Recently in Obama Category
Jim Johnson joins a growing family.
Imagine the turnover rate in an Obama administration. Fast food joints could look stable in comparison.
Anyway, none of this guarantees an Obama victory in November. Racial division has lost much of its sting, but not all: you can be sure that we’ll be hearing a lot more about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and all that. Moreover, despite Hillary Clinton’s gracious, eloquent concession speech, some of her supporters may yet refuse to support the Democratic nominee.
But if Mr. Obama does win, it will symbolize the great change that has taken place in America. Racial polarization used to be a dominating force in our politics — but we’re now a different, and better, country.
If you point out Rev. Wright's hateful words against America, you're a racist. If you were a Hillary supporter who doesn't support Obama, you're a racist. If Obama loses in November, it's because we're all racist.
Paul creatively rewrites a little history in his race-baiting op-ed as well, and gets called out for it by McQ over at RWN.
From an Obama rally in North Carolina:
"At a time when we're fighting two wars, when millions of Americans can't afford their medical bills or their tuition bills, when we're paying more than $4 a gallon for gas, the man who rails against government spending wants to spend $1.2 billion on a tax break for Exxon Mobil," Obama said.
When a tax break, no matter who it benefits, is characterized as government "spending", watch your wallets. This is an arrogant view of government as rightful owner, with whatever you're allowed to keep owing only to government's benevolence.
It's human nature for people to envy others who have more - I wish I was rich, too. But keep in mind that corporations don't actually pay taxes, the simply collect them from you and me as they include the cost of taxes into the prices you pay for their products. The wealthy don't always hide their money in mattresses, they invest it, creating jobs and prosperity in the process.
It may feel good when government takes money away from folks who often appear undeserving of what they have. That's human nature, too. But which would you prefer - good feelings or lower gas prices? And which benefits you more - good feelings or more jobs?
A couple of questions for the changey-hopey folks - Can any of you explain to me why you think raising taxes on Exxon will lower gas prices? Can any of you please explain to me how taking away the resources of those who create jobs will somehow increase job opportunities for you and me?
Here we go again, this time from AP's Charles Babington:
Joyce Susick is the type of voter who might carry Barack Obama to the White House — or keep him out. A registered Democrat in a highly competitive state, she is eager to replace George W. Bush, whom she ranks among the worst presidents ever.
There's just one problem.
"I don't think our country is ready for a black president," Susick, who is white, said in an interview in the paint store where she works. "A black man is never going to win Pennsylvania."
Although the author could only find one person out of 40 interviews who wouldn't vote for Obama based on race, the article seems to suggest that any other reason given for non-support is simply a veneer hiding the real reason:
Gauging voter sentiments about race is notoriously difficult. Many voters hide their feelings from pollsters and it is possible that some do not even realize race's influence on their behavior.
In interviews with 40 Pennsylvanians across three counties that Clinton won by big margins, only one person indicated opposition to Obama simply because of his race. But several others said their neighbors might do so. Some offered objections that are familiar, and suspicious, to Obama's aides and supporters.
So if you tell a pollster you're not voting for Obama because you don't like his policy stances, you're lying to hide the fact that you're racist. Or, you're racist and just don't know it, along with your neighbors.
Surely they must have interviewed someone who objects to Obama because of issues? Of course, if you're looking for racism hard enough, you'll find it everywhere, even if you have to be creative:
Rose Iezzi, who lunched recently with two friends at a Greensburg cafe, is one. All three women are middle-aged, work for an accountant and admire Clinton. But only Iezzi took a hard stand against Obama.
"I think he's a snake oil salesman," she said. "He's a little too slick and smooth."
"He just doesn't appeal to me, and not because of race, definitely," she said in an interview in which race had not been mentioned.
Such comments are all too familiar to Richard Akers, who phoned dozens of prospective Pennsylvania voters as an Obama campaign volunteer in April. Democrats often explained their opposition to Obama with "excuses that were not rational or valid, as I saw it," said the retired bank director from Johnstown, another hotbed of Clinton support.
"To me, it was almost a code," Akers said. "'He doesn't wear a flag pin.' It seemed like code for 'He's not one of us.'"
With so much of the coverage this election season centering on race, I find it unsurprising that an interviewee might bring it up without prompting. Even folks who aren't racist don't want to be seen as racist, after all. While I agree that flag pins should not be the reason to vote for or against a candidate, I suggest that Mr. Akers, an Obama supporter, might see any reason to oppose Obama as "not rational or valid", just as many conservatives might scratch their heads and wonder why anyone would support a liberal.
In the long run, the non-stop narrative of "opposition to Obama = racism" isn't going to help the Democrats. Nobody likes being called a racist, and there's a substantial risk of backlash among folks who might otherwise be swayed by Obama's campaign.
Well, actually it's from yesterday - Juan Williams suggests that Obama needs to make another race speech:
The heart of Mr. Obama's problem is that he risks being defined by Rev. Wright and Father Pfleger. Most American voters know him only as a fresh face with an Ivy League education, an outstanding credential – editor of the Harvard Law Review – an exciting speaker, and a man who stands for much-desired change. Beyond that he is a political mystery with a thin legislative record. But when voters look at his past for clues to the core of his character, they find religious leaders calling for God to damn America and concluding that America is the greatest sin against God.
To deal with this controversy effectively, Mr. Obama needs to give another speech. This time he has to admit to sins of using race for political expediency – by knowingly buying into divisive, mean messages being delivered from the pulpit. He has to say that, as a biracial young man with no community roots, attaching himself to Rev. Wright and the Trinity congregation was a shortcut to move up the ladder in the Chicago political scene. He has to call race-baiting what it is, whether it comes from a pulpit or calls itself progressive politics. And he has to challenge his supporters, especially his black base, to be honest about real problems at the heart of today's racial divide – including out-of-wedlock births, crime, drugs and a culture that devalues education while glorifying the gangster life.
I sincerely doubt Obama will take Juan's advice, though. That would require the courage to address some of those pesky "distractions" rather than dismiss them.
Obama is worth fighting for. He is worth losing old friends for.
Frank Schaeffer at Huffington Post
No, I didn't forget about the blog, just had a little too much on my plate the past couple of days. I'm getting ready for a business trip to Europe - leaving late next week for a little over a month. I plan on blogging while there, I'll be adding some photos from the trip to my usual political commentary.
In the meantime, Obama has finally cinched the Democrat nomination, congrats. His campaign released a bunch of childhood photos, here's one of Barak having fun at the beach:
I couldn't help being drawn in by the imagery - Obama, being of scant accomplishment and even less experience, has had to invoke figures from the past like JFK in his stump speeches since he lacks the political height to reach the White House without standing on the shoulders of giants.
The ease he displays in that role apparently comes from a lifetime of practice.
Not to be outdone, McCain's campaign issued a photo of the Maverick as a youngster, showing that he's been preparing for this election his entire life as well:
On Fox News today:
If that's all this is - Michelle Obama said "whitey" - I defer to my previous post about the threshold this must meet in order to seriously damage Barack Obama. Of course, there could be some additional inflammatory quality based on context and recency, but for the Clinton supporters this is some pretty thin gruel.
Don't get me wrong - if she said it, it certainly is offensive, but it isn't enough for Barack to drop out of the race, which is about the only thing that can help Hillary at this point. Michelle will likely make the usual "sorry if it offended anyone" non-apology, and this will become a staple on the Sean Hannity show but largely forgotten elsewhere. Few votes will change, as there are far too many on the left who will excuse this based on the "absolute moral authority" of a black woman entitled to be angry about the black experience. Besides, what's the likelihood that the media (outside Fox News and talk radio) will cover this at all?
As an aside, I'm now hoping the tape is real for no other reason than to see Geraldo Rivera have to shell out a c-note.
H/T Larry Johnson at No Quarter.
Glenn Reynolds points to a possible reason for Obama's oddly-timed churchectomy:
BREAKING NEWS: Michelle’s Whitey ProblemNew and dramatic developments. This is a heads up. I’ll post the news Monday morning by 0900 hours. Now I know why people who have seen the videotape say it is stunning. Barack’s headaches are only starting.
The headline, of course, suggesting that the video is yet another controversial statement by Michelle Obama.
I have no doubts that such a tape exists. I'm skeptical, though, that this is going to be the holy grail that the Clinton supporters in the comments (also see the first thread here) are hoping for. Going after a candidate through the wife/husband is looked on unfavorably by most normal folks, and even the hint of such a tactic runs the risk of backlash.
And we've already seen lots of video of Michelle Obama saying controversial things, none of them bad enough to make a dent in Obama's chances this November. Some of the statements she's made are subject to multiple interpretations as well.
In my opinion, this tape that Larry Johnson speaks of will be a spectacular bust unless it satisfies several criteria:
- It must be recent - something from a decade or two in the past won't cut it.
- It must be really, really, really bad - the most positive interpretation has to equal or exceed the worst interpretation of anything Jeremiah Wright has said.
- It can't be subject to multiple interpretations - in context or out, it must be very clear what she meant.
- It has to implicate Barack Obama in some way - after all, he's running and she is not. Beliefs held by candidates spouses are usually tolerated even if abhorrent so long as there's no sign the candidate holds those beliefs as well.
Additionally, while I and many others have maintained that Barack Obama's judgment doesn't come close to the standard he himself sets in his speeches, you can't use Michelle as an example. People choose mates differently than they approach any other situation in life. Indeed, it appears that his choice of Michelle was a rare example of judgment based on something other than political expediency, and should be respected as such. You might argue it was a mistake to have her campaign for him, but that would be weak at best.
Taking the above into consideration, I'll be watching tomorrow to see what Larry has, and I'll share my thoughts here.
In a rapid decision that took less than twenty years, the Messiah acts:
ABARDEEN, S.D. - Barack Obama is resigning a 20 year membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ in the aftermath of inflammatory remarks by former pastor the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.Obama campaign communications director Robert Gibbs said Obama had submitted a letter of resignation to the church and would discuss his decision in a session with reporters later Saturday.
Not bloody likely. The Democrats who have blocked oil exploration, nuclear energy, and every other method of powering the country have clung to their flawed theories through thick and thin (mostly thin, as we're seeing wholesale damage to the economy as a result). Indeed, it's hard to find any type of energy they do support. Even wind power, popular with the local Joe-bag-'o-socialism class here in Delaware, meets heavy resistance from Democrat elitists at the federal level. One has to wonder what life for Americans would look like if Democrats in Washington took their distaste for all things energy to its logical conclusion and banned all energy sources they didn't like - something like this?
While Congress has been the real villain in the energy mess we find ourselves in, the executive branch could make an impact if the right approach were taken with Congress. Unfortunately, we have little to look forward to regardless of who wins in November. Obama would raise gas prices through increased taxation, and offers no hope at all that prices would decline through increased supply.
The nation wouldn't fare any better under McCain. McCain's "cap & trade" plan would be no less of a disaster than any similar plan advanced by the left, and he opposes increasing oil supplies. His only saving grace - indeed, his only dramatic difference from the Democrats - is his opposition to increased taxing of the American people through corporate surrogates (aka the oil companies).
An argument could be made that we may fare worse under McCain, as his legendary stubbornness would keep his administration stuck on stupid while the citizens suffer under an ever-worsening economy. Obama, on the other hand, is a political opportunist who might relent on some of his harmful agenda in response to negative polling. In other words, a weasel might be less harmful than someone guided by principle. That's a painful point to have to make, and shows just how bad things have been allowed to get in our political system.
*sigh*.
As I said above, though, Congress is the primary cause of the problem. This also means that they're in a position to correct it as well, if the pressure is high enough. It may not be possible, but there's nothing to be gained by not trying. Calls and letters to Congress are a start. In the same spirit, petitions and lobbying also make your opinions heard. If you're looking for a petition, start with Newt (H/T Don Surber):
While there are many important issues this election season, there are none that affect all Americans as much as this one. Regardless of political stripe, everyone should be joining in the effort to convince our government to stop obstructing energy independence and increased prosperity.
How can anyone claim to have good judgment when they surround themselves, for years, with people that have to be disavowed as soon as a public light is turned on them?
Because learning firsthand what's really happening in Iraq and visiting with all those victims in the US military he claims to care about would just be a "stunt":
John McCain's proposal is nothing more than a political stunt, and we don't need any more 'Mission Accomplished' banners or walks through Baghdad markets to know that Iraq's leaders have not made the political progress that was the stated purpose of the surge.
You really have to hand it to McCain - rather than shy away from the Iraq war as a campaign topic, he's been making it a centerpiece issue. You'd think that Obama, whose war stance was sold as the reason to pick him over more experienced Democrats in the primaries, would be delighted to go toe-to-toe with McCain on this issue. Instead, he cowers from any direct debate, and falls back on distortions such as his dishonest claim that McCain doesn't want the troops to get an affordable education or the "100-year war" lie that he's told so frequently.
It requires more than just judgment to lead. It requires courage as well. Obama is proving that he lacks both.
MIDDLETOWN, Connecticut (Reuters) - U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama, seen by some as the heir to the Kennedy family legacy, praised Sen. Edward Kennedy as a champion for the poor and struggling, as he stepped in for the ailing Massachusetts senator at a graduation ceremony.
Ick.
It's not often I run across a blog post worth bookmarking - here's one: Barack Obama In Quotes: Version 2.0.
Added: Not as bookmark worthy, but in a similar vein: Politico's Guide to Undisciplined Messaging, a list of words and phrases candidates should avoid. Top of the list? "Sweetie".
Obama gets a double-super-secret back-door endorsement. Of course, it's only a distraction, folks. Via AP/Reuters:
HAVANA (Reuters) - Cuban leader Fidel Castro on Monday called Democrat Barack Obama the candidate most advanced on social issues running for U.S. president but said his speech on Cuba last week was a "formula for hunger."In one of his periodic newspaper columns published in Communist Party newspaper Granma, Castro said he had "no personal rancor" toward Obama, but "if I defended him I would do a huge favor for his adversaries."
Che Guevara was unavailable for comment.
Spend a little time over at Newsweek and you might wonder if they have any time left over for journalism. Their left-leaning bias has been obvious in recent years, but they've finally shed any pretenses. Their current cover story is not even a news story, but a long memo to Obama with heart-felt advice on how the Messiah should run his campaign and win this fall. I'm still digesting it, but here's a little jewel from page 2 (emphasis mine):
It's also important for you not to play the race card yourself. You can't imply, or be seen to imply, that anyone who criticizes you is a racist, closeted or otherwise.
The addition of the word "yourself" is telling. Newsweek is actually suggesting that it would be bad for Obama should he play the race card himself, but it's OK through others. What others? Why, Newsweek, of course. The entire issue is devoted to the subject, and they've even developed a whole new poll just to suggest that anyone not voting for Obama just might be racist:
Even as he closes in on the Democratic nomination for the presidency, Sen. Barack Obama is facing lingering problems winning the support of white voters--including some in his own party. In a new NEWSWEEK Poll of registered voters, Obama trails presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain 40 percent to 52 percent among whites.
This even as Newsweek warns Obama that "You will never get the real racists to come around." The poll itself is here, and includes a "Racial Resentment Index" based on the following list:
Disapprove of racial preferences (Q17=2)
Less qualified people hired often (Q18=1)
Whites lose out (Q19=2,4)
Gone too far pushing rights (Q20a=1)
Poor too dependent on government (Q20b=1)
Blacks responsible for own condition (Q21=2)
Disapprove of interracial marriage (Q22=2)
Few things in common with blacks (Q23=3)
Would mind if black person moved close (Q24=1)
Would be upset if daughter dated black (Q25=2,3)
It would be difficult to imagine how they could be more incendiary in their questioning.
NewsBusters notes that there's only one side of the story in the Newsweek poll:
This raises two important questions for Newsweek:1. Why wasn't it concerned about McCain's lingering problems winning the support of black voters?
2. Why didn't it measure a Racial Resentment Index for the non-whites that participated in the poll, especially for the blacks that overwhelmingly support Obama?
Good questions. The answer is that their interest in McCain is how best to defeat him. In the same issue, Newsweek raises issues about McCain's age and health. Unable to find a smoking gun of imminent Alzheimer's or cancer, they conclude in one article:
But the eventual winner of the election—no matter who it is—should be forewarned. Roizen has assessed data on presidential health back to the 1920s and finds that the stress of the job takes a toll. "Every year in office, you age two years," he says. It's not hard to calculate the effect this would have on McCain. After two terms, his calendar age and Real Age would be right back in line.
And in another, they just go for negativism in the title: "An Answer for Every ‘Little Jerk’" Again, failing to find anything bad in the medical records, they feel compelled to insinuate that McCain's gaffe last December was directed at anyone who showed curiosity about his age and health.
It's sad that any news organization would go to these lengths to promote a political agenda. Sadder still is that this type of in-kind campaign donation posing as journalism will increase as November nears.
Sen. Robert C. Byrd, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan and a one-time opponent of civil rights legislation, endorsed Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination on Monday.
Wright, Farrakhan, and now Byrd - Obama may have some difficulties with blue collar workers and bitter middle-staters, but he's close to getting that all-important hard-core racist demographic sewn up.
On the heels of attacking Republicans last week on what he called "fear-peddling" and "fear mongering", Obama misrepresents McCain's Social Security plan to a room full of seniors in order to frighten them:
"Let me be clear, privatizing Social Security was a bad idea when George W. Bush proposed it, it's a bad idea today," Obama said. "That's why I stood up against this plan in the Senate and that's why I won't stand for it as president."
Obama uses the same, tired, old politics tactic used before on this issue by his party. It's never been suggested by Republicans that all of Social Security be privatized, just a very tiny portion - yet Obama, just like the rest of the Democrat party, continues to paint it as if the plan transferred the whole ball of wax to penny stocks. But disclosing the truth wouldn't have the desired effect of fostering fear and uncertainty.
If an ordinary citizen like you or I went to a nursing home and told the residents vicious untruths about their future security and well-being for the sole purpose of frightening them, it would be characterized as cruel and terroristic, and rightly so. Yet for some reason, when a typical old-politics Democrat like Obama lies to the elderly with the intent to foment fear and panic, it's called "hope" and "change".
Elizabeth Edwards, in an email to Politico on whether she'll endorse a candidate:
"If I say I like chocolate ice cream better than strawberry, it doesn't mean either (1) that I like chocolate or strawberry as much as vanilla or (2) that I dislike strawberry. I say what I mean."
Yep, that clears it up. She goes on:
As for her personal relationships with Clinton and Obama, Edwards wrote, "I like both (or, counting spouses, all four) of these people personally. Do we play Boggle together or go biking together? No, although it would be okay with me if we did. They are interesting, compelling people with many of the same thoughts as I have about the issues that confront us."
Sounds like an invitation to me. Wonder if she'll serve ice cream?
AP reaches way down to dredge up some gratuitous victimization sympathy for Obama:
HONOLULU - Growing up as a young man of mixed race, Barack Obama benefited from the spirit of tolerance that defined Hawaii's racial climate.His childhood in the country's idealized melting pot was far from painless, though.
As part of the islands' small group of black Americans in the 1970s, he encountered racism and struggled to form a black identity.
Obama's experience in Hawaii is echoed by other blacks, including some of his schoolmates, and challenges the state's vaunted image of racial harmony.
"A big joke amongst the brothers was you could be anything else but a brother and have free rein of the world in Hawaii," said Rik Smith, a black former schoolmate of Obama's at Punahou, an elite private school in Honolulu. "When it comes to people of color, black people, there's a huge amount of racism."
Obama has carefully avoided making his race the main issue, but his surrogates and the media use it at every turn. One has to wonder if there will be a backlash against the continuous drumbeat of "If you don't vote for Obama you're a bigot", which the above-quoted article serves to underline. This is a major expansion of the theme, showing Obama as a life-long victim of racism, and the votes that aren't cast for him are just a continuation of that same injustice.
In discussions with friends and around the workplace, I've heard lots of reasons for not supporting Obama. His race isn't among them. If Obama's supporters in the media keep pushing this theme, that could change. Fostering racial division isn't the best way to win folks over.
Scott over at Power Line points out Obama's pre-loss excuse-making for the state of Kentucky:
"What it says is that I'm not very well known in that part of the country," Obama said. "Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it's not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle."
And Scott also points out that Illinois shares a border with Kentucky while Arkansas does not. Good catch.
Perhaps Obama is just too exhausted from his rigorous campaign schedule to remember the 58th and 59th states, Missouri and Tennessee, which fall between Kentucky and Arkansas.
Or, perhaps he was speaking metaphorically about the attitudes and intellect of the folks of Kentucky. Because we all know that Kentucky, like Arkansas, is full of bitter, gun-totin' bible-thumpin', racist backwater hicks who can't summon the intellect to see that Obama is the savior of us all.
This morning I wrote on the topic of racism being used by the media to explain why anyone would want to vote for someone other than Obama. Charles at Little Green Footballs has another example:
Meanwhile, some white Americans are turning themselves inside out to come up with excuses for why they’re not supporting Obama. It seems like just yesterday that these folks were arguing there is no racism in the immigration debate, and now they’re insisting there is no racism in the presidential election.
The quote above is from CNN, another media outlet known recently for fawning coverage of the Messiah. Ironic is that the author suggests that blacks are supporting Obama because of his race, a notion that gets charges of racism when put forth by non-supporters. Follow the link above to LGF for more.
Update: In a similar vein, also check out this excellent post from Paul at Power Line: Loathing of fear on the campaign trail, Part One.
The MSM is going scorched earth on Hillary. As she trounces Obama by a greater than 40 point margin in W. Va., an Obama-smitten media is going where they've never gone before in order to minimize the victory - racism in the Democrat party. From the New York Times, we're treated to this wrap-up on W. Va.:
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton won a lopsided victory on Tuesday over Senator Barack Obama in the West Virginia primary, where racial considerations emerged as an unusually salient factor. Mrs. Clinton drew strong support from white, working-class voters, who have spurned Mr. Obama in recent contests.The number of white Democratic voters who said race had influenced their choices on Tuesday was among the highest recorded in voter surveys in the nomination fight. Two in 10 white West Virginia voters said race was an important factor in their votes. More than 8 in 10 who said it factored in their votes backed Mrs. Clinton, according to exit polls.
Besides a few hints at the end, the article doesn't really say why the 80% for whom race was not an important factor voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. You'd think that would be the bigger story - that, for example, 53% of West Virginia voters felt that the Messiah was dishonest, apparently so much so that 8 of 10 of those actually favored the heroine of the Tuzla Dash at the polls.
For another good example, take this article by the Washington Post with the loaded title "Racist Incidents Give Some Obama Campaigners Pause" filled with examples of Obama workers being treated to racism as they courted registered Democrats for the Indiana primary:
Victoria Switzer, a retired social studies teacher, was on phone-bank duty one night during the Pennsylvania primary campaign. One night was all she could take: "It wasn't pretty." She made 60 calls to prospective voters in Susquehanna County, her home county, which is 98 percent white. The responses were dispiriting. One caller, Switzer remembers, said he couldn't possibly vote for Obama and concluded: "Hang that darky from a tree!"
You might think the "ugly truths" I reference in the title is that Hillary's base (and by proxy the Democrat party in general) is swimming with racists. Nothing could be further from the truth. (Both parties do have some individuals who are racists, although those of us on the right have argued for years that the Democrat party's policies are racist, as they discourage assimilation into and participation in the American dream.) No, the "ugly truth" is that the media is willing to paint large parts of the population as racist in order to secure the victory of a favored candidate.
Willing, too, is Obama's campaign. All of this is telegraphing Obama's (and the fawning media's) strategy for the fall, as hinted to by Obama's own campaign manager, David Plouffe:
I mean the vast, vast majority of voters who would not vote for Barack Obama in November based on race are probably firmly in John McCain's camp already.
If the Obama camp and the media are willing to go this route in a blue on blue contest, imagine what we'll see in the Fall. In spite of all the pretty rhetoric about new politics and civility, this is starting to shape up as the nastiest Presidential campaign in history.
Mostly funny, except the parts about Obama having ethical standards and not playing the race card, both of which we know aren't true. Especially funny is the part about the superdelegates choosing the candidate and not the people, since it is true. Selected, not elected, folks. Thanks to SNL for rubbing it in for my lefty-lemming friends:
Charles nails Obama on his attempt to rewrite his own ignorant words in the pages of the New York Times:
Susan E. Rice, a former State Department and National Security Council official who is a foreign policy adviser to the Democratic candidate, said that “for political purposes, Senator Obama’s opponents on the right have distorted and reframed” his views. Mr. McCain and his surrogates have repeatedly stated that Mr. Obama would be willing to meet “unconditionally” with Mr. Ahmadinejad. But Dr. Rice said that this was not the case for Iran or any other so-called “rogue” state. Mr. Obama believes “that engagement at the presidential level, at the appropriate time and with the appropriate preparation, can be used to leverage the change we need,” Dr. Rice said. “But nobody said he would initiate contacts at the presidential level; that requires due preparation and advance work.”
Click through on the link above to LGF, Charles has posted video and quotes from Obama's own website that exposes Susan Rice's words as a cheap and sleazy whitewash. Just as Obama has rewritten history on his relationship with the racist Rev. Wright, his hope is that memories are just too short and the folks will be fooled.
I expect much more of this sort of thing once the general election ramps up. Shame is, he'll get away with most of it though the efforts of a complicit media.
Maybe he's just dreaming aloud about all the new states we're gonna get when he uses that charm of his to sway all of our enemies. Keep it in mind whenever he mentions the goal of a Palestinian state.
Some folks just can't wait for the non-stop giveaways and entitlements to come from either a Clinton or Obama presidency. This one's clever, though - buy his vote and he'll use the proceeds to buy more votes.
So let the bidding begin:
Just a thought - will he withhold his vote if he doesn't get the 20 mil?
Although Obama wasn't on the ballot, the party that's always demagoguing about voter disenfranchisement has decided to push unearned votes his way in order to have the state's primary voters' will heard:
LANSING, Mich. - Michigan Democratic leaders on Wednesday settled on a plan to give presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton 69 delegates and Barack Obama 59 as a way to get the state's delegates seated at the national convention.
Because Democrats are all about fairness, right?
Added - had trouble finding a Hillary photo worthy of the seething rage and anguish she must be feeling over Michigan's proposal. This will have to do:
Unlike some folks, she was able to recognize that Jeremiah Wright's racism and hatred of America were potentially harmful to her career:
Winfrey was a member of Trinity United from 1984 to 1986, and she continued to attend off and on into the early to the mid-1990s. But then she stopped. A major reason—but by no means the only reason—was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.According to two sources, Winfrey was never comfortable with the tone of Wright's more incendiary sermons, which she knew had the power to damage her standing as America's favorite daytime talk-show host. "Oprah is a businesswoman, first and foremost," said one longtime friend, who requested anonymity when discussing Winfrey's personal sentiments. "She's always been aware that her audience is very mainstream, and doing anything to offend them just wouldn't be smart. She's been around black churches all her life, so Reverend Wright's anger-filled message didn't surprise her. But it just wasn't what she was looking for in a church." Oprah's decision to distance herself came as a surprise to Wright, who told Christianity Today in 2002 that when he would "run into her socially … she would say, 'Here's my pastor!' " (Winfrey declined to comment. A Harpo Productions spokesperson would not confirm her reasons for leaving the church.)
Got that? She recognized how divisive Wright was, and exercised good judgment in extracting herself from TUC.
Very smart, that Oprah - a person with poor judgment might have, you know, just pretended that he didn't know who and what Wright was until the heat from the media attention forced him to do something.
If John McCain runs this as a campaign ad, he's gonna have an easy time in November.
Unlike the candidates who actually had access to classified intelligence, he opposed the war from the beginning. In other words, he opposed the war based on... ignorance. Good luck with that.
"I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems." Sheer stupidity. How can you prove a system if you don't invest in it?
"I will slow our development in Future Combat Systems." You know, the massive Army program that has spawned all of the force protection and unmanned systems that are saving soldier's lives. Yes, while it's true that the systems being fielded today aren't technically part of FCS, they wouldn't have been developed as fast or in some cases not at all had it not been for the investment in FCS. Maybe Senator Obama would prefer that Army doctrine return to the days of trench warfare - it worked in WWI, after all.
Considering his view of FCS and missile defense, his statement about the quadrennial review really comes into focus. What would Barack consider to be unnecessary defense spending? Pretty much all of it, by the looks of it.
As for nukes - is he talking about the same Russia that's been pining for the good ol' days lately? Is he really so naive as to believe that everyone else will dispose of their nuclear weapons after we do? A nuclear weapons-free world is a nice goal. But to assume that Putin will suddenly start wearing flowers in his hair because Obama asks nicely is more than a little naive. It's downright dangerous. Oh, and notice he doesn't mention China.
When it comes to national defense, Obama's views sound less like a potential Commander-In-Chief and more like Jane Fonda. Is this really what you want for a President?
Nothing really new in stories like this one, but they're still fun to read:
Party fears tight Obama-Clinton finishWASHINGTON - For all their delight in soaring voter registration and strong poll numbers, some Democrats fear the contest between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton might have a nightmarish end, which could wreck a promising election year.
Enjoy.
I wonder where he gets ideas like that? Certainly he didn't hear it in church...
It's the Christian thing to do, really. After railing against rich people for 30 years, he's decided it's time to walk a mile in their shoes - you know, just to gain some perspective: