The Washington Post vs. Sen. Barack Obama: The WaPo How To Be a Freeper Guide

[McCamy Taylor]

I. Intro. The MSM Is Shocked (That It Has to Report on Four Year Old “Obama is a Muslim” Atrocities) In Order to Spread Rumors that Would Otherwise Be Confined to the Internet

Today, the Washington Post has provided a demonstration of the kind of rumor mongering disguised as reporting that I described in “Psst, Pass It On, Fox Says Obama Is a Muslim”: How the MSM Smears Obama with Faux Outrage link here
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/246

The rules of this game are simple. The corporate media source does not report that Sen. Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee is a Muslim. Instead, it writes about other sources which claim that he is a Muslim. It pretends to be shocked. Appalled. So appalled that it can not look away. Today, we get four more pages of recycled outrage

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/27/AR2008062703781.html?sid=ST2008062703939&pos=

in An Attack That Came Out of the Ether:Scholar Looks for First Link in E-Mail Chain About Obama from a newspaper which should be looking more closely at its own history of anti-Obama propaganda. More about the most recent WaPo journalist atrocity, but first I thought I would put it in context by showing how the newspaper not of record did its part in the early days of the Democratic primary to slur the Senator. If you follow the news closely, or read my journals or just do not have a lot of time for one of my monster sized posts, skip ahead to part six for the analysis of today's article.


II. Forget Resting on Its Laurels. The Washington Post Must Have Burned Its Watergate Laurels for Heat During One of the Energy Crises or Katy Graham Rolls Over In Her Grave.

Way back in November 2007, the Washington Post did something naughty.

Foes Use Obama's Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him
By Perry Bacon Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 29, 2007; Page A01
In his speeches and often on the Internet, the part of Sen. Barack Obama's biography that gets the most attention is not his race but his connections to the Muslim world.
Since declaring his candidacy for president in February, Obama, a member of a congregation of the United Church of Christ in Chicago, has had to address assertions that he is a Muslim or that he had received training in Islam in Indonesia, where he lived from ages 6 to 10. While his father was an atheist and his mother did not practice religion, Obama's stepfather did occasionally attend services at a mosque there.

This two page, front page WaPo article has everything. It recycles the Obama attended a madrassa from way back in January in 2007. That one came from Insight a Moonie publication, which claims that it got the info from Hillary Clinton. The problem was that Clinton is not BFF with Rev. Moon and Obama did not attend a madrassa in Indonesia. Almost as soon as the original article appeared in the Moonie rag, CNN dispatched reporters to Indonesia to do some actual investigative journalism, and they discovered that the story was a great big lump of steaming yak poo.

Funny, Perry Bacon Jr. of the Washington Post does not mention CNN’s fine reporting, which quickly killed this story back in January of 2007. He only says that Obama denies the story. He then goes on to describe a bunch of rumors about Obama---he does not cover his heart when he says the Pledge of Allegiance, he is the Muslim world’s “Manchurian Candidate”, Americans do not know what religion he is but if they believed that he was Muslim, they would reject him.

The article is basically a how-to guide for Republicans with time on their hands. It gives sources---websites, right wing commentators, specific articles. It lists the charges. It tells exactly how to frame the talking points. And it says It will be our word against his.

"The underlying point is that if you can somehow pin Islam on him, that would be a fatal blow," Hooper said. "It's offensive. It speaks to the rising level of anti-Muslim feeling in our society."

This should tell everyone at Democratic Underground just how much the NeoCon Washington Post hates the thought of anyone except John McCain being the next president of the United States. If you didn’t get the point already when they wrote “The Good Lie.”

III. Who Brought Up the Subject of Obama’s Youthful Experimentation With Recreational Substances? Why, the Washington Post, Way Back in January 2007. And Who Was There to Blame The WaPo Story On Clinton? Mr. Abortion, Acid and Amnesty Himself, Bob Novak

If you thought the answer to the first question was the husband of Jeanne Shaheen or Hillary Clinton go stand in the corner. If you said Tweety, get in the corner, too. A full year before that happened, the WaPo had another front page story. This one called

Effect of Obama's Candor Remains to Be Seen
Senator Admitted Trying Cocaine in a Memoir Written 11 Years Ago
By Lois Romano
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 3, 2007; Page A01
Long before the national media spotlight began to shine on every twist and turn of his life's journey, Barack Obama had this to say about himself: "Junkie. Pothead. That's where I'd been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man. . . . I got high push questions of who I was out of my mind."
The Democratic senator from Illinois and likely presidential candidate offered the confession in a memoir written 11 years ago, not long after he graduated from law school and well before he contemplated life on the national stage. At the time, 20,000 copies were printed and the book seemed destined for the remainders stacks.
Snip
Obama's revelations were not an issue during his Senate campaign two years ago. But now his open narrative of early, bad choices, including drug use starting in high school and ending in college, as well as his tortured search for racial identity, are sure to receive new scrutiny.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Washington Post. We have a president who used cocaine after college. One with a DUI history. And I do not recall your newspaper writing a single soul searching article about how that story would play with the electorate. Is there some new criminal statute I am not aware of? Using drugs while not the son of a Congressman? Or maybe it is just an old case of using drugs while a Democrat.

The story in itself is not so bad. This was January 2007, after all, the start of the Democratic Primary, when the MSM loved Barack Obama. A piece about his refreshing candor and his youthful drug use would not hurt him in the Democratic Primary. However, by the next day, it became apparent that this was one of those infamous Texas Two Step Stories.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200701040011

On Hannity and Colmes, Hannity and guest Bob Novak announced to the world that the Washington Post got the info about Obama’s history not (as they had claimed) from his best selling autobiography.

HANNITY: Hang on a second. The Clinton-Obama -- well, but the timing is interesting, that this was highlighted. You know, the Clinton-Obama differences show up yesterday. Today, it's Obama's past can be a big issue. Why do I suspect, Bob Novak, although I have no proof whatsoever, that dirty political tricks, leaking damaging information at a time where he is ascending quite rapidly? Do you suspect that might be possible?
NOVAK: Well, I think every reasonable person has to suspect. I don't have any evidence of this; I'd like to have some. It would be a very good story.
But I will tell you this, that people in the Democratic Party say that if, as he begins to really be a serious threat to Senator Clinton -- and I think Senator Obama is definitely going to run. All my sources in Illinois said that decision has been made. If he looks like he is a serious threat to her, watch out below, because the Clintons will do anything to win this nomination.

The timing of this completely unfounded aspersion on the character of Sen. Clinton was important. January 4, 2007. The RW and a number of MSM journalists had already accused Clinton of being capable of dirty tricks, but here we had them accusing her of being the source of a story which had a perfectly reasonable source--Obama's own books. Why was it important to establish a pattern of negative Obama stories attributed to Clinton?

In just a few weeks, the right wing would break the Moonie-Madrassa story, in which they would claim that Obama was a Muslim---and that they got the story from Clinton. Without the Clinton hook, the mainstream media would ignore the Mooney story, which was completely ridiculous. However, with the Hillary is a bitch capable of anything twist the MSM would have the excuse it needed to smear two Democratic candidates at once. The corporate press would launch an all out media blitz about the madrassa story---- not because they believed that Obama was a Muslim, oh no, they would only cover it because they believed that the Moonie story came from Clinton ---or at least that is what they would claim. It would be the first major Obama is a Muslim national news media extravaganza---designed to look like a dogpile on the Hillary Clinton campaign (and the nation was trained to take media attacks on the Clintons for granted). Think of it as killing Obama with kindness. Oh that poor man! How can that awful woman say such dreadful things about him! You haven’t heard the awful things she said? Why she said he___. The members of the press corp would only be able to get away with this, because members of the conservative press--- people like Bob Novak---had been out there for months telling the world that Hillary Clinton was going to throw the kitchen sink at Obama and because they had already "caught" her doing it with stories like the WaPo's Obama/Drugs story. Basically, the WaPo helped the GOP beta test what for them would become their most successful strategy in their campaign against the Democratic primary and Barack Obama. And the Obama camp would help them, when they began pointing their finger at Hillary Clinton each time one of these attacks was made. For, had they said instead "That's just Matt Drudge being a conservative idiot", the press would have had no excuse to cover the various Obama is a Muslim lies which helped to increase the number of Americans who believe that he is a member of that religion to 13%. Don't forget, Clinton had a lot of supporters, and when the press said "Clinton thinks Obama is a Muslim" that carried more weight with more people than if they had said "Karl Rove says he is a Muslim."

Over the next year, this would become the GOP’s favorite way to attack Obama. Have someone like Matt Drudge launch the actual smear, claim Clinton or a surrogate was to blame, get the mainstream press to denounce Clinton for her excessive bitchiness----and in covering Hillary’s unseemly behavior, the details of the smear would also become public knowledge, so that people could be suitable outraged. Had Obama in African garb not been attributed to Clinton, would KO have showed the photo on Countdown? Had the Matt Drudge doctored 60 Minutes interview been of anyone but Hillary Clinton would it have been endlessly debated on national TV news programs, giving ordinary voters the idea to think Hmm. Why are some people wondering if Obama might be a Muslim? Is this something I should be thinking about?

IV. Dana Milbank Is STILL The Same Man Who Lied For the Bush Administration Saying That They Never Lobbied to Bail Out Enron in the Wake of 9/11 When they Really Did

If you go over to Salon in the Politics section of their forums there is a monstrously long thread called “Enron.” Buried in there is the proof that the Bush administration really did send one of its cabinet members to Congress to lobby for the bill that would have given Enron a huge wad of cash right after 9/11 as part of an “economic stimulus package.” The catch? No one in the GOP controlled House where the bill originated just days after 9/11 or the administration was supposed to know that Enron was battling bankruptcy and needed that cash the way that a hemophiliac needs fresh frozen plasma. When the Democratic controlled Senate said “No free federal money for W.’s best campaign contributor” Enron promptly went belly up. A few months later, when the Bush administration was in peril, because of accusations that it knew all about Enron, Dana Milbank of the Washington Post wrote an article in which he quoted administration sources who said that they were not involved in the bill that would have given the rescue funds to Enron and that they did not lobby for it. I sent a complaint and details about the administration’s lobbying efforts to the Washington Post, but I never heard back from them. The internet site which describes the speech given by the administration official in support of the bill got scrubbed pretty damn quickly.

Anyway, once a Bush administration tool, always a Bush administration tool. Look at this piece of work which the piece of work that calls itself Dana Milbank wrote about Sen. Barack Obama last December. Who knew that Milibank was such a Clinton supporter?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/13/AR2007121301785.html?nav=rss_politics

Attacks Add
By Dana Milbank
Friday, December 14, 2007; Page A14

When a Boy Scout sees an older woman, he helps her cross the street. In the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Barack Obama is no Boy Scout.
The 46-year-old freshman senator from Illinois, trying to topple the 60-year-old front-runner, never once utters the words "Hillary" or "Clinton." But the target of his stump speech is unmistakable -- and his derision is brutal.
snip

Obama began his campaign with a slogan about "the audacity of hope." But he has, predictably, settled on a more conventional theme: the audacity of audacity. Americans may say they want upbeat candidates with gauzy rhetoric, but voters actually respond to negativity. He dresses up the attack with a light touch, a hip presence and lofty phrases. "Fired up!" was the first sentiment out of his mouth after "Thank you" when he spoke recently to the Democratic National Committee in Virginia.

Snip

On the other hand, the achievements Obama has to tout are thin.

Snip

Obama also sounds a bit green when he vows that "I will finish the fight against al-Qaeda" -- a battle nobody expects will wrap up in the next four years.

There is a special problem with this piece. Milbank gets the facts wrong. From Media Matters:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200712170003

The Washington Post's Dana Milbank wrote that Sen. Barack Obama's "signature legislation as a state senator, the Health Care Justice Act, merely set up a panel to craft a plan," not, as Obama claimed, "expanded health care in Illinois by bringing Democrats and Republicans together, by taking on the insurance industry." In fact, Obama sponsored a bill that expanded health insurance programs for low-income families in Illinois. Following that bill's passage, more than 150,000 additional people reportedly received health insurance through the programs.

Since Milbank always writes like a drag queen being catty towards a rival, the first response may be So what? However, analyze the charges that he levels at Obama, and you have a very BIG what. The GOP is attempting to paint Obama as 1) inexperienced (dangerously so when it comes to foreign policy ) 2) a liar 3) a dirty trickster of the Daley school .

What does Milbank do in his short, character assassination piece? Besides seek to anger Clinton’s female supporters by putting some nasty, sexist words into Obama’s mouth like “granny”? He paints Obama as a dirty trickster and a liar who is dangerously inexperienced---in an article that is designed to inflame the hostilities between the Obama and Clinton camp. Divide and Conquer is the Republican Party’s number one strategy.

V. The WaPo vs. the Democratic Primary

The one thing I will say about Milbank's Obama piece is that it was better than Robin Givhan’s article about Hillary Clinton’s cleavage that you can read here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071902668.html#

Had you forgotten that story also originated in the WaPo? When the press went on a week long feeding frenzy discussing the junior senator from New York’s tits they did so because the WaPo played the role of naughty journalist whose atrocious behavior had to be discussed and dissected on millions of TV screens across the country---along with images of Hillary Clinton’s bosoms.

The Washington Post also gave us John Solomon’s notorious character attacks on John Edwards, which started way back in January 2007 with stories about his house, his money, his hair. The most atrocious of all was this one:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/04/AR2007070401258.html

in which Solomon interviewed one of Edward’s hairdressers, attempting to portray his subject as a spurned devoted admirer willing to travel cross country to see the man he loved.

"When he called me 'that guy,' that hit my ears. It hurt."

In the world according to the Washington Post, John Edwards is a man magnet, Hillary Clinton’s tits are a weapon so powerful that the Pentagon should be researching them and the most interesting thing about Obama is the fact that he tried weed when he was a teenager.

Will someone please tell me why I should take the Washington Post any more seriously than I take Fox News?

VI. From the Folks that Brought Us the “Good Lie”, A “Bad Rebuttal”

Ok, this is why I wrote this journal. Today, the WaPo pretends that it is doing the Obama campaign a favor, when all it is really doing is spreading the same old Obama is a Muslim lies.

In that very first link in section I. above, I show the difference between a good rebuttal of a false charge and a bad rebuttal---one which really seeks to repeat malicious gossip or lies under the pretense of exclaiming “Who would say such outrageous things?!”. A good rebuttal is like Jake Tapper’s analysis of the Obama’s half brother said he was a Muslim story. Or like CNN’s investigation of the Moonie-Madrassa story. (It is no accident that Disney-ABC and Time Warner-CNN are responsible for the legwork on these two. Neither organization has reason to trust John McCain, who has a long, nasty history of corruption on telecommunication matters which could hurt both companies were he to be elected.) In both cases, new evidence was uncovered. The original story was proven to be false beyond a shadow of a doubt, meaning that no other MSM site could repeat the story without looking like a horse’s ass. When the Washington Post decided to write about the Moonie-Madrassa story ten months later and did not include CNN’s follow up reporting, it proved that it was the wrong end of a mule. A Good Rebuttal kills a rumor. A Bad Rebuttal just gives it a wider audience.

Which kind of rebuttal is this Washington Post article?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/27/AR2008062703781.html?sid=ST2008062703939&pos=

It gives the appearance of being the good kind, but do not be fooled. A close reading is useful in analyzing the purpose and impact of a story. First, check out the opening and closing paragraphs, since these are all that some people will ever read.

Key points at the beginning:

The anonymous chain e-mail makes the false claim that Obama is concealing a radical Islamic background. By the time it reached Allen on Jan. 11, 2008, it had spread with viral efficiency for more than a year.
During that time, polls show the number of voters who mistakenly believe Obama is a Muslim rose -- from 8 percent to 13 percent between November 2007 and March 2008. And some cited this religious mis-affiliation when explaining their primary votes against him.

Key points at the ending:

The attacks on Obama are different, Allen says. The level of anonymity, the technical efficiency, and above all the electoral impact of Internet-based smears all represent a new challenge.
"What I've come to realize is, the labor of generating an e-mail smear is divided and distributed amongst parties whose identities are secret even to each other," she says. A first group of people published articles that created the basis for the attack. A second group recirculated the claims from those articles without ever having been asked to do so. "No one coordinates the roles," Allen said. Instead the participants swim toward their goal like a school of fish -- moving on their own, but also in unison.
Snip

Citizens and political scientists must face the fact that the Internet has enabled a new form of political organization that is just as influential on local and national elections as unions and political action committees," she says. "This kind of misinformation campaign short-circuits judgment. It also aggressively disregards the fundamental principle of free societies that one be able to debate one's accusers."

If this is not clear enough for you, I can make this ever shorten and more bitter-sweet. The WaPo is telling its faithful conservative readers Sit down at your computer and begin posting that Obama is a Muslim . And while you are at it, forward some E-mails that say the same thing, because it is safe and effective, and you will never get caught.

The rest of the article just elaborates on this point. We have a bone fide genius who comes up with the astounding conclusion that people posting at the Free Republic are the source of many of these rumors and emails. Earth to Shaw. Pardon me for being unimpressed. This is like saying “The Right Wing Conspiracy is the source of the rumors”. If every dirty trick against Obama that the McCain campaign pulls this season is going to be attributed to anonymous bloggers at the Free Republic, John McCain will come through this election looking like a saint.

As for debunking the rumors----ha! Here is the evidence that is presented to the court of public opinion by the WaPo to prove the lie Obama is a Muslim . Note that the WaPo provides this information for its faithful conservative readers free of charge to use in their emails so that they, too, can "prove" that he is a Muslim.

For this kind of chain-mail message to gain traction, it must be plausible, and it has to resonate, said Eric Dezenhall, a public relations specialist who once worked in the Reagan White House. Obama was vulnerable, Dezenhall said, because of his unusual name, his childhood in Indonesia, a foreign-born father, and his sudden arrival on the national stage without a fully fleshed-out biography. "All of these things gave it merchandising legs," Dezenhall said.

Two sources, Andy Martin and Edward N. Luttwak are described as believing that having an Islamic father makes Obama a Muslim. Not claiming or asserting or lying. They believe . The word “belief” here is used deliberately. In the U.S., land of rugged individualism, righteous people stand by their beliefs, so if a person claims to believe something, it just might be true.

We have an interview with a Freeper, whom the WaPo allows to remain anonymous:

Beckwith said he built a Web site that features hundreds of pages of material intended to undermine Obama. "If 20 percent of what's on my Web site is true, this guy is a clear and present danger," Beckwith said. (He later added, "I try very hard to be accurate.")

The WaPo also quotes the so called Beckwith to provide more fuel for copycats:

“When one investigates the background of Obama's conversion, I can find no record of his baptism."

Then there is this Freeper with her deeply held beliefs:

With the help of Allen's biographical sketch, The Post located Eva in rural Washington state. She is Donna Shaw, 60, a teacher who said Obama's ability to captivate audiences made her deeply uneasy because his "tone and cadence" reminded her of the child revivalist con-man preacher Marjoe Gortner.

And her choice quote:

"Once a Muslim, always a Muslim,"

Note that the Washington Post deliberately passes up chances to cite information that would discredit the claims of the people it interviews.

Andrew Walden, the founder of an alternative Hawaiian newspaper with the motto "The untold story, the unspoken opinion, the other side," published an article with many of the same false biographical details from the e-mail in the weeks before Obama announced for president -- that he was "Raised in Muslim lands and educated in Muslim schools."

Where is the information about CNN’s investigative reporting in the wake of the phony Moonie-Madrassa story that proved definitely that Obama did not attend a Muslim school in Indonesia? Not in this Washington Post story.

When dealing with the mainstream media always evaluate appearances separate from effects. The WaPo attempts to give the appearance that it is engaging in critical, nonpartisan journalism by analyzing the internet phenomenon of lies about Obama’s religion. The effect it achieves is quite different. They tell us in the all important first and last pages that a genius was able to conclude only that people posting at the Free Republic were forwarding on the opinions of other conservatives. No crimes have been committed and, more importantly for the GOP, the efforts are proving successful. The article also succeeds in laying out a number of talking points and giving the names of sources whom copy cat emailers and bloggers can reference and cite if they want to participate in the rumor mill.

This article is nothing more than a variation of “Hillary called a Obama a Muslim, lets talk about it”---except this time it is “The Freepers are calling Obama a Muslim, lets talk about it. And talk about it. And talk about it. And don’t forget to mention this point when you talk about it with your friends.”

Put it altogether and what do you have? A How to Be a Freeper Guide courtesy of the Washington Post.

[SaveAmerica]

1. I personally am happy to see this article, written about an Obama fan who

wanted to clear up at least one lie and smear against him. I will be using the article to give closure to a discussion we had within our local dem group about Obama's religion. I need it to confirm what I was saying to several Democrats who were posting the lies and rumors about him being a Muslim to our group.

Are you asking that there not be articles in papers that are meant to discuss the truth about Obama? If the lies, smears, and rumors about Obama swirling across the internet were left to get fertilized, we would have more fighting and more people hiding in fear in their houses over the possibility of a skeery muslin black man trying to take over America.

I suggest everyone bookmark the article and when the GE heats up and the junk starts again, use it. I'd prefer everyone use the information to put out fires, inform people of the truth, than worry about a couple snot-nosed people using it as a guide to be a freeper.

(PS considering I still have the smell of the garbage spewed on our local Democratic forum still hanging around me from just a month and a half ago, it makes no sense to say they're bringing up 4 year old lies)

[McCamy Taylor]

2. You miss the point. This article is 4 pages of "how to make your own anti-Obama email"

The thesis---Obama is being smeared in emails that are generated from right wing sites like the Free Republic---could have been done in 2 pages. There is way too much time spent laying out the arguments that conservatives need to use if they are going to make their own emails.

And note what is missing---any mention of the case against Obama being a Muslim. No mention of the CNN legwork in Indonesia last January 2007 that proved definitively that the Mooney-Madrassa story that is behind most of these smears was false. No named Muslim sources that can be quoted saying that the theory that a Muslim (step) father makes you a Muslim for life. We get the allegation that Obama has never been baptized without any chance for the Obama camp to respond.

This article would have been what you claim it is if it had been written with about two pages less input from the right wing and about one page of input from the Obama campaign.

Sorry, but this too is GOP propaganda, disguised to look like mainstream reporting.

[Gabi Hayes]

3. Brought to you by John O'Neill, T Boone Pickens (did he buy the post?), Bob Perry, etal.....

excellent piece, which details how to, as if they need any help

[DeanDem10]

5. Interesting point (about the WAPO article inciting more of same smears)

I had a different take on the article primarily because of the individual who did the research. But, I lost sight of the fact that the story writer took things way beyond merely dismissing the fiction about Obama. In reconsidering the article, I think you are right. It was a how-to manual for how to devise more smears. Thanks for your hard work on this one. A really, really good article.

[madeline_con]

4. "So appalled that it can not look away."

Or STFU, apparently.

[StClone]

6. Anti-Hillary Rumor Campaigns

Dark forces were setting the stories early as they saw Hillary as unstoppable.

Remember these:

Hillary & Huma - A Dark Unseen Scandal Star?

...I’m placing my money on the lesbian-Hillary angle.

If you examine the candidates connected by the gossip columnists to current sex scandals, Hillary leads the way with her Huma connection (and Bill with his connections).

Within a couple of hours of reading Mickey Kaus’s report above, I blitzed more than 30 sources (most of them journalists) for what they know about this matter. None of them could identify the purported LA Times story.

My dialogue with my sources left me with no doubt Tuesday night (Oct. 30) that Hillary’s made passes at women and that Muslim Huma Abedin is Hillary’s most likely source of romantic and sexual love...


http://lukeford.net/blog/?p=1031


...or...

Hillary’s Mystery Woman: Who is Huma?

(Obviously a Muslim set to influence Hillary and overthrow the Country! StClone)

Paul Sperry’s book, “Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington” has become more and more relevant, hasn’t it?

Last June, under an oppressive sun, at a rally to save the Niagara military base at the University of Buffalo, all of New York’s top politicians—George Pataki, Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton—poured sweat.

Yet there was exactly one member of the wilting delegation who managed, somehow, to stay cool: Hillary Clinton’s mysterious, glamorous and eerily unflappable aide de camp, Huma Abedin.

http://www.nohillaryclinton.com/2007/07/26/hillary%E2%80%99s-mystery-woman-who-is-huma/

[Jacob Freeze]

7. Purity

Maybe after the election Obama's fanatical disciples can turn the Washington Post into a "journal of convenience" for their Dear Leader. The official news agency of the DPRK (North Korea) is probably just about what they have in mind for "unbiased coverage" of their slippery and hypocritical candidate. Check it out at http://www.kcna.co.jp/