The current issue of the National Enquirer contains some ugly smears of Barack Obama.
The cover prominently features a picture of him along with the headline "Obama's secrets... His close friendship with terrorist." Out of context, this headline may reinforce the the myth that Obama is a Muslim, suggesting to casual readers that Obama is friends with a Muslim terrorist. In fact, however, the headline refers to Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers, a former member of 1960s radical group the Weathermen.
In addition to scurrilous suggestions that the gay choir director of Obama's church was murdered to silence him from revealing what he knows about the presidential candidate, the article uses the Ayers connection to suggest that Obama is anti-American. It quotes Bill Hobbs (the Tennessee GOP flack who authored an infamous press release smearing Obama):
Asked about Ayers, Obama's campaign spokesman David Alexrod freely admitted: "Yes, they're friendly."
Bill Hobbs, communications director for the Tennessee Republican Party, revealed there are other links between the senator and America's enemies.
"Obama has a foreign policy advisor, Robert Maley, who blames Israel for anything bad and suggests we ought to be doing business with Hamas (the radical Palestinian militants dedicated to Israel's destruction)," Hobbs told the enquirer.
Hobbs believes Obama will be putting America's strongest ally in the Middle East right in the crosshairs of our enemies.
Just as disturbing is the alleged link between Obama and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who has referred to Jews as "dogs" and "pigs"...
Even worse, the Enquirer floats rumors that Obama is an Iranian agent without directly contradicting them:
The senator's questionable associations have fired up Internet bloggers and their imaginations.
The "New York Post" recently reported that some Internet "posts" even claim that Obama is an Iranian agent sent to take over the U.S. government and wage war against Sunni Muslims."
A pull quote stating that "Some posts even claim Obama is an Iranian agent" is featured in a separate picture of Obama that appears above the famous image of him in Somali clothing. Once again, the implication to casual readers is that Obama is a Muslim and possibly disloyal to the US.
While the tendency is to ignore the Enquirer as tabloid trash, it has a circulation of more than one million copies and is seen by many more people in supermarket checkout lines. We should not ignore what Mickey Kaus calls "the undernews."
Update 3/13 3:34 PM: Due to a legal threat from the Enquirer, I've removed the images and PDF previously included in this post from my website.
I suppose this must be a slow news day for political/media commentators. In September 2005, when the Enquirer published a report about Bush's Booze Crisis, Brendan was too busy with other issues to note his outrage.
Posted by: Rob | March 10, 2008 at 12:04 PM
Readers of this blog can always count on Rob's ability to justify bad behavior by referencing other bad behavior. I guess in Rob's mind if Brendon doesn't blog about it then he MUST be saying that it's OK.
Rob, even you have to admit that being painted as a terroristic treasonous Muslim is much worse than being painted as a boozer.
Posted by: Stacy | March 10, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Stacy, I wasn't try to justify the Enquirer's bad behavior, I was pointing out an example of previous bad behavior by the Enquirer that never received a mention in this blog--part of my continuing attempt to raise Brendan's consciousness and help him achieve the even-handedness he values. (And btw, I don't agree with you that the story about Bush was any less damaging than the story about Obama, though certainly the Obama story received more prominent placement.)
But perhaps the most interesting aspect of the Enquirer article is the fact that the Enquirer is owned by Bill Clinton's good buddy Ron Burkle. The Enquirer, of course, also published the story about John Edward's "love child." Do we discern a pattern here?
Posted by: Rob | March 10, 2008 at 01:37 PM
Brendan: given you called them "ugly smears," but if you are really going to help the National Enquirer disseminate these lies, I'd like a little bit more analysis about why exactly these claims are untrue (so that googlers who come here can be set straight - or you can just link to http://obamapolitics.com/node/65) and/or what exactly the impact of this is likely to be given the circulation of the Enquirer.
More generally, will this ugliness - and the Enquirer stuff pales in comparison to Steve King's "terrorists will be dancing in the streets" comment - consume America or will it be so obvious that we will transcend it? Is the Enquirer giving the Kings of the world enough rope to hang themselves? And, yes, the metaphor is intentional.
Posted by: Micah | March 10, 2008 at 06:46 PM
I appreciate Mr. Nyhan bringing this to my (and his other readers') attention. I can't remember the last time I looked at an issue of the National Enquirer. It's good to be aware that this kind of garbage is out there in the undernews. It lets Obama supporters know that they need to maintain (or increase) their counter-efforts.
Posted by: ambivalentmaybe | March 10, 2008 at 07:22 PM
Obama is CORRUPT, his slogan of change an ILLUSION.
1) A houseowner wants to sell both a house and adjoining land. Obama can afford to buy only the house. No problem, the criminal Rezko to the rescue. Rezko pays full price for the land, whereas Obama gets a discount of $300,000 on the house. Nice to have criminal friends like this!!! (reference ABC News)
2) Exelon Corporation had not disclosed radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear plants in Illinois. Obama, a senator for Illinois introduces a bill to make disclosures mandatory. Seems like Exelon doesn't like it. Each draft of the new bill by Obama goes more and more towards Exelon till disclosures end up being "voluntary". What gives? How about $250,000+ donations by Exelon to Obama's campaigns!!! Obama is not change, he is WASHINGTON BUSINESS AS USUAL. (reference New York Times)
People need to stop believing their fantasies about Obama and realize that Hillary is the one who has been fighting for them all along. All the way back to 1993 when she tried to introduce universal health care (before it became politically fashionable).
Posted by: Jay | March 10, 2008 at 09:17 PM
Ugh, this is exactly the kind of manipulative nonsense and scare tactics that made people hate the Clintons (and GWB) in the first place.
Please stop treating us like idiots and assuming anytime the word "terrorist" is mentioned we're going to believe whatever crap you put in front of us.
Someone needs to sue the enquirer for libel or defamation. I'm sick of seeing the media try to drag a good man through the mud.
Posted by: Maryann | March 10, 2008 at 11:18 PM
I agree with Rob. Brendan, you should definitely spend more time reading the National Enquirer. I'm disappointed you let Bush's boozin' slip through the cracks. On the other hand, Bush's recent displays of his dance moves while touring Africa and waiting for McCain to arrive at the White House do lend credence to this particular story.
Posted by: Mark D. | March 11, 2008 at 09:24 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/11/ron-burkle-set-to-gain-co_n_72080.html
Posted by: Janine | March 11, 2008 at 03:19 PM
The enquirer was alot more believable in the days they wrote about babies born with two heads and other abnormal happenings.
Posted by: cigalechanta | March 12, 2008 at 07:23 PM
Legal threat from the Enquirer ... hahaha ... for a company that puts out lies for them to offer to sue is funny. MAKE them take legal action against you. Put them on the spot.
Guess if someone scaned the Enquirer and posted it all over the internet. And did this week in and week out that would be really funny stuff.
Posted by: WaitingToDoSomething | March 14, 2008 at 12:21 AM
I did a double-take on first reading the words, "my post on the National Enquirer smearing Barack Obama." I couldn't imagine that Brendan would post to the National Enquirer, nor that he would smear Obama. Then I read Brendan's words again the right way.
Anyhow, I fully agree that this sort of post is disgusting.
Posted by: David | April 26, 2008 at 06:44 PM
The National Enquirer told the truth about Obama. He was not "smeared". PROVE that the Enquirer lied, or shut your pie hole, and stop smearing the Enquirer. Obama is corrupt and those with eyes to see, and ears to hear KNOW IT. Wake up. *SLAP*
Posted by: John Rambo | August 10, 2008 at 09:54 PM
I say the John Rambo is a child-molesting Shia fanatic catamite of Ahmadinejad . PROVE this isn't true. PROVE IT.
Posted by: Bitchslap Rambo | August 13, 2008 at 07:58 PM
The National Enquirer has as much credibility as a one-eyed, ten-legged hound dog claming to be Elvis from a previous life. Obama has my vote in 2008!
Posted by: Justice4all | October 12, 2008 at 08:54 PM
For once in a long time I am so glade to have a smart President in office.No where in history has a pres. elect took off running like Obama.When I seen this dirt in this magazine it made me sick.If you like him or not have some respect for our country.All of you people that are against him please when you receive your stimulus check please send it BACK I would think you would not want anything from a terroist!!
Posted by: Sam | December 06, 2008 at 04:45 PM
Makes you wonder, the National Enquirer was "right" on everything they stated regarding John Edwards.
Right about BO as well?????
Posted by: WeimMom | May 05, 2009 at 10:55 AM