The ADL (finally) Chastizes Sean Hannity

A recent episode of Sean Hannity's Fox News program, Hannity's America, dedicated itself to presenting a series of questionable allegations about Senator Obama. The episode, a guilt-by-association-fest titled "Obama and Friends: The History of Radicalism," prompted this response from James Rainey of the LA Times:

Even by the low standards of this election's advocacy journalism, the program plumbed new depths -- relying on innuendo and guilt by association to paint the Illinois senator as a dupe of the shadowy forces of the left.

Much of Hannity's report was based on interviews with half a dozen partisan commentators, whose main qualification seems to have been a previously expressed disdain for Obama.

Near the top of the program, the host introduced one of them, Andy Martin, as an "author and journalist." But reporters in his Chicago hometown know Martin better as a perennial political candidate and serial litigant.

Martin also has the reputation of being an unrepentant anti-Semite:

A motion [Martin] filed in a 1983 bankruptcy case called the judge “a crooked, slimy Jew who has a history of lying and thieving common to members of his race.”

In another motion, filed in 1983, Mr. Martin wrote, “I am able to understand how the Holocaust took place, and with every passing day feel less and less sorry that it did.”

In an interview, Mr. Martin denied some statements against Jews attributed to him in court papers, blaming malicious judges for inserting them.

But in [a] “48 Hours” interview in 1993, he affirmed a different anti-Semitic part of the affidavit that included the line about the Holocaust, saying, “The record speaks for itself.”

When asked Friday about an assertion in his court papers that “Jews, historically and in daily living, act through clans and in wolf pack syndrome,” he said, “That one sort of rings a bell. (New York Times)

Following the first airing of "Obama and Friends," people, including Salon's Glenn Greenwald, began questioning why Sean Hannity would play host to someone like Andy Martin. That group now includes the Anti Defamation League. The ADL has sent Hannity a letter claiming that Hannity "ought not" have given Martin "the opportunity to enhance his credentials or his standing by appearing on Hannity's America."

It might be useful to bear in mind that Hannity, himself faithful to assuming others are guilty by their associations with shadowy figures, has been similarly critiqued for his past association with the notorious white supremacist Hal Turner.

Aside: One of Martin's claims is that as a community organizer, Obama "was in training for a radical overthrow of the [U.S.] government" (Greenwald). Apparently, he is the man behind the "Obama is a secret Muslim" meme, which originated in 2004, and he is one of Jerome Corsi's sources for The Obama Nation, a work that has been roundly refuted by numerous organizations (see here, here, and here for examples).

Andy Martin is also a favored figure amongst other anti-Obama groups: he was a featured speaker at the PUMA Conference '08 a few months back, and he's been a guest on Clintons4McCain broadcasts.

About That "17 Page Congressional Report" on Obama. . .

Remember that "17 page report by a Congressional investigator" that Cristi Adkins (of Clintons4McCain and The Coalition Against Anti-Christian Rhetoric) mentioned on Hardball the other week? Apparently, it's all bunk. Adkins sent a copy to The Huffington Post, along with a second "report," written by a "Judah Benjamin,"* that makes the case that Senator Obama is ineligibile for the presidency. Anyway, after some careful research and interviews with Adkins, her fellow Clintons4McCainer Evelyn Adams, and several attorneys (including the esteemed Erwin Cherminsky), the HuffPo concludes both documents are of "doubtful authority" and consist of "flimsy and biased arguments." Read the article by Elizabeth Rauber here.

Ah, who is the Congressional investigator? It's not Dave Bossie. It's Paula Abeles. I. am. not. making. that. up.

* In this case, "Judah Benjamin" appears to be a pseudonym. You might be interested to know that the original Judah Benjamin (1811-1884) was a major architect of the Civil War:

A founder of the Illinois Central Railroad, a state legislator, a planter who owned 140 slaves until he sold his plantation in 1850, Judah Benjamin was elected to the United States Senate from Louisiana in 1852. When the slave states seceded in 1861, Confederate President Jefferson Davis appointed Benjamin as Attorney-General [. . . .] Benjamin later served as the Confederacy’s Secretary of War, and then Secretary of State.

Apparently, when Lincoln was assassinated, "[Jefferson] Davis and Benjamin were suspected of having plotted the event." The rumor was ill-founded, but Benjamin fled the country following the war's end as he feared he couldn't "get a fair trial if charged with Lincoln's murder."

Isn't it curious that this "historian," one who is determined to prove that Obama is legally prohibited from becoming president, adopts this man's name as a pseudonym? It sort of adds to his credibility, doesn't it?

(Aside: Abeles was in the news last month when she claimed that she witnessed Democratic volunteers offering to pay people to register to vote. According to No Quarter, she's also involved in a group called "Real Democrats USA," which speaks out against the DNC's treatment of Senator Clinton).

Cristi Adkins Hits the MSM

(a repost with updates & additions)

So what’s the easiest (laziest) way to dismiss reports of pro-Hillary/anti-Obama activist Cristi Adkins’s apparent involvement in political smear jobs? Claim they are lies perpetuated by “Obama’s paid bloggers." So what do you call it when the MSM starts asking questions? Let’s look at two articles: one from NPR and the other from The New York Observer (we’ll not include Hardball here, but check out her appearance with Chris Matthews if you’ve not seen it. Heck, check out Adkins on The Daily Show while you’re at it. You can also review the "frequent Fox News Channel television and radio contributor['s]" appearances on programs such as Hannity and Colmes and Neil Cavuto's show).

A reporter at National Public Radio has written the piece, Strange Bedfellows Behind Anti-Obama 'Turban' Ad. It's part of NPR’s "Secret Money" project, which tracks and reports on Democratic and Republican pacs and 527s. This particular well-researched article focuses on Cristi Adkins, fellow pro-Clinton organizer Mike Donovan, and the group, The Coalition Against Anti-Christian Rhetoric. You might recall the The Coalition Against Anti-Christian Rhetoric produced a notorious anti-Obama ad based on the re-editing of a speech Obama gave in 2006. The ad was timed to air just prior to the Montana and South Dakota primaries. Do take the time to read the NPR piece to get the full scoop. For now, let's focus on a few key points.

The Coalition Against Anti-Christian Rhetoric ad was pulled after one showing. According to the article, the real reason behind the pull is that nobody paid the television station for airing the ad (it appears that the ad’s producer, Mike Donovan, is to blame for this). Once it became evident that there was no money to pay for broadcast, Allen Media Services "canceled the buy." Allen Media Services is owned by Cristi Adkins’s husband, Burke Allen (Adkins). Allen also provided a voiceover for the ad, by the way. Additionally, the ad’s videographer was left high and dry: he had to chase people down in order to get some sort of reimbursement for services.

Another point of interest in the article:

[the videographer] says Adkins originally wanted to depict Obama with devil horns juxtaposed with images of Hitler [. . . .] Adkins acknowledges she wanted to show the disturbing similarities she saw between audience reactions to Obama and Hitler. As for the horns, the hypnotherapist says, "I might have said, 'Can you put a subliminal shadow in?' I don't know that I said put devil horns.

Nice evasion there. Note that the imagery mentioned in the article--the mish-mash of Satanic and Nazi symbols. While that didn't make the CAACR ad, it certainly made another site that Mie Donovan appears to have played a role in: Obama Hate Speech (see images here and site registration here).

By the way, Adkins declines to mention who made up The Coalition Against anti-Christian Rhetoric. Was there ever a "roll call" of members? Who were the Coalition's officers? Did any MSM reporters contact or interview any of the group's members? We seem to have hit a blank here. In the NPR article, we learn that the videographer believes the "coalition" was Adkins. This might make some sense when, rather than distance herself from the Coalition and its controversial ad, Adkins claims that, once her newer organization, Clintons 4 McCain, " own[s] the ad" they "might use some form of it to blast Obama again." Consider yourselves forewarned, then.

Someone posted a comment or two here the other week claiming that the NPR story would vindicate Adkins. Not so. It's an objective piece, but it confirms Adkins's involvement with this scurrilous political action.

Also take a peek at “Encyclopedia Google and The Case of The Anti-Obama Hypnotherapist” at The New York Observer. This article gathers in the NPR report, Adkins’s appearance on Hardball, and a few other items in an attempt to answer the question: who is Cristi Adkins?

Added: Elizabeth Rauber at The Huffington Post has analyzed, and discredited, the "report" Ms. Adkins referenced on Hardball.

In the past week, since the news broke, several blog posts have appeared aiming to paint Ms. Adkins the victim of a pro-Obama blogging collective. But it's worth asking: is it this sudden rush to protect and defend Adkins simply a means of deflecting the fact that she’s been discovered as an active participant in a cynical anti-Obama smear job?

And, for Heaven's sake, will you conspiracy theorists get over yourselves already? Obama and his campaign have nothing to do with m, p, & g s. (heads up: there are no "paid bloggers").

Added: The New York Times has published brief details on the Coalition Against Anti-Christian Rhetoric's ad, titled "Obama Godlike," here.

L A Times: "A Few PUMAs On The Loose"

Meghan Daum's story in the 30 August issue of the L A Times is well worth a read. Here's a taster from Daum's (none too flattering) column:

That's right, cable TV viewers, talk-radio listeners and blog readers of America: Just when you thought Clinton's most ardent supporters had finally worked their way through the stages of grief and were ready to get behind the nominee, along comes evidence that they're not just angry feminists moping because they won't see a female president in their lifetimes, they're self-sabotaging lunatics!

I mean, did you see them? There they were, foaming at the mouth and cropping up in more of the coverage than many actual convention speakers.

She continues with examples of die-hard Hillary supporters, including Elizabeth Joyce and Cristi Adkins, on Hardball, The Daily Show, and Larry King. Thankfully, she notes (finally someone in the MSM does!) that although PUMA's numbers seem plentiful, there are actually few of them: it's simply that they are a noisy few. I'm not saying that all PUMAs are kooky, or loud, or loud and kooky. Some do remain dignified in their anger and frustration and try to effect change using the system (cf. Will Bowers' current plan); unfortunately, the kookier PUMAs' noise drowns out the sensible PUMAs' efforts.

One other thing: I've never heard so many wisecracks about repealing the nineteenth amendment as I have this week. Something about female hysteria not mixing with politics keeps coming up. I wonder why.

Operation Nobama !

I tried to post this the other day but hit the wrong button. *Poof* went the post, and then Bill Clinton came onstage at the DNC Convention, so we'll try it again, even though it might now be irrelevant considering that the CAACR news has exploded in the mainstream media. Even so, I’d like to point out another coincidence.

If you're not familiar with "Operation NOBAMA!" (so evocative of "Operation Chaos," no?), it's an element of "mission: NOBAMA!," a rallying cry for Just Say No Deal and Clintons4McCain. Webpages began echoing with "Operation NOBAMA!" following a press release authored by Ms. Adkins on 09 June, which stated:

The Just Say No Deal is made up of over 20 grassroots organizations and over 1 million subscribers thus far with one unifying mission: Operation Nobama

Guess who registered a site titled “Operationnobama.com” (as well as "America's Hope Foundation) that very same day? Let's see:

Domain Name.......... operationnobama.com
Creation Date........ 2008-06-09
Registration Date.... 2008-06-09
Expiry Date.......... 2010-06-09
Organisation Name.... Jonathan Davis
Organisation Address. 166 blue mountain rd
Organisation Address. front royal
Organisation Address. 22630
Organisation Address. VA
Organisation Address. UNITED STATES

Ladies and gentlement, it's jdawg/Jonathan Davis! Despite the registration's timeliness, the site owner never developed it beyond a “this site brought to you by Earthlink” banner. You can see a cached copy of that front page here; the site has, along with the rest of “jdawg’s” sites, gone completely down.

Although "operationnobama.com" is dark, an "operationnobama.org"is live (though barely so. See below). Someone registered the second site on 07 July. Who registered the site? Someone in Madeira, Portugal. Rather, that’s the address given in the site’s whois registration.

Domain Name:OPERATIONNOBAMA.ORG
Created On:07-Jul-2008 23:32:00 UTC
Last Updated On:29-Aug-2008 11:59:27 UTC
Expiration Date:07-Jul-2009 23:32:00 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Register.com Inc. (R71-LROR)
Registrant Name:Domain Discreet
Registrant Organization:ATTN: operationnobama.org
Registrant Street1:Avenida do Infante 50
Registrant City:Funchal
Registrant State/Province:Madeira
Registrant Postal Code:9004-521
Registrant Country:PT
Registrant Phone:+361.19027495331
Registrant Email:[a whole lotta numbers]@domaindiscreet.com

Essentially, the info is fake. The address seems to be an all-around shell address. It’s used for an eccentric variety of websites, such as “nekkid.info” “swisscashbiz” etc., anti-Obama sites such as “nowewont.org,” and the site of a group opposing Florida beach development. It’s also used for offshore finance services. See, for example, this listing:

Citco Corporate Management (Madeira) Limitada
Avenida Do Infante 50, 9000 Funchal, Madeira
Telephone +351 [redacted]

The address is the same, but something's wonky. The phone number. Once again, we have a phone number that can't be traced. We can’t locate a country that has “361” as a country code. Of course, as Portugal’s country code is 351, this might be a repeated typo (the number appears more than once). We'll give the registrant the benefit of a doubt. (Aside: When you look under the “underlying” whois information, you discover that the newer “operationnobama,” is web.com).

This information prompts a significant question: why on earth would someone want to mask his or her ownership of an anti-Obama site so thoroughly that they decide to give it an overseas registration? Aren’t the anonymous services in the USA sufficient? Especially when you consider that the site is so...basic?

As noted earlier, “OperationNobama.org” is rather minimalist. It offers a "welcome message" of sorts, and appears to present itself as a "clearinghouse" for people's anti-Obama sentiments. See:

Wednesday, July 9, 2008

Something to think about
I really, really hope that American Citizens are smart enough to realize how phony Senator Obama is.

If we don't step up to the plate and educate the public, especially voters, we're in for a very rude awakening. Time is running out my friends. Please send an email to the link on this page. I will include your comments and opinions exactly as they appear in the email.

Thank you fro visiting, and God bless the United States of America.
5:34 pm est
2008.07.01

(Aside: notice the irregularity between the post's date, "July 9" and the comment's date, "2008.07.01"?)

The site includes a hotmail address towards which you can direct your objections to Obama, a link to a video, and claims that the site will begin selling anti-Obama materials in the future, but, other than, it's bare bones.

Ah, the site does repost the debunked email from US CPT Jeffrey S. Porter--you know, the one that claims Obama blew off troops in Afghanistan so he could play basketball (in case you didn't know, Porter, who is a real person, has recanted. He explains that he passed an unsourced, anonymous email on to his family, and it began circulating with his name attached. On 25 July, a second email from CPT Porter appeared in The New York Daily News blog:

“I am writing this to ask that you delete my email and not forward it. After checking my sources, information that was put out in my email was wrong. This email was meant only for my family. Please respect my wishes and delete the email and if there are any blogs you have my email portrayed on I would ask if you would take it down too. Thanks for your understanding.”

As the email clearly states, CPT Porter wishes people to cease forwarding "his" email and for bloggers who have posted "his" email please remove it from their blogs. As Porter's email was posted to "Operationnobama.org" after Porter recanted, we can assume that the person(s) behind the site is either unaware of Porter's request or said person just doesn't care and prefers to propel debunked rumors.

Anyway, the other day, wondering about “operation nobama,” I took some time to Google the term. Guess what came up at Mahalo?

Guide Note
Clintons4Mccain is an organization, founded by Cristi Adkins, that opposes the decisions of the DNC on the Florida Michigan Delegates Controversy and feels that "the media and Hollywood" unfairly influences the election process.¹

Since the nomination of Barack Obama, members of the group, most of which are registered Democrats, have pledged their support for John McCain.

Fast Facts

Founded by Cristi Adkins

Administers a large number of individual websites under "Operation NOBAMA"

I think it’s interesting that Clintons4McCain “administers a large number of websites under ‘Operation NOBAMA.’”

It's also interesting that "jdawg," once again, happens to pick up on the Clintons4McCain angst and lays quick claim to the "Operation Nobama" name--the very day of the press release.

I do think these are totally unrelated; it's mere coincidence. Anybody could have created the second site. The point of the post? To provide another example of a "Hillary Trojan" site--just more Astroturf.

Aside: Please note that the site quoted above is one of two Clintons4McCain entries at Mahalo. Cristi Adkins's bio links directly to the second entry (here) , and mentions "Mission: Nobama" rather than "Operation Nobama."

McCain Money for PUMA, Just Say No Deal ? (Updated)

Whilst trawling the Internet, I came across a compelling bit of infighting amongst Hillary supporters over some people's defection to John McCain's camp before Obama had even received the Democratic nomination, and what might prompt such swift support for the Republican nominee.

In a post titled "Hoodwinked and Bamboozled"(7/02/08), a Hillary Clinton voter alleges that in a conference call on 29 June, which was attended by a cabal of pro-Clinton grassroots leaders, the following took place:

Marilu Socher (of "Women For Fair Politics") stated that " she had just gotten out of a meeting with the McCain people" and some of the topics discussed were "how to funnel money" to the "Just Say No Deal" Coalition, and she also announced that PUMA/ Just Say No Deal will now be represented by the "very Republican" Taft Law Firm, and she further stated that the "McCain people" also informed her that "Hillary has no chance", and they need to put their efforts towards electing McCain. Quite frankly, I smell a "rat" in our house, and it must be eliminated immediately [emphasis added].

One of the people “fingered” in the post is Will Bower of PUMA08 (at one point, a commentor accuses him of being an Obama “double agent”). As Mr. Bower had participated in the teleconference, a poster challenges him to confirm the meeting’s events:

Do you deny what Marylou, Women For Fair Politics, said? The Taft Law Firm? Meeting with the McCain campaign? Funneling money to JSND? No chance for Hillary, insinuated per the McCain campaign? (7/5/08 12:19am)

No-one either confirms or denies what roles McCain money or Taft Law firm might have played in the cabal’s conversation. However, in a striking response to the above comment, Bower asserts:

"Just Say No Deal" has not accepted a single -dime- from -anyone-. Yes, members within the coalition -have- accepted money, but "Just Say NO DEAL" has had no part in that... nor have I as an individual (7/5/08 4:38 am).

Despite encouragements to enlighten fellow posters more, Mr. Bower ventures no further with his claims, and other posters remain unsatisfied (although they do redirect their ire: Mr. Bower, it seems, does keep it clean). This frustration is evident is such bluntly worded posts as the following:

I have been watching PUMA and JSND for a while now and all they actually seem interested in doing is lining their own pockets or certain members seeing
themselves on t.v. with no desire to actually make a difference except for
McCain (7/5/2008 at 7:47 pm).

This is one of several assertions that prompt a mini-battle. One person named in the ensuing thread (and who replies with gusto to the blogger's queries about this teleconference) is Cristi Adkins. In a noteworthy aside, Ms. Adkins tells Mr. Bower,

So my friend, let me do the dirty work and you get back to doing what you do
best...keeping it clean (7/18/2008 at 7:58 pm).

Of course, this is out of context, so do please read the entire exchange for yourself (the truly interesting material begins after the notes on Obama’s use of subliminal suggestion). I might comment on this a bit further down the road, but do read the post, and do review the comments.

Aside: One of the posters at "Unheard American Voices" suggests that others look into FEC reports on RNC expenditures. There is no indication that anyone took up her challenge.

NB: The dear Anti-Rocinante drew my attention to this post a month or so ago, and I forgot it. Mea culpa, A-R, and many thanks.

The New York Observer

Yesterday, Matt Haber at The Observer published a story titled, "Clinton Supporter Smears Obama on MSNBC and Daily Show in Same Day; Who Let the Dogs Out?"(ouch!). He's followed that with a fresh story that offers a solid overview of the facts of (and the speculations about) Cltins4McCainer Cristi Adkins's activities. Take a look; it's worth your time.

NPR's "Secret Money" on Cristi Adkins, the CAACR

A reporter from National Public Radio's "Secret Money" project has just published a well-researched article on the Coalition Against Anti-Christian Rhetoric, media figure Cristi Adkins, and a man amed Mike Donovan. You might recall that the CAACR produced a short-lived anti-Obama ad based on distortions. Do take the time to read the NPR piece.

Apparently, the ad was pulled A point of interest the real reason why the ad was pulled, originally because the station's payment wasn't forthcoming. Afterwards, Allen Media Services "canceled the buy." It appears that the ad was pulled, then, because there was no money to pay for it: Mike Donovan, so the article suggests, ran off before delivering the funds to the station and to the videographer.

Another point of interest:

[the videographer] says Adkins originally wanted to depict Obama with devil horns juxtaposed with images of Hitler [. . . .] Adkins acknowledges she wanted to show the disturbing similarities she saw between audience reactions to Obama and Hitler. As for the horns, the hypnotherapist says, "I might have said, 'Can you put a subliminal shadow in?' I don't know that I said put devil horns.

Nice evasion there. Note that the imagery mentioned in the article--the mish-mash of Satanic and Nazi symbols. While that didn't make the CAACR ad, it certainly made the Donovan-related website, Obama Hate Speech (see images here and site registration here).


Adkins never once mentions who made up the Coalition Against anti-Christian Rhetoric. The videographer believes the "coalition" was Adkins.

Rather than distance herself from the CAACR and its controversial ad, Adkins claims that, once her newer organization, Clintons 4 McCain, " own[s] the ad," they "might use some form of it to blast Obama again." Consider yourselves forewarned, then.

Someone posted a comment or two the other week claiming that the NPR story would vindicate Adkins. It doesn't seem to have turned out that way. It's a well-written, objective piece, but it confirms Adkins's involvement with a scurrilous attempt at political action.

Just for the record, this is a case of two people working on the same topic independently. The NPR reporter is, in no way, affiliated with this blog or with anyone who writes for it.

Clinton Supporters on "The Daily Show"

Here you go, kids. Enjoy.

"Healing Clinton Supporters" from The Daily Show and Comedy Central.

Clintons4McCain Blogger News

Following Cristi Adkins's Hardball fracas, the 'net exploded with bloggers seeking out further information on Clintons4McCain and its members. Circuit Boy has published a story that reveals Anne Franklin's alleged donations to Bob Dole and George W. Bush's campaigns (information courtesy of Open Secrets), and Robin Carlson, who stood beside Adkins in the Hardball clip (and who a poster identified for me. Thanks Anonymous!), may have given $300.00 to the Michigan Republican Party in October last year. I say "may" as some have posited that Ms. Carlson is actually a California resident.

Now these women may well be sincere Clinton supporters (although you have to wonder why they disapprove of Obama's stance on issues, such as "choice," when his position is often parallel to Clinton's). But the more that is revealed the more tempting it is to suppose that maybe someone decided to enlist these women to propel disinformation. But that's conspiracy theory time, and I tend to steer clear of conspiracy theories. But it sure is suspicious, isn't it? This collection of Republican-turned-"independent" Hillary supporters--especially considering the vast ideological and policy differences between Clinton and McCain. . . .

PUMApac's Racist Video?

Kevin K. at Rumproast has located and posted a three part video, produced by Puma members and recently uploaded to YouTube. The video, titled The Lost Michelle Obama Tapes, aims to be satire (that's my guess anyway), but it fails in every sense. We've got people in blackface, white "slaves," references to the "National Association for the Annihilation of Caucasian People" (NAACP, geddit?), and more.

Head over to Rumproast for the video.

This nonsense about the Obamas hating white people has been a consistent theme for PUMA and Clintons4Mcain. The fear that a black president will somehow work to exact revenge for slavery, Jim Crow laws, and so on is simply ludicrous, but it's a regular talking point for some (see the comments here for example, as well as Cristi Adkins's comparison of Obama to David Duke, famous Holocaust denier and former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan).

Added: Here's a Michael Crowley article that discusses the "revenge" angle at The New Republic.

Cristi Adkins on Hardball (8/25/08)

I'll confess that I missed seeing this on television, but a reader alerted me to Cristi Adkins's appearance on Hardball tonight.

Clutching a "Clintons4McCain" banner with two other women, she entertains (?) a dumbfounded Chris Matthews as she revisits some familiar memes about Obama, Islam, citizenship, and so on. Ms. Adkins also claims that she has access to a special "17 page" report on Obama by a Congressional investigator. Here is the clip via YouTube (although it seems that Jezebel posted it online first).


UPDATE: Apparently, Ms. Adkins forwarded a copy of the "17 page Congressional report" to The Huffington Post; go ahead and review writer Elizabeth Rauber's research. Bet you can't guess her conclusions.

A Curious Coincidence (updated)

When time grew close to the “Votergate08 Super Rally” (WA DC 5/31/08), someone alerted the press to a few “interview opportunities,” one potential interviewee supported Obama, the other supported Clinton. According to the release:

Interview Clinton/ McCain supporter: Cristi Adkins
Interview Obama Supporter: John LaCombe

Why is this noteworthy? Recall that one of the “All Voices Heard, All Votes Matter” organizers, the man who set up the “VoterGate08” website was Mike Donovan. And here is an interesting coincidence: it seems that a man named Mike Donovan is, or was, an associate of John LaCombe’s in a well-intentioned organization that aims to expose and eradicate those predatory lending companies that offer short term loans at extortionate interest rates. In fact, Donovan achieved a bit of fame when, in 2007, he turned whistleblower against one of these operations. This Donovan managed a Check ‘N Go; when he left his job, he made the company’s practices public. You can read notes from Donovan’s press conference about the situation here. Is the whistleblower Donovan the “VoterGate” Donovan, or is this but a coincidence?

Added: Even more peculiar! The Check 'n Go whistleblower Donovan is currently engaged in some "breach of contract" legal wrangling with Eastern Specialty Finance, Inc, which does business as Check ‘N Go. According to publicly available court documents, as well as other sources, the Check 'N Go Donovan shares an address with the Shenandoah Donovans (cf. Irondragonz).

Moreover, the Shenandoah Mike Donovan is currently wanted for writing bad checks and defrauding a hotel. You can view his "most wanted" photo here.

In another coincidence, a John LaCombe in VA has a MySpace page populated with friends that include TW and CS of those Shenandoah Donovans (and whose names are listed in the cached version of the CountAllVotes e-petition that preceded the Coalition Against anti-Christian Rhetoric's foray into notoriety. See here, here, and here).

It seems possible that Donovan introduced Adkins to LaCombe, considering that, by this point, he and Adkins already had an established association (see here).

The Coalition Angainst Anti-Christian Rhetoric at MyBarackObama

It might seem a strange place to publicize their video, but the Coalition Against Anti-Christian Rhetoric (CAACR) have themselves a MyBarackObama page. The CAACR has a “community blog” page (although there are no entries). If you visit the CAACR profile, you find a new name and some interesting details:

Location: Washington DC
Issues: peace & social justice
Registered to Vote: Yes

For Peace and Unity

For “peace and unity”?

Anyway. “American Christian Coalition/CAACR” only left a pair messages on MyBarackObama blogs. Here they are:

On Sam Graham-Felsen's blog you find this comment:

By American Christian Coalition Jun 2nd 2008 at 5:04 pm EDT

Donate to a cause you can believe in by www.caacr.com

Go to Link

Help the Coalition get more air time on their ad circulating the blogs.

It seems a tad strange that they’d expect My BarackObama bloggers to rush to the CAACR’s aid, but nevermind. I guess you grab your audience where you can. This next comment is more interesting because of the questions it provokes. In response to a blog post that critiques Cristi Adkins right after the Clintons4McCain story broke, “American Christian Coalition” wrote:

By American Christian Coalition Jun 7th 2008 at 2:34 am EDT

Follow us over to Link [the link leads you to Clintons4McCain's website]

"Sour Grapes make Great Wine"

We're sore losers? Can't accept the outcome of the primaries? We want to "take our ball" and go home? We're racists?

Well, sour grapes make great wine and we are NOT accepting Sen. Obama to represent us in the White House. He doesn't represent us, or grassroots Americans. He represents elitism, class warfare, demagoguery, race-baiting and misogyny. That's his vision for America and the Democratic Party, not ours.

We object to him on many levels, but none have to do with the color of HIS skin. Clearly though he has a problem with color (or lack thereof) and if he isn't outright racist, certainly doesn't mind playing that race card. But it's not even a 'race' card per se, it's a color card. Because we believe there is only one race, the Human race. And people like Obama have been groomed just for this purpose, to use our diversity as a weapon to always have us fighting one another, always keep us divided. We are not accepting that and we are not accepting him.

We will vote for Senator John McCain and help defeat what we believe is evil in our midst and send a message loud and clear that we will be heard and we will not tolerate bigotry, separatism and everything else Obama clearly stands for.

Why is this interesting? The same thing is posted, word for word, on the Clintons4McCain “About” page. It’s the only other place on the web I can locate this “sour grapes” complaint.

Yes, it’s true that any old someone could have copied and posted the item to the MyBarackObama blog. Note well that it’s posted in response to a critique of Adkins, and rather than defend Adkins, the poster, who associates him-or-herself with both the CAACR and Clintons4McCain, repeats an affirmation of support for McCain.

ASIDE: It should be evident, but I should note that none of this is conclusive: this series of posts has presented a largely circumstantial case pointing towards Adkins's possible participation in a variety of activities that argue against Obama's candidacy. If Ms Adkins should wish to present her "side" of things or to alert posters of any corrections, she is welcome--and encouraged--to do so by contacting mp&gs via email.

A Message from the CAACR Ad's Videographer?

Note: this appears as an anonymous comment following this story; it's worth its own post. Shortly after it appeared in the comments section, another anonymous commentor replied in defense of Allen Media Strategies, and you can read an edited version of that response here.

Dear MPandGS,

I happened to stumble across your blog this morning while doing some research of my own. The connections you have drawn out concerning the CAACR video and Cristi Adkins are accurate. I know because I am the videographer that produced the "Obama Rhetoric Video" as it was so named, for the Coalition Against Anti-Christian Rhetoric, or CAACR. I can not speak of some of the other connections you have made.

Here's how things unfolded:

-Cristi Adkins approached us in February asking for a quote to produce a 30 second smear ad against Obama (for the CAACR). We quoted the job but they then declined due to the cost.

-We were approached again in late May for the same ad, except this time, we were told that someone (Mike Donovan) was able to raise the funds. We were to have the video completed in time to air the commercial prior to the primaries in South Dakota and Montana. We debated if we wanted to do the work because some of the imagery described was questionnable. Mike D. was presented to us as the financier, and as such, had creative control of the project. Mike discussed the video with us, and after providing an outline, we agreed to do the production since the imagery had been toned down.

-Mike drafted a "script" of the commercial and provided us with the photos used in the video. We were instructed to also use a video clip from YouTube which was a speech Obama gave on religion.

-We began production on Wednesday, May 28th. We had to do some deletions of the script in order to reach the 30 second target, but working with Mike via phone, youtube.com, and e-mail we finally developed the finished ad.

-On Friday, May 30th we had the video transferred to BetaCam tapes and sent them via UPS them to Allen Media Strategies (for delivery on Monday June 2. I sent it to them b/c Burke had purchased media time for the commercial per Mike's request. We also uploaded the video to a YouTube Account (caacrvideos) that Mike had set up. Finally we sent a high res copy to Mike and Burke via a site called USendIt.com

-Payment for the video was to be paid net 14 days after delivery per a contract between us and the CAACR, drafted and signed my Mike Donovan. Mike has not paid anything toward the debt and it is my understanding that he has never paid Burke for the media buy, either.

-The video almost immediately got a negative response. I think that it aired one time on television (not sure of the station), but it was reported that other TV stations refused to play it due to complaints from the Obama campaign (concerning the fact that the speech was "modified")

-Almost immediately after Hillary lost the nomination, the CAACR website went black (I think it was June 3 or 4) and the media alerts that had listed Mike D. as the media rep were pulled. I began to contact both Allen Media Strategies and Mike D. because I was concerned about not receiving payment for our services. There were several reasons that were given for the site going down, everthing from those involved receiving threats to a possible negative story that was going to be published by the New York Times.

-When confronted about the identities of people in the CAACR, Christi refused to state who was involved (excluding Mike Donovan). She stated that the CAACR were friends of hers and that she occasionally did work for them. She admitted that:
1. She set up the CAACR website
2. She initiated the request for the video production
3. She promoted the video and approved of its content on behalf of the CAACR.

-Since the CAACR website was shut down we (the video production co) have attempted to collect payment for the video from Michael Donovan (unsuccessfully). We have also been unsuccessful in determining a physical address for him, so we have not been able to file suit for non-payment. Ultimately, we WERE successful in negotiating a resolution with Allen Media Strategies and they have honored the agreements made so far.

Cristi Adkins and a Clumsy Smear or Two

Before we go much further, I'd like to post a background reminder:

On 15 May, the Republican National Committee registered the website, “ClintonsforMcCain.”

Cristi Adkins, the public face of Clintons4McCain, joined an online Hillary Clinton Meetup group on 16 May.

On 5 June, Sarah Lai Stirland from Wired published the story, “In Appeal to Angry Clinton Voters, Republicans Prep ClintonsforMcCain.com.” Prior to this date, Stirland had emailed the RNC a series of questions about the "ClintonsforMcCain" site. The RNC did not reply to Stirland's emails.

On 4 June, the day before Wired posted Stirland's story, a fresh site, “Clintons4McCain,” appeared. This is Adkins's site. (T. S. reminds me to remind you, reader, that Adkins also met with Senator McCain earlier this summer).

Because of the RNC's involvement with "ClintonsforMcCain," many have been suspicious about "Clintons4McCain" and view Adkins as a GOP "operative." Adkins denies that she’s Republican; however, she’s employing some questionable tactics in supporting her preferred candidate, Senator Clinton. In actuality, rather than actively support either Clinton or McCain, she prefers to actively smear Senator Obama. Case in point: in spring and summer 2008, she appears to have actively participated in/propelled one of the more disreputable anti-Obama operations.

In my previous entry, I posted information regarding various websites registered to a “Jonathan Davis,” which appears to be the pseudonym of man named M. Donovan. "Davis's" sites began to emerge beginning 26 May. The “Coalition Against Anti-Christian Rhetoric,” or “CAACR,’ also appeared about this time. The group's vehemence alarmed much of the public--both liberals and conservatives--after it released an anti-Obama commercial, consisting of manipulated footage from an Obama speech, in Montana and South Dakota just prior to the states' primaries. As a result of the outrage, the group's advertisement, and its site, vanished quickly. Therefore, we only have records of mainstream media and bloggers mentioning the organization. However, we do know that Mike Donovan acted as “contact” for the group should anyone desire information.

The first message about CAACR appeared on 9 May at a site dedicated to the idea that Barack Obama is the anti-Christ from the Book of Revelations:

caacrdotcom said...

If you are a Christian you need to see this video...
go to www.caacr.com
if the clip is gone, request to view it from the founding members.

Obama may not be the antichrist, but is most definately spewing anti christian language to Muslim groups as posted by Muslim Bridges...

May 9, 2008 7:26 PM

As CAACR is long time down, it’s impossible to confirm anything about this particular video. It isn't the clip used in Montana and South Dakota, however, as that ad relied on audio. The ad discussed at the "Obama as anti-Christ" site appears to adapt from Obama’s letter to the organization Muslim Bridges, a group whose stated purpose "is to Build Bridges - to promote Peace and Dialogue through Proactive Interactions at individual and organizational levels."

Ten days later, someone called "Founding Fathers" alerts posters to the website and video while visiting Fox’s website for Greta Van Susteran:

Founding Fathers
May 19th, 2008 at 10:29 pm

Obama is continually attempting to subdue our voices so that he can obtain a subtle ‘control’ over the masses. Yet, not so subtle is his anti-christian values.
Please log onto http://www.caacr.com and weigh in on his speech where he speaks in front of a group, Muslim Bridges.

He states that this is no longer a Christian nation…
Then he mocks us for believing in Angels…
And, he tells the Muslim Bridges group that we ’stone our children’ and ‘endorse slavery’

And the more he can get us to ‘lay off his wife’ the more he can get us to cling to our religion.

Go to http://www.caacr.com and find out more.
Go to the Presidential Rhetoric page…

Again, as the website is down, we can only go by what the poster says about it. In alluding to Obama’s “subtle ‘control’ over the masses,” “Founding Fathers” touches on one of Cristi Adkins’s most favored arguments: that Obama employs mass hypnosis to sway voters to support him.

At this point, CAACR chose to extend its message beyond the internet and sets about creating a commercial to air in South Dakota and Montana. Cristi Adkins, who was involved in setting up “Count All Votes” and “Votergate 08,” issues a plea for funds on the Hillary Clinton Meetup site. The subject refers to a “NOBAMA” ad in the works:

From: cristi adkins
Sent on: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 3:30 PM
New Ad Donations: Please send inquiries to [address removed]

There is a new ad circulating brought to the attention of Count All Votes.org and they have asked me to request donations for this ad to appear before the June 3 primaries in S Dakota and Montana. If you are in favor of a NOBAMA ad, support democracy, national security and want to see the right nominee in the DNC, please contact [address removed] and find out how you can contribute to this ad. It is a last ditch effort to show the real Obama before the voters go to the poll on Tuesday.

Thanks

When a contributor expresses interest in viewing the ad, Adkins responds with the following message (sent May 29, 8:49 am):

The ad is in it’s final stages…I’ll forward your message to the Founding Fathers of the PAC

Thanks

From: [address removed] [mailto:[address removed]] On Behalf Of [redacted]
Sent: None
To: [address removed]
Subject: Re: [hrclinton-32] NOBAMA television ad

I sent them an email.
I would like to see the ad.

While the messages neglect to mention CAARC, we can confirm that “Count All Votes” did not release a television commercial, but a few days later, the CAACR ad, which had been “in it’s [sic] final stages” on 29 May, was broadcast in Montana.

Here is the CAACR television ad.

Shortly after the ad aired, Adkins brought the media response to her fellow Meetup group members' attention:

Top NBC Montana story

From:	cristi adkins
Sent on:	Tuesday, June 3, 2008 5:50 AM

NBC Montana led with the ad as their top story. Here is a link to the written copy. VERY interesting….

http://www.keci.com/montana_news.php?id=f12e3f481f1721651eabf2b9cecfd6e4

Ad: www.caacr.com/News.html

We have evidence then, that Adkins was both aware and supportive of the ad. Recall, as well, that immediately after the ad aired, CAACR encountered some pretty severe fallout (for examples, see here, here, and here. For blog examples, Google the Coalition's name). Consequently, Mike Donovan, who had been scheduled to appear on the Neil Cavuto show to discuss CAACR, was disinvited:

RE: [hrclinton-32] Neil Cavuto Drops Obama Bomb Monday June 2, 4 PM Fox News

From:	cristi adkins
Sent on:	Monday, June 2, 2008 1:53 PM

I called the Cavuto show myself and they said they will not be interviewing Mike Donovan of the Caacr.com because of problems with the ad. I asked her if there would be any other information revealed today and she said she’d call me back…no word yet

That’s what I know at this time.

And this despite Adkins’s call for prayers, or, at least, a “higher consciousness” to aid Mike Donovan the night before his planned Cavuto appearance.

Now, take a listen once more to the CAACR television ad.
Next, please visit this website and listen to welcome page's voiceover. Unless my hearing is quite mistaken, it’s the same voice.

It belongs to Cristi Adkins’s husband, Burke Allen (Burke Allen Adkins).

Recently, bloggers have defended Adkins as the victim of "Obama bloggers," of undeserved attacks and accusations; I read these, and then I think about her record of supporting (at least endorsing) political smear jobs. It seems to me that Adkins and Donovan, and, quite likely, a few other associates, appear to have have consistently targeted Obama and pushed questionable stories into the media; if one item doesn't effectively stir the voting public, it gets swept under the rug and they move to the next. The only outrages they haven't covered yet are drugs, gay sex, and murder. Oh, wait. . .nevermind.

It is my opinion, my guess, that this league of Virginian tricksters, if it is such, shall continue apace until November, so get ready folks. They just might get dirtier the closer we get to the end of the election season.

UPDATE: Adkins appeared on a radio program tonight to announce that she was unable to attract media attention to Larry Sinclair, and so she will not be pursuing the Sinclair angle in attacking Obama. Kudos to Cristi.

UPDATE: Please read the post in response to "NPR Defender" below.

UPDATE: Found! Here is the CAACR's press release.

UPDATE (8/27/08): Confirmed! NPR's "Secret Money" project on the CAACR.

ASIDE: It should be evident, but I should note that none of this is conclusive: this series of posts has presented a largely circumstantial case that, I believe, point towards Ms. Adkins's possible participation in a variety of activities that argue against Obama's candidacy. If Ms Adkins should wish to present her "side" of things or to alert posters of any corrections, she is welcome--and encouraged--to do so by contacting mp&gs via email.

Cristi Adkins Embraces Sinclair--in Public

In a last ditch, pre-Denver panic, Cristi Adkins appeared on Ed Hale and MommaE's "Nobama' radio broadcast last night along with Larry Sinclair. You might recall that Ms. Adkins started up the site "Clintons4McCain" (possibly related to "ClintonsforMcCain," a domain registered by the RNC). Although she attended Mr. Sinclair's 18 June press conference at the NPC, and she's implied support for him in the past, she's never been so up front about it. Previously, she's asked why the press has ignored Sinclair if he's got the evidence to support his allegations. Although he's presented no evidence, Ms. Adkins can wait no longer, and has promised to aid Sinclair in "getting his story out," including, apparently, a slot on Hannity and Colmes. (update: hear recordings of the Sinclair/Adkins session via this site).

While Adkins claims that she can attract the mainstream press to Sinclair, this is why this will not happen:

The media has looked into this story and found it baseless. Sinclair claims that reporters from various periodicals have been in touch with him, including John Crewdson, a prize-winning journalist and senior correspodent with the Chicago Tribune. In May, 2008, a blogger contacted Crewdson about his work on Sinclair's allegations, and Crewdson acknowledged in an email that:

While I am reluctant to talk about reporting that I’ve done, you can be sure that if we had ‘verified’ Mr. Sinclair’s story we certainly would have published it.

One can only imagine that, like Crewdson, no reporter has been able to "verif[y] Mr. Sinclair's story," as no mainstream periodical has run with it despite the time and effort spent investigating the tale (see here for further emails involving Sinclair and Crewdson).

The story did appear in February editions of The Globe and The National Enquirer. Nothing came of either feature. After the Edwards story broke the other week, Sinclair contacted the Enquirer again, but they declined to move on his story. While Sinclair attributes this to Obama supporters putting the heat on the Enquirer, this seems unlikely: as we've seen, the Enquirer, a tabloid with some journalistic chops, wouldn't hesitate to go with such a potentially explosive story as Sinclair's. The more likely conclusion is that the Enquirer was unable to confirm anything about Sinclair's story other than his presence in Gurnee, Illinois, in 1999.

And why won't Hannity touch this story? He's avoided it in the past (despite being hounded by Sinclair's supporters for the past seven months), and nothing suggests that he should pay attention now. Sean Hannity, although firmly anti-Obama, isn't one to play with unfounded rumors.

But nevermind. I would guess that Adkins presumes too much influence with the media (although she might be able to sway her husband, Burke Allen of Allen Media Strategies, to engage in some Sinclair-oriented radio programming). I'm more interested in the Adkins's and Sinclair's joint appearance itself. While in the past I've declined to engage in the full-on RNC-Adkins-Sinclair conspiracy, I have to admit that these diverse strands are starting to knot up. I don't think that Sinclair initiated his accusations at the behest of political operatives, but they are certainly doing what they can to further the Sinclair agenda (whatever that may be).

One thing I'm curious about: why do so many of Larry Sinclair's supporters (or supporters' sockpuppets) originate from the Florida/Virginia region?

Update: There appears to be a link between Adkins and the creator of the now-defunct websites America's Hope Foundation, Obama Hate Speech, and the Coalition Against Anti-Christian Rhetoric. I'll post on such links in upcoming days.

Update 2: On Monday, 18 August, Adkins appeared on an Internet broadcast to announce that she would not aid Larry Sinclair in future as she has tried, and failed, to attract the media's attention to his story. Can I say "I told you so"?

Sinclair Loses Blog No. Two

Larry Sinclair's most recent site has been removed completely, and, according to his site host, there will be no return. Again, there's no coming back to Hostmonster for Larry Sinclair. See the details and communications with Hostmonster at The Mitch and Nan Show.

It should come as no surprise; he's consistently violated their terms of service by publishing personal information of those he claims are attacking him (including home addresses and residential and business phone numbers), he encourages his posters to investigate anonymous bloggers who post at sites that oppose or debunk Sinclair's activities and accusations, and he posts recordings of telephone calls that he makes to retaliate against his harassers (any hypocrisy there?). Anyway, he went all out on one woman, she complained, and Hostmonster said "enough is enough. Bye." Once again, Mr. Sinclair confirms that he is his own worst enemy. He deliberately ignores the host's terms of service, so naturally they'll disable or remove his blog. He cannot place this at the feet of any public authority or private blogger: this is his own doing.

Will he resurface? Of course he will. At the very least, he'll appear by proxy on sites by supporters Citizen Wells and Cao. The notoriety, the donations, and the winks of approval from groups such as PUMA and Clintons4McCain are probably too satisfying to surrender. Moreover, at this point, Sinclair has nothing left to lose. He's due in New Castle County superior court (DE) in a week or two, and after that, who knows?

UPDATE: He's back, and this time with StartLogic. Terms of service here. I wonder how long it will take before he (or is supporters) violate the company's terms of service, for certainly it was for this reason that Sinclair was asked to leave Wordpress and Hostmonster. If he could leave the overtly racist and the publishing of people's private information aside, he might have a permanent online home. While he might argue that others "out" various netizens, I'd suggest that "when others do it" he or the outed parties contact authorities and avoid retaliation.

Special thanks to "Anonymous" for the heads up...I was at work and unaware that Sinclair's blog had gone dark.

Who is Clintons4McCain's Target Audience?

Although I’m having fits about the John Edwards allegations myself, I find this article about media bias at Clintons4McCain rather interesting. Although an author isn’t cited at Clintons4McCain, the original article was posted by Rob Port at Say Anything and reposted at Agoravox. Mr. Port is “[a] conservative political blogger from North Dakota.”

Clintons4McCain is the co-creation of Cristi Adkins and Peter Boykin. The group, and its site, is allegedly by and for Democrats and Independents who are voting for John McCain because their preferred candidate is not the presumptive Democratic nominee. If this is true, I find the choice of article curious as it’s not exactly intended to appeal to Democrats; rather, it plays on Conservative complaints about Democrats and a perceived "liberal media bias":

Why Is The Media Ignoring John Edwards’ Sex Scandal?

Especially in light of continued rumors about Edwards being a choice for either VP or perhaps AG in the Obama administration?

If you thought the media’s adulation of Obama was bad, the double standard they’re clinging to on Edwards’ love child problem is perhaps even worse.

[I’ve snipped a lengthy cite from Slate]

C’mon. If this were happening to a Republican every citizen in America would know all the gory details. As it stands now if you were to ask one of your non-political junkie friends what was going on with Edwards’ love affair they’d probably give you a blank stare.

Edwards gets a pass because Edwards is a liberal and that’s just the way it is. At some point Americans are going to have to wake up and realize that the journalists they’ve trusted to bring them sound, thorough and objective reporting aren’t doing it any more.

The article focuses on media bias at work; this is not my focus at the moment (admittedly, I am tempted to agree with this if reports that the LA Times is squashing blog commentary at their site are true).

That Clintons4McCain chose to repost this article suggests that the group is not so much pro-Clinton as it is pro-GOP. For example, it repeats the oft-heard complaint, "if this was about Republicans. . ." (and yes, Democrats rely on this complaint as well. In fact, I used it the other day), and it utilizes the now-perjorative term "liberal" to define Edwards. Yet these are minor items. More striking is that the author claims that the “media adulation of Obama” is bad, but the cover up of the Edwards story is possibly worse. This is a surprising redirection of attention for a site ostensibly supportive of Clinton, and McCain by default: Edwards isn’t running for president anymore, and rumors that he's on Obama's VP list are just that--rumors. Why use a pro-Clinton forum to attack Democrats who are no longer in the race?

I'm just asking.

Update: My mistake. It seems they are discussing the Edwards mess at the LA Times.

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