Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fw: [HAL838] Fwd: Webster G. Tar pley’s attack on Obama

Expand Messages
  • Dick Eastman
    Webster G. Tarpley s mistake is generalizing from party faithful behavior in primaries to general election behavior -- the behavior of two different
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 2, 2008
      Webster G. Tarpley's mistake is generalizing from party faithful behavior in primaries to general election behavior  -- the behavior of two different populations with two different sets of political opinion  characteristics. 
      Obama will carry California if he makes the nomination.  I am predicting a Clinton upset.  Obama would easily beat McCain -- and Tarpley couldn't be mor wrong than whan he tells us the primaries will be an indication of how the general election goes.
      Another thing  -- the only wind in McCain's sails is fear of another Clinton presidency.
      And guess what?  Bob Bowman would win against any combination of the three in a general election with him on the ballot.

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Auveline Robinson
      Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 9:14 PM
      Subject: [HAL838] Fwd: Webster G. Tarpley’s attack on Obama

      ATTENTION:  THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ANALYSIS ON THE OBAMA PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN AND BID. There is a pdf file with the total of Tarpley's book, but it is 294 pages and can be bought from Amazon. Auveline

      Date: Jun 2, 2008 7:48 PM
      Subject:Webster G. Tarpley's attack on Obama

      Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 02:10:59 +1000 (EST) Forwarded from: Guy Dunbar
      <guy_dunbar4@... <mailto:guy_dunbar4@...> >

      Barack Obama pdf book download

      Obama - The Postmodern Coup: Making of a Manchurian Candidate
      by Webster Griffin Tarpley, Bruce Marshall and Jonathan Mowat (Paperback
      - Jun 2, 2008)

      Obama's Afghan Dilemma (Spokesman)
      by Ken Coates, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Barack Obama
      (Paperback - April 1, 2008)

      The brains behind Obama: Zbigniew Brzezinski
      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

      The money behind Brzezinski: David Rockefeller
      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rockefeller> ==


      Editorial Reviews

      Barack Obama is a deeply troubled personality, the megalomaniac front
      man for a postmodern coup by the intelligence agencies, using fake
      polls, mobs of swarming adolescents, super-rich contributors, and
      orchestrated media hysteria to short-circuit normal politics and seize

      Obama comes from the orbit of the Ford Foundation, and has never won
      public office in a contested election. His guru and controller is
      Zbigniew Brzezinski, the deranged revanchist and Russia-hater who
      dominated the catastrophic Carter presidency 30 years ago. All
      indications are that Brzezinski recruited Obama at Columbia University a
      quarter century ago. Trilateral Commission co-founder Brzezinski wants a
      global showdown with Russia and China far more dangerous for the United
      States than the Bush-Cheney Iraq adventure.

      Obama's economics are pure Skull & Bones/Chicago school austerity and
      sacrifice for American working families, all designed to bail out the
      bankrupt Wall Street elitist financiers who own Obama. Obama's lemming
      legions and Kool-Aid cult candidacy hearken back to Italy in 1919-1922,
      and raise the question of postmodern fascism in the United States today.

      Obama is a recipe for a world tragedy. No American voter can afford to
      ignore the lessons contained in this book.

      About the Author

      Webster Griffin Tarpley (Massachusetts 1946) is an intelligence expert
      and historian who has been studying and exposing covert operations for
      over thirty years. He is the author of George Bush: The Unauthorized
      Biography (1992) and 9/11 Synthetic Terror (2005). He has appeared on
      C-SPAN, CNN, Fox News, and many more.

      (2) Tarpley backs Hillary - no mention of the Jewish lobby backing her



      Posted By: J
      Date: Friday, 8 February 2008, 1:47 p.m.

      Why Obama Is A Sure Loser
      And A Prelude To The McCain-Lieberman Disaster
      By Webster Tarpley

      Any Democratic candidate who cannot win California and New York should
      probably call it a day. That applies to Obama, but his situation is even
      worse. The voter pool for the Democratic primaries is notoriously not
      typical of the broader US population. The Democratic primaries have been
      skewed for decades by the presence of large numbers of upper-middle
      class elitists concerned about environmentalism, race and gender quotas,
      balanced budgets, good government, corruption, gridlock, excessive
      partisanship, and related issues. They are not interested in the minimum
      wage, trade union rights, stopping home foreclosures, and other kitchen
      table concerns of the less well off. In this year's Super Tuesday, it
      was estimated that about 56% of the voters on the Democratic Party side
      had been to college ? about twice the level for the population as a
      whole. Yet, even with this voter pool, Obama could not win a single
      Electoral College megastate vital for any Democratic candidate, with the
      sole exception of his own home base of Illinois.


      The list of states captured by Obama on Feb. 5 is largely a joke, except
      for Illinois and a couple of others. He proudly lists Alaska, Idaho,
      Kansas, North Dakota, and Utah. What do these states have in common?
      They are states which a Democrat could never win in a general election.
      Under the Electoral College system, Democratic votes in these states are
      worthless ? they will be thrown away. How many people are there in the
      Alaska Democratic Party? The caucus turnout seems to have been below
      10,000 people. Idaho is one of the most reactionary states ? the
      Democratic Party there could meet in a phone booth. The same goes for
      Utah. Delaware is a perfect state for Obama ? rich Volvo-driving,
      chablis and brie elitists in the Philadelphia suburbs, but it does not
      look like America. Colorado is another Obama state where the well-off
      suburban voter can be decisive in a Democratic primary. True, Obama won
      Connecticut, which has some union voters, but it looks like Greenwich,
      Cos Cob, and Yale carried the day. Missouri might fall to Clinton on a
      recount; in any case, the race was very close. Minnesota is a special
      case because of the Democrat Farmer-Labor Party; this was in any case a
      state that went for Mondale, for various reasons ? not a good

      To win an election, a Democrat must win the Electoral College megastates
      to get to the 270 plus electoral votes needed to eject the GOP from the
      White House. Mrs. Clinton carried these states convincingly, starting
      with California, where all of Obama's money could not save him.
      California is so huge, so crucial, and so much a symbol of America's
      future in the Pacific century, that the argument could well end here. A
      Democrat who cannot win California has no hope of entering the White
      House. But there is much more.


      The Obama campaign looks very much like the past campaigns of Howard
      Dean, Gary Hart, Paul Tsongas, Bill Bradley, and other losers of the
      past. He appeals to wealthy elitists, and therefore has a fundraising
      base. He can turn out small numbers of dedicated liberal activists for
      caucuses, as we have seen in Iowa. He can use the Internet to get money
      in the same way that Howard Dean did. He enjoys the benefits of a
      collective media swoon, and the systematic fawning of the media elites.
      But none of this adds up to the ability to win a general election.

      Obama lost Massachusetts, in spite of the effusions of the politically
      decadent Kennedy clan. Despite media hype, he lost New Jersey. He lost
      border states like Tennessee and Oklahoma that a Democrat might win.
      Mrs. Clinton had already won megastates Florida and Michigan. She is
      likely to win in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. What can we do with a
      Democratic candidate who cannot win California, New York, Texas, New
      Jersey, Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida ? cannot win
      even the skewed Democratic primary voters of these critical states? The
      question answers itself. As sociologist Fabio Rojas has noted: "The
      Obama campaign assumed that winning big states, aside from Illinois, was
      simply impossible. [Obama's] strengths do not undermine Hillary's single
      most powerful asset: rock solid support among the white women, retirees,
      and unionists who make up the majority of the Democratic base. There is
      nearly nothing that Obama can say to sway those voters.Obama can
      continue to win his kind of state (caucuses, low union, small to medium
      size, heavily Affirmative Action) and have the money to continue till
      the end, but he can't deliver a knockout punch by winning in California,
      NY, NJ, Texas, Florida, Ohio or PA." Obama's campaign depends on
      creating the illusion of success. When there is no real success


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      No virus found in this incoming message.
      Checked by AVG.
      Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.24.4/1478 - Release Date: 6/2/2008 7:12 AM
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.