Contractors snooped in Obama's passport file

Three contractors at the State Department have been disciplined for looking at Barack Obama's passport file without permission, according to a State Department spokesman. [CNN]

[HT: Ted]

Comments

[The Phantom]

-- John Hagee? Rod Parsley? Never heard of 'em. Nah, there's no double standard there.--

How many times did John McCain attend John Hagee's sermons?

Since Obama attended 20 years of Wright's services, and otherwise had Wright very involved in his life, that is a very relevant question to be asked, if you're gonna start speaking of "double standards"

[The Phantom]

UK

Obama's been in the Senate for about five minutes, and basically started running for President the minute he got there. Come off it.

He speaks in generalities, as did another blank slate coming up, Jimmy Carter. Who was completely inept as President.

Obama has never been tested in any significant way. Neither has Hillary--but she's not the one he'll be running against in November.

[Sara]

What are the Phantoms really afraid this "blank slate" might do?

Why shouldn't we be? It didn't work out so well for the Republican voters.

[TB]

Obama 48, Clinton 45 ... Wright hasn't hurt him.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105529/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Edges-Ahead-Clinton.aspx

Fear of a black planet much Phantom?

Conservatives looks SO inane these days.

[The Phantom]

The Phantom calls as his next witness- Barack Obama himself.

--"I serve as a blank screen," Obama writes, "on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views." --
Barack Obama, "The Audacity of Hope"

Look it up.

[Roland]

Hey Phantos

I used to admire Newt Gingrich's ability to successfully present himself as one thing when he was in fact the opposite of that thing; people take that moralizing at face value as he's moving from from one intern to the next. McCain's got the same thing going for him. He takes Chuck Keating's money a few years ago to game a congressional investigation, and then sponsors some "campaign finance reform" legislation and all is forgiven. It was sort of funny to me to here his campaign's reaction to the lobbyist story a few weeks back. I am sure you remember; its reported as a sex scandal, but he responds mysteriously about having "never abused the public trust."

HRC/Obama are far from perfect candidates, but I'm not examining the silverware after dinner to see if anything missing.

[Roland]

Of course, "here" should be hear...

[TB]

McCain?

The differences between McCain & Randy Cunningham is that Cunningham was a better pilot and McCain hasn't been busted yet.

[Uncle Kvetch]

You still haven't answered the core question here, Phantom: What are you afraid of? What kinds of terrifying, dark (heh) secrets is Obama hiding? What kinds of horrors does he have in store for us?

I mean, here we are after seven+ years of Bush, and you're backing a candidate who's running on a platform of Four More Years. And your big knock on Obama is that he's going to be "inept"? Seriously? Seven+ years of a clown show that would do Ringling Bros. proud, with a yammering halfwit presiding over a mangy coterie of legacy hires, bootlicking sycophants, con artists, and religious fanatics--but oh my, we don't know enough about this Obama character, he might prove "inept"! The funniest part is that you have no idea how funny that is.

I'm not buying it. You wouldn't be hammering away here if your biggest fear was that Obama might prove "inept." There's something more there. (Whatever it is, we can all rest assured that it has absolutely nothing to do with his being black. Nosiree.)

I know that when you ask a Republican in 2008 "What are you afraid of?" the most likely answer is going to be "Everything." But I hoped you could be a little more specific.

[The Phantom]

Uncle Kvetch

So, now that Obama himself has backed me up on the blank slate issue, I will presume that the we'll be hearing no more gripes on that one? Do I merit a "thank you"?

---

Why is it that so many of the knee-jerk crowd think that Republicans/conservatives are "afraid" of "everything"? I don't think I'm afraid of many things at all.

When it comes to political matters, I support some things and I oppose others. I support some people and oppose others. When someone is vague --Carter, Bush -yes-, Obama --coming up, I start to ask sharp questions.

--
Diversion--when Bush was running in the Republican primaries, I had arguments as strong as any here I was a supporter of McCain, and I arguments with the Bushies, on various CompuServe discussion boards. My main point was that Bush was vastly less qualified than was McCain intellectually, and that he was, yes, a kind of a blank slate, speaking in platitudes.

--

Oh, and I'd lose the race-baiting angle, UK and TB. I don't buy the one drop theory that you guys apparently do. The last time I looked, this guy was half-white.

He's trying to run as a post-racial candidate, and you might want to get with the program.

---

I oppose him for the following reasons (Will answer in good faith, though I am unsure the question was asked in good faith )

--I don't want a Democrat in the White House. Most of you would never want a Republican there? Well, I don't want a Democrat there, until that party goes through a lot of soul searching and reform.

--I am troubled by his lifelong alliance with the race-baiting Rev. Wright

--I am disappointed by his cordial association with unrepentant terrorist William Ayers.

--I see him as being intentionally vague, as was Carter and Bush, when he ran in 2000. Should he be elected, you may all be similarly disappointed.

--He has never been personally or politically tested. McCain, like him or not, was tortured for five years in a North Vietnamese prison. He came out of there with his head screwed on right, and he chose not to dwell on bitterness and holding of grudges. He became a voice for reconciliation with Vietnam.

I am happy that Obama never had a similar experience to that of McCain, but I know for a fact that McCain can suffer an ordeal like that and return with his dignity, hishumanity and his judgment intact.

--I have a candidate already in John McCain, who is better in every respect than the two-year Senator from Illinois.

Off to a family visit in NJ. Since I'm not a gas-guzzler like Al Gore, I'm taking the NJ Transit train out there, despite the longer trip time.

Happy Easter, everybody.

[Cass]

"So, now that Obama himself has backed me up on the blank slate issue, I will presume that the we'll be hearing no more gripes on that one? Do I merit a 'thank you'?"

No, because I don't think you've grasped the meaning of this statement at all. It seems very unlikely that Obama was boasting of having a vague public image (politicians don't do that in print); he was saying that being a prominent African-American leader in a country where that's still a novelty means that many people are going to project their own fantasies onto him. For some leftists, he's going to be the great racial healer; for many rightists, he's going to be the Scary Negro. What makes your show of faux-objectivity so ridiculous on this, Phantom, is that the story line is so drearily predictable, as predictable as the story line in 2004: the draft-dodging Republican candidate presented as a virtual war hero, the Democratic decorated-veteran candidate presented as a disobedient, dirty hippy. Had Obama been the bastard son of Strom Thurmond and boasted Jesse Helms as a mentor, he would've become the Radical Negro as soon as he became a credible Democratic candidate: its one of the tried-and-true images that drive up adult diaper sales throughout much of white America.

"I am happy that Obama never had a similar experience to that of McCain, but I know for a fact that McCain can suffer an ordeal like that and return with his dignity, hishumanity and his judgment intact."

Yes, he deserves some credit for reconciliation with Vietnam, but what other judgements are you speaking of? Swallowing administration propaganda about Saddam Hussein (or, more likely, going along with a fraudulent war out of bloodlust and cold-blooded cynicism)? Clinging to long-discredited fantasies of victory in a Fourth Generation swamp? What's his plan for convincing our Asian creditors to finance FURTHER destabilization of the world's oil patch with dwindling supplies, and the specter of our national bankruptcy on the horizon?
As for dignity: what strikes you as "dignified" about his boot-licking relationship to G.W. Bush after that thoroughly repulsive campaign in South Carolina eight years ago?
And finally: with hundreds of thousands of innocents dead, 2.5 million refugees and a humanitarian crisis of our own making worse that Darfur, the Congo or anywhere else on the planet, when, pray, do we get to start saying this war has diminished some white person's humanity?

"I don't want a Democrat there, until that party goes through a lot of soul searching and reform."

Bubble-headed nonsense, and as divorced from the reality of the mess we're in as anything I could imagine. I'm grateful you try to mind your manners here, Phantom, but your attempts to appear reasonable and open-minded are for naught: you've shown you're not capable of questioning your ideas or your Leaders in any serious way; you could certainly never entertain the possibility that you've been duped. And I'm afraid you won't be successful at convincing anyone here otherwise.

[cfrost]

Not that the following has diddly squat to do with passport files, but as Phantom has once again hijacked the thread, I'll go along for the ride.

Head screwed on straight

Ok, McCain's not maniacally paranoid like Nixon was, his brain is not yet, as far as we know, turning to moldy cottage cheese like Reagan’s, and he’s not the dim bulb that Dubya is.

There is though the matter of craving the job so badly that he’s willing to engage in embarrassing public displays of shockingly degrading ass kissing (Falwell’s rump had to seriously stink).

There’s the temper thing. (Take the Senator Hothead quiz for fun.)

There’s the - swear to God / Whisky Tango Foxtrot!?!? - superstition thing.

Then there’s the fact that he’s old. Not that older people can’t be clear-headed and can’t accomplish all kinds of amazing things that would put thirty-somethings to shame, but let’s face it, unless he’s the result of a gene splicing experiment with a Galapagos tortoise or a redwood tree, odds are that on any given day he’s going to be running on fumes by dinner time. I’m in my mid-fifties and day-by-day it becomes clearer and clearer that three score and ten is not a milepost I’m going to be passing at a full gallop, if I make it there at all. I know I can’t blot up information nearly as fast as I used to. More disturbingly in the context of what a POTUS has to do on a daily basis, I have a much harder time ramping up the enthusiasm necessary to learn entirely new subjects – something that was a breeze in my twenties, but is often a major hurdle now. If there’s a job that’s more demanding and exhausting than POTUS, I can’t think of what it might be. McCain’s 71 and he ain’t getting any younger. A geezer might be up to the task, but he and we will be betting against heavy gerontological odds if we elect him.

Which brings up the matter of actuarial odds. A vote for McCain just might well be a vote for his running mate before four years are out. Let’s hope the GOP chooses a VP wisely. - I’m not holding my breath.

[Cass]

Glenn Greenwald has a post today dealing with the same paranoid race fantasies we're discussing here. "Instapunk"- some right-wing blogger- has a post up today with the following words, linked to approvingly by the more familiar Instapundit. "You", by the way, refers to the African-American population of this country:

"You see, you've just given life to the suspicion that black people in America are, and have long been, a fifth column -- unanimously hating the very country that has afforded the highest standard of living ever achieved by black people in human history. We're teetering at the edge of believing that you're a secret society, a massive collection of sleeper cells just waiting for your chance to do serious harm to the rest of us. You've made it possible for us to believe that. Because you're never outraged by what the worst black people do. Because you continue to make excuses for what should be inexcusable to everyone."

It strikes me those last two sentences might apply to another faction in this country, but never mind. Go and read the whole thing. There are lots of good thoughts on how this fantasy pops up again and again (with different groups playing the villain) throughout the right wing media, and how the mainstream media never fails to give them a pass.

www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/23/race/

[cfrost]

Negro fifth column! Holy shit!
Gotta go sandbag the windows and load the guns posthaste. Get back to you later.

[Numad]

"It seems very unlikely that Obama was boasting of having a vague public image[...]"

It seems even more unlikely from a more complete quote.

"I am new enough on the national political scene that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views. As such, I am bound to disappoint some, if not all, of them." (p. 11, 134, 355-61)

http://www.time.com/time/2007/candidates_books/obama/

He seems to be lamenting what he believed was a temporary effect. In 2006.

I think it's a far cry, in most ways, from an endorsement of the 'blank slate' rethoric used now.

[The Phantom]

Cass

Swell verbiage, but he's still a blank slate.

And I'm not trying to mind my manners! And --I'm not going to go in depth into this--but my feelings about the Democratic Party are sincere. To quote the late, and we'll all agree, great, Ronald Reagan "I Didn't Leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me."

I truly would love to have an alternative to a Republican Party that produces GW Bush, Pataki, Mitch McConnell.

But a party that counts among its best and brightest an ambulance-chasing trial lawyer, a President's relative with no record of accomplishment, and a two year senator with questionable associations simply cannot be taken seriously. Whereas the Republicans are bought and paid for by corporate America, the Dems are bought and paid for by the trial lawyers and the unions.

Oh, and I agree that GW Bush was virtually a draft dodger. This didn't justify Dan Rather and Mary Mapes making shit up, but yes, Bush spent his war years getting wasted, that is clear.

[Roland]

But Pantos, what does it matter how Bush spent his time during the Vietnam War years? Most young men that came of age in that era did not go to Vietnam. Many, like Bush, spent these years getting wasted; many, including Clinton, used whatever means they could to avoid going to Vietnam.

In any case, Bush is not a unique example of a young man that came of age during the late 60s, early 70s. I would argue that he, and the other gentlemen you mention, are somewhat typical examples of modern politicians from either party. (Though Bush appears to me to be more enthusiastic about staging raids on the Treasury than previous Presidents) The reason Obama is somewhat jarring is not so much because he is a radical; a radical would not have been able to raise so much money from corporate interests.

What is jarring is his apparent view that America still has "racial problems." This is an unusual view for a Presidential candidate in the 21st century. He asserts, correctly, that Reagan successfully cobbled together a coalition of business interests (who wanted his "smaller government"), anti-communists, and middle and lower middle class whites using lingering resentments about race as mortar. This was the first time I have heard a mainstream candidate assert this fairly obvious fact.

Also, what would a Democratic candidate have to do in order to get your vote? I have lurked around this blog for the last couple of years, and I surmise that you are sort of a "Scoop" Jackson/ Zell Miller type of Democrat/Republican. Basically, you desire a less inept Republican party. Is this so?

By the way, why would you think that everyone would agree with your view of Ronald Reagan?

[The Phantom]

Roley ( is it supposed to be clever to mess with names?)

I think Clinton had a sincere opposition to the Vietnam War. I don't like some of the things he did during that period, but you gotta give him that.

Bush had no political objection but he did have a very powerful father who got him a cake job.

Clinton wins that comparison

--

I would vote for a John F Kennedy-type Democrat.He was a domestic moderate/liberal and a foreign hawk. The Howard Dean/moveon.org Democrats of today would spit on John F Kennedy.

--

A less inept Republican Party would be nice. One less beholden to corporate interests, one that is militantly against earmarks and other theft. The Bridge to Nowhere was sponsored by a Republican you may recall.

The only reason I am a registered party member is because I like to vote in party primaries.

Like many Americans, I have nearly zero loyalty to "party". I have very few choices on the GOP side, but I have none on the Democratic side.

--

Ronald Reagan- are you serious? I'm only needling. I greatly admire and respect Ronald Reagan, as do the American people. Everyone else here despises him. They'd despise JFK too--he is far more in sync with Reagan and moi than he is to Obama or Clinton or to modern Democratic thought.

[Dock Miles]

Phantom, you're the main reason I won't have much to do with this blog.

You're a bigoted shithead. An automatic crap-producing machine.

I especially hate this shit about "speaking for the American people."

I was around when JFK was president, and his image and impact was nothing like Reagan's. In fact, much more like Obama's. I don't know if America has the courage now it had then. Hope so. National tone is way different.

And I'll tell ya, Lindsay Beyerstein, letting blovating knuckleheads like Phantom have so much to do with your blog brings it down. Keeps people with much more enlightened versions of the same views away. It's letting the loudest, most loutish and dedicated bastard at the party set the agenda.

[cfrost]

...we'll all agree, great, Ronald Reagan...

Uh huh. As long as we’re speaking of race and Saint Ronnie, I lived in California while he was governor. Among many of the ugly right wing causes he championed was “El Cortito”, the short handled hoe, a means of clearing weeds that kept its users stooped over eight hours a day in places like the Central & Coachella Valleys. (Visit in summer and see how long you can stay outside before fleeing back into your air-conditioned car.) The debate over El Cortito was framed in the most naked racial terms and guess which side Ronnie was on.

During his hiatus in the wilderness between Sacramento and the White House he used his radio program to rail against Martin Luther King, who he claimed was known to associate with communists and assorted other menaces.

Later as president (and here, in his defense, perhaps the brain rot had already set in) I recall him claiming that he remembered a time when there was no racial prejudice in America. - I knew he was old, but had no idea that he’d been roaming about North America during pre-columbian times. Certainly he had to be dragged by the ankles, clawing the dirt, into signing authorization for the MLK holiday.

[cfrost]

Oh, I forgot to mention that Ronnie spent a good deal of time on his radio program whining that Japanese-Americans who had been shipped off to the "relocation camps" deserved no reparations because, you know, they were, if not directly responsible for Pearl Harbor, a very grave threat. And of course in any case, herding all the Japanese-Americans into tarpaper shacks in the Great Basin was, after all, essential for their own safety.

Later, as president, he resisted those reparations (token, niggardly) with all the means he could muster, but was forced by the opposition party into signing. (That legislation also granted reparations to the Aleuts and Pribilof islanders who were also relocated in one of the more disgusting outrages perpetrated against native Americans. But then Ronnie, whose grasp of geography and history was always a bit shaky, probably had little or no idea who the Aleuts are.)

[The Phantom]

I'll repeat-- There have been eight presidents since JFK was assassinated. Of these, Reagan is by far the most similar to the potentially great, slain President. It's not even close.

For those haven't read their history, JFK was an absolute cold warrior. He didn't use the words "evil empire" to describe the USSR, but he essentially said the same thing - and meant it.

Reagan was an interventionist as regards Grenada and Central America, but JFK intervened in Castro's Cuba and thoroughly approved of the CIA's and the military's anticommunist efforts throughout the world.

Including the mother of all interventions, that in south Vietnam. I take no joy in saying this, because it was an immense geopoltical error, but the first big ramping up in Vietnam all took place on JFK's watch, with his complete approval.

JFK, like Ronald Reagan was unabashedly partiotic. You wouldn't have had any member of JFK's family saying that the first time they were proud of the US was when their guy started winning some elections.

Ronald Reagan could well have been a member in good standing of the Democratic Party of the late 1950s through the early 1960s...but JFK would never be accepted as a member of the Democratic Party of today. You'd condemn him and drive him out, if he didn't leave first--which is exactly what Reagan did do.

It may be an unpleasant truth to face, cfrost--but please don't even try to claim JFK as part of the heritage of this Democratic Party we see today. It does not compute.

I could have raised another ten points or so, but life is too short.

[B-Money]

Man, talk about being off topic! We went from passports to Rev. Wright to Reagan?? WTF!!!??? You people have WAY too much time on your hands! I hope you devote this much energy and thought to your local elections, where the politics that affect your daily lives REALLY takes place.

[The Phantom]

B-Money

Well, this is indeed connected to what Obama claims to be --kind of the next JFK. Yeah, right.

Don't believe that I've heard any response to my "blowback" comment. It appears that one of the contrators concerned worked for a firm called "The Analysis Corp". A firm whose CEO is John Brennan. Who is an adviser and contributor to the Obama campaign.

Cat got your tongue, guys?

how much you want to bet this thing is going to blow WIDE open.
Hah! When the facts become inconvenient, my how we clam up on this issue.

It was most likely some Obama groupies who were curious. Three days later, that's all it appears to have been, guys.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[B-Money]

No Phantom, it is not connected. You hijacked the thread again. And your assertions are not really worth commenting on. Your mind is made up and you are just trolling on this topic now. Come on man! I am generally with you on a lot of things, but this time, you are just being more wonkish than usual.