laughter) It's an eight-year-old joke but a good one. (laughter) The additions to the list. I found three more words that had to be put on the list of words you could never say on television, and they were fart, turd and twat, those three. (laughter) Fart, we talked about, it's harmless It's like tits, it's a cutie word, no problem. Turd, you can't say but who wants to, you know? (laughter) The subject never comes up on the panel so I'm not worried about that one. Now the word twat is an interesting word. Twat! Yeh, right in the twat. (laughter) Twat is an interesting word because it's the only one I know of, the only slang word applying to the, a part of the sexual anatomy that doesn't have another meaning to it. Like, ah, snatch, box and pussy all have other meanings, man. Even in a Walt Disney movie, you can say, We're going to snatch that pussy and put him in a box and bring him on the airplane. (murmur, laughter) Everybody loves it. The twat stands alone, man, as it should. And two-way words. Ah, ass is okay providing you're riding into town on a religious feast day. (laughter) You can't say, up your ass. (laughter) You can say, stuff it! (murmur) There are certain things you can say its weird but you can just come so close. Before I cut, I, uh, want to, ah, thank you for listening to my words, man, fellow, uh space travelers. Thank you man for tonight and thank you also. (clapping whistling)

"Filthy Words" transcript from UMKC

20 June 2008

Obama's Huge Lead Over McCain: Newsweek

Newsweek today reports that Obama has opened up at 15 point lead over John McCain: 51% to 36% in a random poll of 1,010 adults. On top of the recent Quinnipiac poll numbers that show Obama leading in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, it looks like he might be winning over Senator Clinton's supporters.

Will the die hards swing for him as we approach the convention? Who knows. Some voices on the internet remain strident, while others are growing more moderate. I'm thinking that the vast majority of the most vocal anti-Obama Clinton supporters are Republicans trying to suck on the last drops of Democratic discord made possible by Operation Chaos.

I've some links, but I'm tired so I'll insert them tomorrow. Consider this an electronic sticky note.

Olbermann & Ingraham: Old (and I mean old) Gossip

Trivia time:

The uber-conservative Laura Ingraham once dated Keith Olbermann! According to the New Yorker profile on Olbermann, “One Angry Man,” they saw each other “briefly” ten or so years ago, of which Olbermann says ““There were a few problems [. . . .] There were a few things that I could see were going to be impediments. Oddly, they were not political things.”

Maybe I’m late to this news, but I’m stunned.

Summer Arrives.

After months of grey skies, chill winds, and damp everywhere, summer has blossomed in my neck of the woods. It is beautiful out, and I intend to spend this--my last day of vacation--walking and reading by a nearby river.

Some William Blake for y'all.

"To Summer"

O thou who passest thro' our valleys in
Thy strength, curb thy fierce steeds, allay the heat
That flames from their large nostrils! thou, O Summer,
Oft pitched'st here thy golden tent, and oft
Beneath our oaks hast slept, while we beheld
With joy thy ruddy limbs and flourishing hair.

Beneath our thickest shades we oft have heard
Thy voice, when noon upon his fervid car
Rode o'er the deep of heaven; beside our springs
Sit down, and in our mossy valleys, on

Some bank beside a river clear, throw thy
Silk draperies off, and rush into the stream:
Our valleys love the Summer in his pride.

Our bards are fam'd who strike the silver wire:
Our youth are bolder than the southern swains:
Our maidens fairer in the sprightly dance:
We lack not songs, nor instruments of joy,
Nor echoes sweet, nor waters clear as heaven,
Nor laurel wreaths against the sultry heat.

May you enjoy many languid, langourous days.

18 June 2008

Sinclair Delaware Warrant Mystery [solved?]

Well we know that Larry Sinclair was arrested today. Initially, I thought it was due to his outstanding warrant in Colorado. However, according to someone who posts as Sinclair's "Moma" on his Wordpress site, he was actually arrested on a warrant from the state of Delaware.

In his statement to the press today, Sinclair claimed that he left a number of phone numbers with the Obama campaign when trying to contact Obama in autumn, 2007. One of these numbers, 302-685-7175, is listed as a Wilmington, Delaware land line. It's currently "unpublished or unavailable." Was it Sinclair's number or a "friend's"?

We do know, from a statement Sinclair posted at Big Head DC, that he was issued a credit card from a Wilmington, DE bank in 1999.

It's seems that Sinclair was a Delaware resident, perhaps periodically, at least between 1999 and 2007. What event in Delaware led to Sinclair's being hauled off in handcuffs this afternoon, and when did it occur?

UPDATE 6/19/08: The Mitch and Nan Show has done some investigating on the Delaware warrant, and their results suggest an addition to his history of fraud.

UPDATE 6/22/08: Sinclair's still in jail. There's been no confirmation of charges.

UPDATE 6/24/08 Sinclair's out. See new post on his release.

UPDATE 6/29/08 and 7/12/08

Larry Sinclair Arrested Following NPC Appearance

See The Mitch and Nan Show


Apparently, this has been confirmed by "Robin" at Larry Sinclair's wordpress site:

Robin Says:

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 at 3:57 pm


Larry has been arrested, and he needs an attorney in the Delaware area. Is there anybody here with connections?

At the very least, this will involve the Colorado warrant. Correction: no, apparently this involves a different warrant--one in the state of Delaware (so we can add a fifth state to his "criminal column," alongside Arizona, Colorado, Florida, and South Carolina?)

Remember that Montgomery Blair Sibley has been suspended in DC, so Sinclair might have to go with a public defender.
More later.

Update: Okay, it's later.
The story has broken big time over the internet (what did I write earlier about getting msm attention?). It's now appeared on Reason Magazine and Politico. Sadly, neither site mentions The Mitch and Nan Show which broke the news of Sinclair's arrest immediately following the press conference. That is, before anyone else (and with good reason).

Obama Bounce: UP in FLA, PA, and OH

Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic sums up today's Quinnipiac poll results nicely:
Quinnipiac's out with surveys of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania this morning showing Obama gains in each state as compared to the last time Q-PAC polled. The sample sizes are huge -- more than 1,400 likely votes in each state, although I'm a little wary of likely voter samples at this stage. No matter:

Florida: Obama: 47, McCain 43
Ohio: Obama 48, McCain 42
Pennsylvania: Obama 52, McCain 40

I thought these states were chock full of never-say-die McCain democrats?

Sinclair Press Conference Updates

Update: Press conference concluded at 4:25 pm (EST). And you won't believe the results.

The Mitch and Nan Show has a reporter inside the NPC event. At this point, minutes into the presser, they state:
Our “exclusive” reporter is inside the press event, seated and ready.

We just received a text message. There are about 50 “people” in the event. He questions how many are actually reporters.

There are 6 TV “type” cameras there. None are representing major media outlets as far as he can tell.

We will NOT be receiving very many updates during the event as his job is to report, photograph and record.

We will let you know ANYTHING we receive as soon as we get it.

So, there you go folks. For updates (cause you know the MSM isn't covering this), head to Mitch and Nan's.

Update: Reverend Manning, of ATLAH Worldwide, is, allegedly, Sinclair's "special guest" at the NPC. He's been broadcasting from outside the event.

Sinclair, and His Criminal Past, Gets MSM Coverage

In advance of his National Press Club appearance later today, Larry Sinclair received a bit of his long-desired msm exposure. Unfortunately, for Sinclair, it isn't sympathetic.

In an article on today's Politico, Ben Smith airs Larry Sinclair's criminal history--one that includes fraud, theft, and disorderly conduct--and incarceration in three states. It seems that Mr. Sinclair was jailed as recently as mid-September, 2007.

I was struck by attorney Montgomery Blair Sibley's nonchalance in his response to a question Sinclair's outstanding warrant in Colorado; it's not really surprizing, as the Colorado warrant is not extraditable. However, as Smith writes, "Sinclair's notoriety, and his scheduled press conference, however, has drawn the interest of the Colorado authorities," as a result, the Colorado authorities says "[w]e've notified the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and they will investigate." This can't bode well for Sinclair, but this is what mainstream media attention brings.

Besides examining official records, it's clear that Smith also took a gander at Sinclair's blog, from which he cites some of Sinclair's more outlandish claims, explanations, and justifications. Smith appears unimpressed, noting that, "Sinclair has, [. . . ] addressed elements of his criminal past on his own blog and in court filings punctuated by unusual spellings and capitalizations." Being familiar with that blog, I wonder about Smith's impressions as he reviewed comments about "teabagging," the ghetto," "Planet of the Apes" (among numerous other monkey references), Obama selling "Kenyan fried chicken," "hilarious" YouTube videos about "watermelons," and hopes that someone puts "the [redacted] in a hole." These are among the less offensive comments left by Sinclair's regular supporters who are funding his journeys between Washington DC and Minnesota. Sinclair does moderate his blog, and he evidently finds such commentary appropriate. You might think that someone craving msm attention--someone who wants his story taken seriously--would be more circumspect in what he includes on his private blog (it's called "audience awareness"). It's highly possible that Sinclair's blog will do more to discredit him than anything else (well, excepting the criminal history).

By the way, Politico did not reveal Sinclair's allegations as they remain "unsubstantiated."

Now aren't all of you petition-signers pleased about Sinclair's appointment at the NPC? You should be.

Update: Fox News's Greta Van Susteran finally responds to numerous requests to cover the Sinclair story:

Many of you email me asking why I don’t interview Larry Sinclair….here is why (click on the link [to Ben Smith's Politico story])

click here…

I assume you now know why I have not interviewed him and no one has…his 27 year criminal record and all sorts of other matters mentioned in the above link tell you why..in short, no credibility.

I urge all of you to look to the issues…and not to the smears. While the internet is a great communication and educational tool, it is also viral when it comes to smearing people. There are good reasons to be skeptical of what politicians promise you.. challenge them about those promises…question their policies…but let’s skip unsubstantiated smears.

Although Sinclair will have the time, space, and publicity to air his claims, he will finally have to supply the proof he's not revealed since January--when he initially aired his story on YouTube.

By the way: The Mitch and Nan Show scooped Ben Smith on Sinclair's criminal past--his Colorado, Florida, and South Carolina problems--months ago.

17 June 2008

Whitehouse.Com's Sinclair Disclosure at NPC: New Time

Earlier today I posted that Whitehouse.Com, the group that paid Larry Sinclair $20,000 to take a two-part polygraph exam concerning his allegations about Barack Obama, had arranged a press conference to be held at the National Press Club at 5:00 pm, 18 June. Well, they've changed their start time to further attract people who attend Sinclair's event. If media interest is piqued, Whitehouse.com will help to sate it:
WASHINGTON, June 17, 2008: Whitehouse.com will hold a press conference regarding the Larry Sinclair controversy on June 18, 2008 in the Visagor Lounge of the National Press Club, 529 14th Street NW, Washington, DC 20045. Signup will start at 3:00 PM, and the actual conference will start at approximately 4:00 PM, following the conclusion of Mr. Sinclair's press conference, which is scheduled earlier in the day.
[. . . .]
During the press conference, Whitehouse.com will release the results of the polygraph examinations, the reports of the experts, and a video of Mr. Sinclair taken while the examinations were being administered.
This should be interesting. After reportedly failing both parts of the exam, Sinclair accused Whitehouse.Com of accepting a $75,000 bribe "to suppress and or alter the results of the polygraph examinations." Sinclair claimed to have heard of the bribe from someone via email, but, as with Mr. Sinclair's other claims, he's produced no credible evidence to support this allegation.

In other news: Head on over to The Mitch and Nan Show to discover what fresh silliness Montgomery Blair Sibley has enacted. He's written a motion (not an appeal) requesting that he continue as Sinclair's attorney although he's been suspended by the DC Bar. Moreover, he's written this motion to the wrong court: Judge Kennedy can't overrule the Bar with one sweep of a pen. I guess this means that Sibley hasn't heard back from the Supreme Court.

Question: What role will Sibley play at Sinclair's press conference?
Answer: Kilt-wearing jackass.

UPDATE: Apparently, Whitehouse.com's presser was a dud. Their equipment didn't work, so they made a brief statement--no Q & A--and left the building. If this report is true, their actions are unimpressive to say the least.

Whitehouse.com to Release Sinclair Polygraph Tapes at NPC

Whitehouse.com enters the Larry Sinclair / National Press Club tangle.

You might remember Whitehouse.com as the site that promised Sinclair $20,000 is he was to take two polygraphs (or one long one, depending on how you look at it). One polygraph dealt with Sinclair's allegations of Obama's drug use, and the second dealt with the allegations of sex. According to Whitehouse.com's experts, Sinclair failed both exams (or both parts of one exam if that's how you choose to see it).

Whitehouse.com and Sinclair's relationship suffered a meltdown, in part because Sinclair accused them of accepting a $75,000 bribe from David Axelrod to skew the exam results, and Whitehouse.com removed all mention of Sinclair from its site (you can still access key posts through Google--or, at least you could the last time I tried). Whitehouse.dom has remained mum on the Sinclair situations until last night. According to the National Press Club's calendar,

Time: 5:00 PM
Event Type: News Conference
Sponsored by: WHITEHOUSE.COM Inc.
Event Location: Lisagor Room
Contact: Dan Parisi

Note that this news conferences occurs immediately after Sinclair's.

A statement at Whitehouse.com explains that their news conference will involve releasing the polygraph results, video tapes of Sinclair's exams, and a discussion of Sinclair's accusations of an Obama camp bribe. As this will be the first we've heard from Whitehouse.com since early spring, it promises some interesting revelations.

Update: At 12:47 am, Sinclair added a new post to his site:
If you click that link, a 404 error/Not Found appears. As of now, it looks like the Whitehouse.com presser is a go.

16 June 2008

NPC Makes Olbermann’s “Worst Person in the World” List

Olbermann gave the National Press Club third place in today’s “Worst Person in the World” list for giving a podium to a man making outrageous claims about a presidential candidate.

The funny thing is, he did so without naming the accuser, the candidate, or the accusations.

Ah, poor Larry Sinclair--the MSM is so close and yet so far!

And no, Olbermann did not call for the NPC to withdraw from its arrangement, so hold back on the "he's trying to limit the first amendment" arguments.

P.S. Paula Abeles /Paulie Abeles got some Keith-coverage as well.

NYT: Al Gore to Endorse Obama Monday, 16 June

Yes he will--and about time too. From campaign email:
A few hours from now I will step on stage in Detroit, Michigan to announce my support for Senator Barack Obama. From now through Election Day, I intend to do whatever I can to make sure he is elected President of the United States.

Over the next four years, we are going to face many difficult challenges -- including bringing our troops home from Iraq, fixing our economy, and solving the climate crisis. Barack Obama is clearly the candidate best able to solve these problems and bring change to America.

Sinclair's Blogger Lawsuit: Motions Denied

Larry Sinclair's lawsuit against three bloggers--he wants $ 3,000,000 for defamation--has suffered a setback. Per The Mitch and Nan Show:

"Plantiff’s Motion to disqualify counsel for TubeSock Ted……DENIED" [Sinclair claimed that, because he'd approached TubeSock Ted's attorney, James Klimaski, regarding his early lawsuit against Obama, Axelrod, et. al, the attorney should be disqualified].

Plantiff’s Motions # 15, 18 21…….DENIED [15 and 18 were motions to sanction Democratic Underground's and MzMolly's attorney, Paul Allen Levy of Public Citizen Litigation Group. I can't locate information on motion 21]

Plantiff’s Motion to compel defendant MzMolly to confer for the purpose of preparing a joint scheduling report…….DENIED

Defendants’ Motion to Substitute Filing # 19…….GRANTED! [Removes MzMolly's personal identifying information from court documents].

Whoa there--while good news for the bloggers and for freedom of speech, this only means that Sibley's attempts to derail the defendants have backfired. The lawsuit remains before Judge Henry Kennedy.

Aside: Read PCLG's April press release, which asserts that Sinclair's suit has no legal basis, here.

Update: on 10 February, 2009, the courts dismissed Sinclair's lawsuit.

15 June 2008

Russert, Obama, & Sinclair: Wednesday, 18 June 2008.

It looks like DC will be in a tizzy come this Wednesday as it looks like scheduling conflicts will abound.

The late, wonderful Tim Russert's funeral and memorial service will be held. Per the New York Times: A public wake for Mr. Russert will be at 2 p.m. Tuesday at St. Albans School in Washington, with a private funeral mass and burial on scheduled for Wednesday morning. A private memorial service, to be televised live [at 4:00 pm EDT] on MSNBC, will be held Wednesday afternoon at the Kennedy Center.

Michelle Obama co-hosts ABC's The View. (I wonder is this will go ahead as planned due to Mr. Russert's funeral and memorial services. Chances are that Barbara Walters and Michelle Obama will attend at least one of these events).

Finally, the Sinclair brouhaha. Curiously, the National Press Club lists the Larry Sinclair event at 3:00, although the detailed statement in the calendar entry notes that the show begins "at 2:00 PM (Sign in begins at 1:00 PM)." I hadn't noticed this time discrepancy before now.

Added event: Whitehouse.com will hold a 5:00 pm press conference at the National Press Club, during which its representatives will discuss the relationship between Whitehouse. com and Larry Sinclair. Items to be addressed include the polygraph examination and Sinclair's accusations that Whitehouse.com accepted a bribe from the Obama campaign to "fix: the exam results.

Rich: Clinton's Women Angry Enough to Back McCain?

This morning’s New York Times featured a well-observed piece by Frank Rich, “Angry Clinton Women (heart) McCain?

In pointing out the irony of irate feminists’ alleged support of John McCain out of spite, Rich references out some of Senator McCain’s documented sexist behavior (I shy away from using the term “misogynist, which seems to have lost some of its bearings), such as a tasteless joke he made in at a 1998 Republican fundraiser: “Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno,” and how he dealt with the question “how do we beat the bitch [Clinton]” by laughing awkwardly (Rich doesn’t mention McCain reportedly referring to Cindy McCain as a “cunt” and a “trollop” in front of others).

Now, I don’t believe that McCain is a walking, talking, woman-hating machine, I do think that his brain isn’t always engaged (not because of age, but because John McCain doesn’t always seem to consider what he’s going to say before he says it). What is more striking about these incidents is that women who have been crying out in anger and frustration at Senator Clinton’s treatment have (allegedly) declared their support for someone who has enabled and enacted that treatment. So what accounts for those legions of Clinton women for McCain that we keep hearing about? Rich claims that the media, and the public, perception on these feminists relies on prejudiced views of women:

the notion that all female Clinton supporters became “angry white women” once their candidate lost — to the hysterical extreme where even lifelong Democrats would desert their own party en masse — is itself a sexist stereotype. That’s why some of the same talking heads and Republican operatives who gleefully insulted Mrs. Clinton are now peddling this fable on such flimsy anecdotal evidence.

Indeed. The media has played for months on the image of the irrational, hysterical woman who, being emotionally attached to her cause (here, to see a woman achieve the highest office in the USA), would cut off her nose to spite her face. Didn’t this stereotype prevent women from obtaining political power for centuries? Don’t we celebrate figures such as Elizabeth I, Margaret Thatcher, Indira Ghandi, and Queen Victoria because of their stoic mien? They proved that women are as capable of reasoned, rather than primarily emotive, thinking and behavior as men. (1)

It is true that some women are truly furious and disheartened by Senator Clinton’s suspension of her campaign (we’ve seen them on YouTube), and some websites such as Hillary is 44, No Quarter, and Taylor Marsh (2) feature disenchanted posters who are stridently anti-Obama. However, there is little evidence to support the belief that McCain’s campaign is benefitting from an influx of Hillary fans. (3)

As Rich argues, this fracturing of the party by sex is only part of a larger media, and political, drama: “[t]he larger plot has it that the Democratic Party is hopelessly divided,” when, in reality, “[i]t’s the Democrats who are largely united and the Republicans who are at one another’s throats.” Dissension lingers amongst Republicans. The Senator’s funds are limited, in part because Bush’s supporters have not contributed to McCain’s war chest. Fourteen Conservative congressmen and women haven’t endorsed McCain. Ron Paul’s supporters aren’t straying from their man, and many noted Republicans have endorsed Senator Obama. Among them are Francis Fukuyama (a neocon architect and author of The End of History) and Douglas Kmiec, a conservative legal scholar (Kmiec also supported the liberal legal scholar Erwin Chermerinsky when U C Irvine withdrew an offer of deanship for political reasons). For other examples, please see the Wikipedia entry for “Obama Republicans.”

So how long will this portrayal of the distaff Democratic defection play out? I shouldn’t think too much longer. The more that polls show Obama leading McCain, the less we’ll here about the masses of disappointed females. Eventually it will seep through to the media that pollsters are calling people who don’t fit the latte sipping, Volvo driving, African-American, university educated, elitist, moonbat, liberal male demographic. Perhaps it might take a bit of time, but as we move closer to the Denver convention, and then to the general election, the media will recognize that maybe--just maybe--there really is a longing for optimism, unity, and change that's floating about in the zeitgeist, and that the majority of Americans, male and female, are willing to take a chance on the young junior senator from Illinois.


1) Keep in mind that Elizabeth I, Margaret Thatcher, and Queen Vctoria were not “masculine,” indeed, they retained their woman-ness. But they didn’t allow emotion to overwhelm key decisions. Being “rational” does not equate with being “masculine.”

2) A strong support of Senator Clinton’s campaign, Marsh has announced her support for Obama.

3) There are questions about the posters on these sites. For one, there are claims that many are, in fact, Republicans devoted to continue Operation Chaos. Another is that the number of Clinton followers out there is artificially inflated because the majority of these people post commentary to several fervently pro-Clinton blogs, sometimes under different nyms.

Rumor Central: Giganti NOT associated with Sinclair Event

There’s been plenty of speculation over who is “behind” Larry Sinclair’s press conference at the NPC. Because the original press release noted a sponsor named “Veritas Federal Media,” bloggers went to Google and came up with the name Joe Giganti.

Mr. Giganti is a conservative commentator, and he has been involved with an organization called “Veritas Media Group.” Some bloggers put this together with "Vertias Federal Media" and identified Mr. Giganti as a participant in the NPC show. Mr. Giganti is indignant at being associated with the Sinclair event. Read his response to a blogger who (mistakenly) linked him to the NPC event:

Joe Giganti wrote:

Dear Anti-Gun Activist:

I just read your posting that mentioned me and my former company, Veritas Media Group.

I would like to kindly request you correct this libelous posting as my company VMG is no longer in existence and the PR firm actually sponsoring the Sinclair event–Veritas Federal Media–is a wholly different company that I have no affiliation with and I’ve never had any association with Sinclair either.

It is one thing to advocate your position, which you have a constitutional right to do, but in the interest of your readers you would do well to make sure the time is taken to get the facts right.

I appreciate your immediate handling of this matter before I need to involve my attorneys.



It must be rather distressing to some if this uber-Conservative wants no part of you or your story,

Aside: Sinclair's press release was issued by the Center for Forfeiture Law, which is Montgomery Blair Sibley’s organization.

14 June 2008

Sinclair and His Story (update / repost)

Well, you've heard Larry Sinclair's story of a sordid encounter with a presidential candidate.

You might have read Sinclair's account of his rather turbulent personal history (rather, the part of it he wants you to know or that he was forced to admit).

You might have heard that he's an innocent victim of death threats, hacking, virus attacks, and unfounded smears all orchestrated by the DNC and/or the Obama campaign.

You might know as well that on Larry Sinclair's website, neither Larry nor his regular posters suffer dissent. In fact, if someone queries Sinclair's story, he or she is shut down either literally by Sinclair's moderation or figuratively by other posters (who do the virtual equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and going "la la la la. Can't heeeeaarr yooouuu..."). (caveat: I've never posted at Sinclair's site).

You might have heard that Sinclair has evidence of his encounter with the candidate.

You might have read that Sinclair is apolitical. He supports no candidate for the presidency. His only mission is to protect the American public from a liar, adulterer, and drug abuser.

You might have heard that Sinclair is justifiably suing three bloggers for defamation, for belittling him on the web, after he posted his first YouTube video accusing the candidate of salacious activities.

How about a different perspective? One that not only questions/tests Sinclair's story regarding veracity, but also his purposes in sending this story out there. Is it an unbiased wish for truth?
Let's see.
Primary Sources
  • Sinclair's lawsuit, filed 11 February 2008, against Barack Obama, David Axelrod, and the DNC.
  • The 19 March dismissal of Sinclair's lawsuit against Barack Obama, David Axelrod, and the DNC.
  • Sinclair's lawsuit against three bloggers for defamation, filed March 2008 (note: this is the current legal action for which Sinclair retained Montgomery Blair Sibley. Again, the court dismissed the suit against Obama).
  • A current outstanding warrant for Larry Sinclair's arrest in Colorado.
  • Sinclair's wordpress site, larrysinclair0926, offers a wealth of evidence regarding Mr. Sinclair's claims, perspectives, and attitudes regarding Mr. Obama, the DNC, the media, and those who challenge his account. (warning: posters' conversation here deviates into overt racism and sexism. Other discussions focus on the Illuminati, Bilderberg, UFOs/aliens, 9/11, fibromyalgia, Orwellian media conspiracies, new age spellcasting/praying and so on. Additionally, examples of Godwin's Law remain a constant feature on the site). Note: If you choose to post on Mr. Sinclair's site, please be aware that, unless you openly support his position, he will post your email address, isp, and location online. Depending on how objectionable he finds your post, he might ask others to locate more specific information on you (again, although I have viewed Mr. Sinclair's website, I have never posted there).
  • Sinclair and Sibley's press release for a planned news conference at the National Press Club.
Secondary Sources
  • The Mitch and Nan Show is devoted to satirizing Sinclair and his tale, but the site also includes authentic documentation of Sinclair's activities (past and present) and some pragmatic ideas. (warning: some posters at Mitch and Nan's utilize profanity, and there are some strange prose references to Brazilian pornography, but if you get beyond that, it's a solid source of evidence. Recently, the site decided to employ tactics similar to Mr. Sinclair's and "out" some of his more rabid supporters).
  • Big Head DC has a collection of Sinclair-related material, including an interview with him from February, 2008.
  • Towleroad, "A Site With Homosexual Tendencies," has a library of Sinclair articles.
  • The New Republic discusses Sinclair (albeit briefly).
  • Reason Magazine mentions Sinclair in its typically objectivist way.
  • Politico's story on the outrage targeting the National Press Club for renting Mr. Sinclair a place for his planned press conference (18 June, 2008).
  • Overlawyered.com on Sinclair's attorney, Montgomery Blair Sibley.

I'll add others to this "library" of links regularly.

Sinclair's Not Exceptional: The NPC's History of Odd Events.

Statement Regarding National Press Club Business Policies
June 13, 2008
WASHINGTON, June 13 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Because of potential confusion over the business policies at the National Press Club, the Club issued the following statement Friday:

It is the policy of the National Press Club to rent rooms for news conferences. We do this for thousands of events per year and have been doing so for a century. By renting a room for an event, we are not promoting or condoning or agreeing with the issues or policy positions or people involved in these events. We believe in the ability of reporters to ask good questions and report news or not as they see fit from events that take place at our location. The National Press Club does sponsor some events that are held at the Club. These include our Luncheon Series and our Newsmakers, Forums and Book events. The events sponsored by the Club are clearly indicated on our website and signs. Events that are NOT sponsored by the Club are indicated on the website as well.

SOURCE National Press Club

There’s been a bit of howling about the NPC allowing Larry Sinclair to rent a room for his news conference. Many claim “nothing like this has happened before”; “The NPC location "legitimizes Sinclair's claims"; "This doesn’t hold true to the NPC’s stated purpose and ethical guidelines," The NPC is “whoring itself out,” etc. While I sympathize with such perspectives, we might recall that the NPC is a private organization that supports freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Is the Sinclair event's topic sleazy? Undoubtedly. Drug abuse, illicit gay sex, and murder aren't your everyday political story (at least, not all at once). But I ask you, is a “pubic service” performed by openly analyzing and then debunking the story via “good journalism”? Does this not fit with the NPC's established purpose and ethics then?

Additionally, let’s look briefly at some of the weirder events held at the NPC. Do you think the NPC went out of its way the legitimize the following items? And this is just a small sampling of the questionable stories, panels, and news conferences that have taken place at the NPC (there are loads more out there. Google away, and let me know what you can find. I’ll add it--I'm especially interested in adding political balance to this list).

08 April 2008. Ed Rubenstein, V DARE, on Immigration (nutshell: the whites are in trouble).
12 November, 2007. James Fox and Leslie Kean on UFOs and cover ups.
30 October, 2007. Ken Johnston on NASA Cover ups (ancient ruins on the moon!)
03 October, 2007. The Social Contract on Illegal Immigration (not-so-subtle racism)
25 September, 2006. Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood on “9/11 was an inside job
29 July, 2005. Dr. David Ray Griffin, on "the truth about 9/11"
25 October, 2004. Jim Fetzer on “The Strange Death of Paul Wellstone” (the Bush administration did it, apparently).
In 2005, Louis Farrakhan spoke at the NPC of government conspiracies.
David Duke, confirmed white supremicist, has spoken at The National Press Club. A recent example is found at the Anti-Defamation League website.

Enough of conspiracy theorists and racists—how about down and dirty scandal mongers? Okay.

Remember Anita Broaddick? She accused President Clinton of rape. Well, a panel on her story, called “Too Hot for a ‘Scandal-Weary’ New Media to Handle?,” was held at the NPC when the press and public ignored the story (New York Observer).

4 May, 2004. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were launched at a NPC news conference.

16 July, 2001. Peter Paul and Judicial Watch held a news conference at The National Press Club to accuse the Clintons of fraud.

Granted, that's all I collected in the past hour, but I think it's pretty clear that the NPC isn't striving to smear Obama. I don't agree that the NPC is unethical. In fact, I think they're doing the right thing in removing this story from the blogosphere (where it continues to fester and sow doubt and discord among many readers). The solution is to hand Sinclair's seamy, incomprehensible accusations over to people with the time, money, and resources to investigate and put it to rest once and for all.

So, pretty please, leave the NPC alone. They just provide a space. Let the reporters do their job.

13 June 2008

Mr. Russert

Goodbye Tim
and thanks.

Larry Sinclair, NPC Press Release, and "Freedom of Speech"

Larry Sinclair and his attorney,Montgomery Blair Sibley have issued a press release publicizing Sinclair's upcoming appearance at the National Press Club.

Several websites have initiated petitions requesting that the NPC cancel Sinclair's appearance, and people from both sides of the issue have inundated the NPC with phone calls and emails. You have to feel badly for the communications people there.

Petitions asking the NPC to cancel the pc is problematic. It only adds to–and validates–Sinclair's supporters' paranoia that Obama’s people will do anything to shut Sinclair up (however, they're quite mistaken in thinking that attacks on Sinclair's character and on his accusations originate with the Obama campaign. As far as I know, and I'm relatively familiar with this whole situation, the anti-Sinclair folks are private citizens offended by Sinclair's smear. Oh, and that "400 paid bloggers thing"? Myth).

Moreover, the petition is questionable because there is that pesky first amendment thing. Although the National Press Club is a private organization, which means that they are not required to accommodate all potential speakers, and they can legally cancel Sinclair's planned press conference, keep in mind that Sinclair has every right to say what he wants. However, this holds true for others: people have every right to challenge, dispute, and disprove his statements.

Another reason why this press conference is important rests on the assertion that "Larry will (i) reveal the corroborating evidence for his allegations regarding Obama [. . . .]" (see press release). This will be fascinating to watch, as Sinclair has continually promised, but never released, such evidence--including the name of a limousine driver who, he claims, he has been in touch with weekly since the incident. Earlier this week, someone contacted Sinclair's attorney, Montgomery Blair Sibley, and discovered that even now, one week prior to the press conference, Sibley is unaware of the limo driver's identity (see here).

Will there be fallout from the press conference? Sure. But one way to view this event is to see it as an opportunity for other people to realize that Sinclair's story doesn't hold up.

For the record, Sinclair is not, nor has he been, denied his freedom of speech. He's maintained a vocal presence on the Internet and some radio programs since his first YouTube video in January. Despite all the bleating about his rights being squashed, there is absolutely no evidence that his first amendment rights have been violated. Seriously--has the man been silenced? Show me how. Show me where. I'll listen.

Aside: Montgomery Blair Sibley has an appeal before the Supreme Court to reinstate his license to practice in DC after being suspended. We should hear more on his status any time now.

Obama's "Fight the Smears" and Clinton's "Facthub"

By now you've heard about Barack Obama's site, Fight the Smears, which intends (obviously) to combat the plethora of rumors floating about the internet. It seems that Obama took his cue from Senator Clinton--remember her "facthub"?

Regardless of where the idea originated, it's a good one. And about time that Obama gont one going (what in blazes took him so long? It also seems an ideal place to address Sinclair's allegations).

**Clinton's "Facthub" seems to be down at the moment; here's a write up on the site's purpose.

12 June 2008

Sinclair Fence-Sitters: Some Resources.

Well, you've heard Larry Sinclair's story of a sordid encounter with a presidential candidate.

You might have read Sinclair's account of his rather turbulent personal history (rather, the part of it he wants you to know or that he was forced to admit).

You might have heard that he's an innocent victim of death threats, hacking, virus attacks, and unfounded smears all orchestrated by the DNC and/or the Obama campaign.

You might know as well that on Larry Sinclair's website, neither Larry nor his regular posters suffer dissent. In fact, if someone queries Sinclair's story, he or she is shut down either literally by Sinclair's moderation or figuratively by others posters (who do the virtual equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and going "la la la la. Can't heeeeaarr yooouuu..."). (caveat: I've never posted at Sinclair's site).

You might have heard that Sinclair has evidence of his encounter with the candidate.

You might have read that Sinclair is apolitical. He supports no candidate for the presidency. His only mission is to protect the American public from a liar, adulterer, and drug abuser.

You might have heard that Sinclair is justifiably suing three bloggers for defamation, for belittling him on the web, after he posted his first YouTube video accusing the candidate of salacious activities.

How about a different perspective? One that not only questions/tests Sinclair's story regarding veracity, but also his purposes in sending this story out there. Is it an unbiased wish for truth?
Let's see.
Primary Sources
  • Sinclair's lawsuit, filed 11 February 2008, against Barack Obama, David Axelrod, and the DNC.
  • The 19 March dismissal of Sinclair's lawsuit against Barack Obama, David Axelrod, and the DNC.
  • Sinclair's lawsuit against three bloggers for defamation, filed March 2008 (note: this is the current legal action for which Sinclair retained Montgomery Blair Sibley. Again, the court dismissed the suit against Obama).
  • A current outstanding warrant for Larry Sinclair's arrest in Colorado.

Secondary Sources
  • Death by 1,000 Papercuts has a useful library of Sinclair material. Do peruse.
  • The Mitch and Nan Show is devoted to satirizing Sinclair and his tale, but the site also includes authentic documentation of Sinclair's activities (past and present) and pragmatic ideas.
  • (warning: some posters at Mitch and Nan's utilize profanity, and there are some strange prose references to Brazilian pornography, but if you get beyond that, it's a solid source of evidence).
  • The New Republic discusses Sinclair (albeit briefly).
  • Reason Magazine mentions Sinclair in its typically objectivist way.
  • Overlawyered.com on Sinclair's attorney, Montgomery Blair Sibley.

I'll add others to this "library" of Larry Sinclair links regularly.

09 June 2008

So, You're Saying That There Was Sexism, But No Racism?

The following series of links is the rough material from which I plan to draw for an upcoming post. As I've not got to writing said post, and I’m always eager to share links, here you go…

In a complaint about Hillary Clinton’s treatment during the campaign, a commentator at a popular democratic blog left the following:

Now wrap your mind around this: If Obama had been called, God forbid, the n word or jokes made about watermelons, or shine my shoes, etc. there would have been an AVALANCHE of protest from everywhere!

Don't tell me about vile things said about Obama supporters when it was OUR CANDIDATE that was insulted over and over and over again.

Think we're angry? You have no idea.

Alrighty then. Let's play. Did we hear about all of these?

Racist Incidents Give Some Obama Campaigners Pause

Curious George t shirt and Obama

SP: on racist attacks on Obama

Curious George and the Rush Limbaugh Show

GOP Congressman Apologizes for Calling Obama 'Boy'

Obama and the Bigots

And to be fair, we can’t forget the Obama Campaign “race baiting” memo:
Obama Camp Memo on Clinton and Race Baiting

Several videos at You Tube, some featuring watermelons, some the KKK, currently exist. I’ll post links shortly. Oh, and some of those videos also employ overt misogyny. One, in fact, targets “fat white women” who support Obama.

And, of course, the miles of text devoted to racist cliches and dog-whistling on blogs worldwide. Or do they not count?

Also, is a diehard Hillary campaigner (and pro-HRC sockpuppeter who constantly defames Obama on sites such as Hillaryis44) the same woman who posed as a 67 year old black woman to infiltrate the online chat room of Sally Heming’s descendents in order to prevent those descendents from being admitted to the all-white Monticello Association? You might recall that Sally Hemings was Thomas Jefferson’s slave. One of her descendents has been DNA tested, which confirmed the descendent’s relationship with Jefferson. The woman in question aided the fight to deny validity to Heming's descendent's claims.

More on the sockpuppetry later, perhaps (someone else is working on it [see comments], and I'd hate to step on toes when s/he has done so much research), but here are two articles, both of which name the lady, to peruse.

UPDATE: The women I alluded to above is named Paulie Abeles (also known as Paula Abeles), and she was mentioned today in Ben Smith's blog at Politico. Apparently she contacted the site to complain about her pro-Clinton group's treatment by Politico, and Mr. Smith did a little research: he discusses the Monticello Association episode. Do read his article.

: The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias has a brief write up on the Abeles affair. The Comments following his piece are quite, well, telling. Abeles herself contributes a plea that this "smear" is unjustified as it's common practice to assume a pseudonym on the internet (let's be pedantic: a pseudonym is the adoption of a different name, not an invented identity--say, that of a 67 year old African-American woman with emphysema when one is a relatively young, upper-middle class, white woman).

Note: Abeles posted the exact same comment at Politico. She includes her email address in both; methinks someone is hoping for media contact.

Added: Someone posted this at Politico. (comment by "Amazon Grace," 6/16, 08:59). I've left the bold in place.
Paulie is a DIE-HARD all right, a die hard racist. Teh goodgle found this on Amazon, a review of a Thomas Jefferson-Sally Hemings book. I bolded the more, er, calm and civilized portions.
3 stars - Politically Incorrect September 15, 2000 By "spabeles" For anyone who has followed the Jefferson-Hemings story this is an interesting book. However, it glosses over much of the historical evidence, and seems to suggest that anyone who questions the conclusion that Jefferson fathered Hemings children is a racist. Media sound bites and Lanier to the contrary, the DNA evidence for Jefferson's paternity is very shaky and Lanier neglects to mention that the descendents sic of Madison Hemings (of whom he is one) refused to be tested at all (although he does mention that the DNA testing eliminated the 150 year old claims of the Woodsons) Regardless, Lanier believes that ALL the families should be accepted by the Jefferson family to order to support racial harmony (which seems a little ridiculous since there are always people who try to claim descent from more illustrious forbears). Most of all, you are left with great sadness that the Hemings descendents are so desperate to be related to Jefferson it has become the focus of their lives, and even when their claims are proven impossible (as with the Woodson families), they still cling to a belief that they are descended from a great WHITE man (which is pretty sad). Whether Jefferson never acknowledged the Hemings children or treated them differently than any of the other house slaves because he was a really bad guy, OR because they were not in fact his children is a question that will remain (at least for me) until more sophisticated DNA analysis can link paternity not to one of 27 Jefferson males, but to Thomas Jefferson himself.

"They still cling to a belief that they are descended from a great WHITE man (which is pretty sad)," a statement that is pretty darned revealing.