Sunday, 18 November 2007


Ken Berwitz

You can't say that Robert Novak doesn't aggravate a raw nerve here and there.

Novak's latest column has a lead story indicating that Hillary Clinton's campaign got hold of especially damning information about Barack Obama which, they say, they do not intend to use -- at least not at this time. 

Wow.  That is perfect paralepsis.

For them's who don't know, paralepsis is a rhetorical device which, if used well, enables you to say something you want people to hear by conspicuously declining to do so.  A good example would be "My opponent's bouts with drinking have no place in this campaign". 

Well, how does "we have no intention of putting out the scandalous information on Barack Obama" come across to you?  Is that a good example?

We're not talking about amateurs here, baby, these are world class pros.

Anyway, as you might expect, Senator Obama is not what you would call overjoyed by the use of this device or its inclusion in Robert Novak's very heavily read column.  So here, courtesy of, is what he had to say about it:.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) took the rare step of issuing a statement in his own name on Saturday to call attention to a report by columnist Robert D. Novak that New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign is sitting on scandalous information about Obama.

The information was not described and there is no proof it exists.

Obama accused Clinton of 'swift boat politics and vowed he will not be intimidated.

I am prepared to stand up to that kind of politics, whether it's deployed by candidates in our party, in the other party or by any third party, Obama said. The cause of change in this country will not be deterred or sidetracked by the old Swift boat politics. The cause of moving America forward demands that we defeat it.

Let's look past the "swift boat politics" reference, which is BS every time it is used, since the swift boat veterans were far more truthful than john kerry ever was (there's another example of paralepsis for you).  Let's just note that Senator Obama appears to have taken a bit of exception to this story. 

Ok, now the ball bounces back to Senator Clinton's side of the court.  And from there, we get the following, courtesy of Reuters:.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Top Democratic rivals for president tore into each other on Saturday after a conservative columnist asserted front-runner Hillary Clinton claimed to have damaging information about Barack Obama.

The Clinton campaign denied the accusation, saying Obama's reaction to the vaguely worded column by Robert Novak played into Republican hands and showed the Illinois senator's lack of political savvy.

Obama's team later said they took the Clinton campaign at its word but bristled at the idea they fell for Republican tricks and should not have fought back against "smear politics" in the race for the presidency in the November 2008 election.

Clinton, a senator from New York and the wife of former President Bill Clinton, has been the target of frequent attacks by Obama and some of the other Democratic contenders for the White House over her ability to deliver straight answers. .

If your only interest is in political theater, this is beautiful.  Award winning material.

There STILL is not one word of what "scandal" is being talked about, nor any proof that it is real.

But Barack Obama is on the defensive and Hillary Clinton is running through him like Sherman through Georgia, demonstrating that he is so naive and so gullible that he fell for some kind of Republican trick. 

Baddabing, Baddaboom.  Hillary is aggressive, Hillary is decisive. She has "proven" that Barack is not ready for prime time and has managed to successfully attack Republicans in the bargain.  A grand slam. 

Hillary Clinton may not have the political talents of hubby Bill.  But she has the same "quality" of operatives working on her behalf.  That's for sure.

Simply stated, Hillary & Co. have used the words of Robert Novak (no friend of theirs) to take Senator Obama to the cleaners here. 

If Obama doesn't learn from this and fight back the same way, she is right about him too.


Ken Berwitz

I just logged on and checked two sites: and

Neither has even one word about the fact that every audience questioner in the fraudulent CNN "debate" was a setup.  Four out of four.

This is all over the blogosphere, on both right and left leaning sites.  It is there with information that takes this conclusion beyond speculation and establishes it as objective fact.  Read my blogs from yesterday and see the irrefutable documentation.

So the question is not whether it is true.  The questoin is why other mainstream media are protecting CNN from its fraud.

Here are a few possible reasons:

-Since the result of CNN's fraud was to elevate Democratic talking points, and most media are in the Democratic tank, they don't want to let the sheeple in on what a fraud it was;

-Since the debate clearly and intentionally favored Hillary Clinton (the audience was demonstrably in her favor and two of the three "analysts" discussing it afterwards worked for the Clintons), and most media are supporting Clinton, this also is a reason they don't want to let the sheeple in on what a fraud it was;

-Since if a media source, say MSNBC, attacks CNN for what they perpetrated in the debate, CNN has ample opportunity to retaliate.  No network or newspaper is simon-pure.  So due to fear of reprisal - based on living in the same glass house - they look the other way.

There are other possible reasons, of course.  I'll leave you to enumerate them.  But the bottom line remains the same.  CNN gave us a fraudulent, stacked-deck debate and mainstream media - which certainly have access to at least as much documentation as the blogosphere does - is burying the story.

But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.



Ken Berwitz

I read this (excerpted) article in today's Charlotte (North Carolina) Observer.  I don't know if the accusations against Chuck Schumer are correct, nor do I know much about the candidates other than what is in the article.  But there is enough here to cause me to think about how the party treated Jim Neal, so I am posting it for you to read and think about as well.

Here is what I'm talking about.  Bold print is mine:.

Did Dems avoid gay candidate?

Concern about voter reaction may have led to apparent snub


jim neal

U.S. Senate candidate Jim Neal.

Former Wall Street investor Jim Neal of Chapel Hill announced he was running for the U.S. Senate.

N.C. Sen. Kay Hagan of Greensboro declared a week later that she was not running for the U.S. Senate.

Both are Democrats. Guess which one received a phone call from U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer, who heads the Democratic Party's efforts to recruit Senate candidates?

Schumer and the national Democrats, who boast of their party's inclusiveness, effectively ignored Neal, who is openly gay. After he announced his campaign in October, he telephoned Schumer. The call wasn't returned. Neal was the first Democrat to step up to challenge Republican U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Dole.

Instead, Schumer, of New York, called Hagan, who had taken herself out of the race, and encouraged her to jump back in. She later did.

Schumer's action could be explained by the fact that Hagan, 54, is a known quantity, a nine-year veteran of the state Senate and co-chair of the powerful appropriations committee. Her gender likely would help her in a contest against another woman, Sen. Dole.

Neal, however, falls into a coveted category of candidates: self-funder, someone who will sink a chunk of his own wealth into the race. Such candidates typically get at least a courtesy meeting from their party's national political committees, particularly in the state where former U.S. Sen. John Edwards showed that an unknown with a lot of money can succeed.

Neal, 50, and others suggest that the fact that he is gay drove the actions of the Democratic Senate committee and other leaders of a party that criticizes Republicans for their anti-gay rights platform.

Schumer and the Democratic senatorial committee declined to comment for this story, spokesman Matt Miller said.

Voter motivation

Hagan said Neal's candidacy had no impact on her decision, and no one who encouraged her to run mentioned him or the effects of his candidacy.Neal said Democratic leaders fear social conservatives would turn out to vote against him.

"There are a lot of people within the Democratic Party establishment who are uncomfortable with my candidacy," Neal said last week. "If I thought people were going to come out and vote, en masse, against me because I'm gay, then I wouldn't have run in the first place. But there are people in the party establishment who don't share that view."

National committees for both the Democrats and Republicans often will anoint a candidate, not publicly but quietly. National party leaders might encourage a particular candidate, clear the field of other contenders, help round up supporters and donors, or all of the above.

"I feel sure that they weren't going to give that other guy (Neal) 50 cents," said Sen. Tony Rand, a Cumberland County Democrat and majority leader in the N.C. Senate.

Rand said he doesn't know what motivated the Democratic Senate committee, but "they just weren't excited about (Neal's) candidacy."

Appearance of concern

Neal and Hagan will compete in the May primary, and the Democratic senatorial committee is expected to provide funding and support for whoever wins the nomination.

Hagan has supported Equality North Carolina, a gay rights organization, and the group's executive director, Ian Palmquist, said he is confident Neal's sexual orientation did not affect her decision to run. It did, though, seem to motivate those who pushed her to run, Palmquist said.

"It certainly looks like the DSCC may have been concerned about supporting a gay candidate in a Southern state," he said. .

A little personal disclosure is in order here:  I have exactly zero problem with anyone who is gay running for and winning any political office.  People's sexual preferences are their own and not my business.  I have known too many quality gay people throughout my life - including friends, business associates and family - to ever think otherwise.

On the other hand, from a stricly political standpoint, I agree that an openly gay candidate running in North Carolina (or ANY state) is going to lose some votes because there are people who will never vote for that candidate.

Having said this, let's think about what would be said if the Republican party tossed an otherwise desirable candidate overboard because he/she is gay.  What would Chuck Schumer be saying about them in front of the cameras he so enthusiastically seeks out?

If you see politics as nothing other than getting people elected, without a care in the world regarding your ethics or your personal beliefs, Neal should be the pariah Democrats apparently have made him. 

If, on the other hand, you care about your ethics and have the integrity to take a stand on your personal beliefs, Neal should at the very least be in this race, and probably should already have gotten the support of the party.

If these were Republicans, the Neal rejection would be called "homophobia" and the word would be used relentlessly. 

But these are Democrats.  To most media, they are the "good guys".  So, while I commend the Charlotte Observer for its article, I'll wait and see if that word is used relentlessly.  Or at all.

bilyg this says everything. What hypocrites they are. (11/18/07)

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.

About Us

Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.

At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!