-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/05/friday-open-threadyeah-its-friday-2/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
If Hillary Clinton were to win big in Puerto Rico, she might end the Democratic primaries slightly ahead of Barack Obama in the popular vote, and that could be a big problem:
"What is at stake is not the nomination — Obama will still win the delegate race unless there is some completely unforeseen mass movement of superdelegates to Clinton.
What is at stake is Obama’s standing as the clear, unquestioned leader of the party.
When the winner is the guy who didn’t get the most popular votes, some people won’t be happy — just ask all those Democrats who sported “Re-Defeat Bush” stickers on their cars in 2004.
Clinton’s presence as the popular-vote winner, even though Obama won the nomination by the rules, would diminish Obama."
This seems that this may be her (their) end game. If she wins the popular vote total, she will not be placated with a VP or Cabinet position, she will demand much more than that.
In Mosul, considered the last stronghold of Al Qaeda in Iraq, the number of daily attacks has dropped at least 85 percent since U.S.-Iraqi forces began an offensive against Sunni insurgents in the city earlier this month. This is according to Maj. Gen. Mark Hertling, commander of Multi-National Division North.
The rope continues to tighten around the neck of al-Qaeda. While acknowledging that it remains a threat to stability, Army Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, interim head U.S. Central Command, finds that al Qaeda is in its weakest state since it gained an initial foothold in the aftermath of the U.S.-led invasion five years ago. These terrorists are running out of places where local Iraqis will accommodate their extremist ideology. And when al Qaeda does find a foothold somewhere, as in Mosul, U.S.-Iraqi forces can deliver a drubbing.
This means, as one analyst puts it, that "the debate has shifted from what the right strategy is to one of national will." In other words, "Will our nation, weary of this long and costly war, continue along the path which has brought about indisputable, and in some cases breathtaking, progress?" If so, "there will be honor in our efforts–and, it’s now reasonable to say, success as well."
And a new ad is out from Vets for Freedom:
PRESS RELEASE:
"This morning Vets for Freedom Political Action launched its first internet advertisement, which asks Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) why he is willing to meet, unconditionally, with foreign dictators, but has shown no interest in meeting with Commanders on the Ground and has not visited Iraq in over 2 years.
The 60-second ad, which was released at 8 am E.T. today, features retired Iraq war veteran Sergeant Garrett Anderson. Sergeant Anderson served in Iraq with the Illinois Army National Guard, and was severely wounded when his patrol was hit by an IED.
The ad highlights the unfortunate fact that:
1) Senator Obama has never met, one-on-one, with the Commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus.
2) Senator Obama has not visited Iraq, and our brave troops on the ground, in over two years. His last visit to Iraq was January 2006, and he was there for less than two days.
3) On April 8, when two-dozen Illinois veterans went to his office for a meeting, Senator Obama was unwilling to meet with them. He was in the office, just wouldn’t come out. Sergeant Anderson was a member of that group."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/22/gi-bill-passes-senate_n_103091.html
the Webb GI Bill has passed the Senate:
Senate Republicans have broken with President Bush to help Democrats add support for veterans and the unemployed to a bill paying for another year of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2008/05/19/daily33.html
Three prominent Broward County Democrats filed a federal lawsuit Thursday morning against the Democratic National Committee, seeking to force the committee to seat Florida's delegates at the upcoming presidential nomination convention.
The suit was filed by state Sen. Steven Geller, an attorney for Greenspoon Marder in Fort Lauderdale; Barbara Effman, president of the Democratic Club in Broward County; and Percy Johnson, a convention delegate.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/22/1052820.aspx
These people have lost their minds. I know I will be at the DNC convention next week even if I am the only Obama supporter to show up for this one. Someone better do something and quick.
Not only would Obama not meet with VFF, when I visited his office with Gathering of Eagles the day before, we couldn't even get one of his staffers to meet with us. Same for another defeatist, Harry Reid.
It's my son's first birthday today, so you all get a break from me...LOL.
Be safe this weekend, and remember those who gave their lives so we could argue here.
It's about delegates. Obama has more delegates than Clinton. Obama will continue to have more delegates than Clinton, he will be the nominee...end of story.
And I'll say this: even if at the convention something happens and they don't choose on Obama, there's no guarantee they'd choose Clinton to be the nomineee, either. It is completely plausible that a third person (Edwards, Gore) could rise up from the ashes and get the nomination.
At this point I don't even blame the Clinton campaign, I blame the 200+ "undecided" superdelegates. Howard Dean told those mofos a while back to pick a side and they're still "undecided." Unless you're a superdelegate from Montana, South Dakota or Puerto Rico, you have no business being "undecided" or "undeclared" at this point.
Jimmy Carter's Second Term
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13201
Is Senator Barack Obama, the heir-apparent of the Carter era?
That's the case John McCain will make. Most Obama supporters are too young to recall the disastrous '70s in terms other than 'That 70s Show' and 'Brady Bunch' reruns, but there are many older voters who are not so anxious return to the days of gas lines and the 'misery index.'
"The greatest charade of the year thus far is the idea that something "new" is being said in this campaign. By anybody. To be bluntly accurate, the only thing new is that one of the final two candidates is black. It seems to escape some that in a country even as young as America, 55 presidential elections (2008 is the 56th) covers just about all the ground there is to cover in debating any given next four years in the life of the United States. Consider.
Since the 1788 election that produced (unopposed) George Washington as the first president, the agenda for presidential elections has been narrowed to one underlying issue: the role of government. Understood in that fashion, the following 220 years of American history can be read as if with Superman's X-ray vision. From slavery to abortion, the War of 1812 to the War in Iraq, from Lincoln's support for "internal improvements" to John McCain's disdain for congressional earmarks, the question at issue was the role of government. Whether dealing with the isolationism of Washington or Robert Taft or Ron Paul instead of the internationalism of Jefferson's chase after the Barbary pirates, Wilson's League of Nations or Ronald Reagan's determination to win the Cold War, the underlying question every time was the role of government.
This can be expressed in terms of its size (big or small), of its engagement with the world (the kind and quality of diplomacy) and its ability to protect American citizens (do we do it here or over there?). Yet always the issue is exactly the same. It is the underlying skeleton and vital organs of every question of policy facing the American people."
So too is it more than safe to say that America has seen every kind of candidate there is to be had in these 55 elections. Only the packaging is different in number 56, a truism of every previous election. Black this time for Obama, female for Hillary, there was Catholic for JFK. Short for Martin Van Buren, tall, skinny and hot tempered for Andrew Jackson. A failed haberdasher in Truman, a glossy movie actor in Reagan, a joke-cracking railroad lawyer in Lincoln and a school teacher in LBJ. A peanut farmer with Carter. Yet what each was saying both as candidate and president fell along one side or the other of the role of government argument. And as the string of American presidents and presidential campaigns gets longer, the newest candidates and the latest president have taken to looking backwards to select the presidential policies of admired predecessors.
Which makes the audacity of the Obama campaign more than amusing -- and amazing -- to watch. Consciously or not, Obama has selected the philosophical template of the Carter administration, from defunding the military, fighting the "special interests" down to imposing the windfall profits tax on the rich. Well, as Justice Clarence Thomas might say: whoop-dee-damn-do! This is precisely the philosophy of Jimmy Carter, although Carter had the good sense not to campaign as the pacifist he really is in 1976, waiting until the moment his hand came off the bible for that.
IS IT POSSIBLE that America really wants to return to those depressing days when the policies Obama is advocating raised unemployment rates, interest rates and inflation rates into the double digits? When America's enemies looked the President of the United States in the eye -- and found he really wanted to kiss them on the cheek?
Obama's windfall profits tax idea? A Jimmy Carter biggie. "Unless we tax the oil companies, they will reap huge and undeserved windfall profits," fumed Carter on national television in 1980. The New York Times agreed, warning darkly that "legislators who sit by idly while oil profits soar will have to answer to the voters." With Democrats controlling Congress they got their way. As if on cue, oil production -- fell. To the tune of 1.6 billion fewer barrels. America's dependence on foreign oil rose. Eventually even the Times was agreeing the tax had to be repealed, and by 1988 Reagan, who campaigned against it, signed the repeal (by a Democrat Congress no less) into law. And Obama wants to do this all over again? Yes. It's not only not a new idea, it's not a better idea. Yet in terms of Obama, most tellingly it was a Carter idea.
Another Carter favorite was to appear to attack the wealthy, going after "rich businessmen" who enjoyed themselves with the "$50 martini lunch." Elected, Carter went after the martini business lunch tax deduction all right, but then quickly turned on the middle class with a Social Security payroll tax. Obama is already well on board with Carteresque rhetoric about "tax cuts for the wealthy." What taxes will a President Obama raise that, as with Carter, can't be discussed as a candidate?
Appeasement and the notion that we can look evil in the eye and smile? Another Carter favorite (captured forever with the image of the American president kissing Brezhnev on the cheek at a Moscow summit in 1979) that more famously was the notion underpinning British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's desperate face-to-face sitdowns with Adolph Hitler. Didn't work either time, nor will it ever work as Obama seems to be seriously proposing with Iran. Why? Because bullies are bullies -- be they Russian Communists, German dictators or Iranian mullahs. Senator John McCain succinctly sums up Obama's take as a lack of both judgment and experience, which surely is true.
BUT OBAMA'S VIEWS are also something else. They are the product of a world view that has been around for centuries -- failing every time it's tried. Obama's campaign website says Obama "will take several steps down the long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons. He will stop the development of new nuclear weapons; work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair trigger alert; seek dramatic reductions in U.S. and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material; and set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate- range missiles so that the agreement is global." He also pledges to stop the research and deployment of a missile defense, the same system that Reagan created to end the Cold War.
America was led down this philosophical garden path most recently by Carter. Whether advocated by Carter in 1979, Chamberlain in 1939 or a President Obama in 2009, the philosophy behind this idea has simply never worked. Period. Yet , to borrow from Reagan's line in his debate with Carter, here we go again.
With all of the sweep of American history to look back on, with virtual libraries of history recording what works and what doesn't when running the American government, Obama has stunningly selected the Carter policies as his role model.
Tax cuts? Not for Obama. Military superiority? No, not for Obama. Do tax cuts work? Yes, as shown by Presidents Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan and Bush 43. Military strength? Yes, decisively too. From Lincoln's Union Army to Teddy Roosevelt's Great White Fleet and his maxim to "talk softly and carry a big stick," from Wilson's Allied Expeditionary Force to FDR's vow to victory "so help us God" to Ronald Reagan's peace through strength, the idea of overwhelming military superiority works -- if the enemy believes you will use it. Or you actually use it.
But Obama, as with Carter, is having none of these approaches. From hiking Social Security payroll taxes to investing 20 percent less in defense budgets to telling Americans they had an "inordinate" fear of Communism, step by step Carter's policy selections and his decisions on the role of government led the American people down a dark and dangerous path that produced the worst economy since the Great Depression along with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and a beachhead in Central America with the Communist take-over of Nicaragua. When his policy towards Iran resulted in abandoning the Shah in favor of the extremist mullahs and the taking of American hostages, Carter's military was in such bad shape that American soldiers died in the Iranian desert during a miserably failed rescue attempt.
PERHAPS MORE ASTONISHING than his advocacy of a return to Carterism, Obama channels the Republican president to whom Carter was frequently compared -- Herbert Hoover. Obama is completely on board with protectionism, seemingly oblivious to the lessons of the Smoot-Hawley tariff that was a product of the Hoover administration in 1930. Upping the tariff on some 20,000 goods it is famous forever as the disastrous idea that deepened the severity of the Great Depression.
Once in a good while the latest crowd of American voters actually forgets their history (or never learned it in the first place) and gives a Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton a go at holding the reins. Enemies are then appeased, taxes raised, and judges go wild -- which in turn creates a new generation of conservatives who begin to understand why the last generation voted Republican."
"If Democrats send the message that we don’t fully value your votes, we know Senator McCain and the Republicans will be more than happy to have them."
McCain-Clinton = White Solidarity ticket.
I'm just saying...
Hagee was referencing the book of
*****JEREMIAH*******
http://www.opednews.com/articles/3/genera_evelyn_p_080522_final_chapter___curt.htm
Some quotes:
"That part of the scheme will likely be detailed in future indictments, probably starting with Blagojevich."
"As discussed fully in Curtain Time Part II, Obama was the inside guy in the senate who pushed through the legislation that resulted in the Act."
"Obama was appointed chairman of the Senate Health and Human Services Committee. The minute the bill was introduced, it was referred to his committee for review."
"The corrupt members appointed included three doctors who contributed to Obama."
"However, judging from the indictments in Board Games unsealed so far, Obama's legal culpability at this point anyways, stems from his involvement in setting up and receiving money from the pay-to-play schemes."
What's it gonna be with Obama supporters? Either these associations matter or they don't. A double standard cannot be applied. I think these religious associations cancel themselves out and are best left out of the campaigns.
Get over yourself.
Congressman admits Democrats "stretched the facts," misled anti-war supporters about supposed plans for ending War
http://jeffemanuel.net/paul-kanjorski-pa-11-admits-democrats-lied-about-being-able-to-end-war-in-iraq
"We sort of stretched the facts," he says. "And people ate it up."
This is not the first time that Democratic Party supporters have been duped. Well, perhaps many of the supporters are willingly duped...
double standard indeed, especially when we had to endure endless YouTube loops of Wright. If it wasn't for the blogosphere, McCain would have gotten a pass on Hagee.
Hopefully Hagee and Parsley puts the Wright issue to bed
They only matter when they can be used to denounce McCain. After yesterday, they shouldn't matter.
Unfortunately, that goes for the GOP as well.
I think there should be a public statement by both candidates to put the final nails in those coffins.
Karmi,
More like they ignored the facts. The DNC ran stupidly in 06, and failed to deliver on most of their campaign promises.
It would be great to have a get-together.
Agreed. Although I've always felt they weren't relevant to begin with.
But if it's a dead issue, then it's dead and leave it alone.
So, in the spirit of this possible truce, McCain (and the Republicans) should stop with the "I didn't attend his church for 20 years," distinction that he made yesterday.
If he doesn't, then that means it's not a dead issue to him. . . which means Parsley/Hagee isn't a dead issue to the Dems.
He can't have it both ways either.
Mutually assured destruction to ensure that (gasp) we maintain our separation of church and state. LOL. . . sounds like a good idea to me.
Applause. I'm with you on that one, d.
It's true that McCain didn't attend their churches and had no relationship with them (though he did call Parsley a spiritual advisor, which I thought was quite funny) which means he ought to have vetted them before seeking their endorsements in order to attract the evangelical vote.
But now that he has rejected the endorsements, and Hagee has withdrawn his, the media needs to let them go.
I'm much more interested in a debate over the real issues.
Get it together. Your idiotic lines have you functioning as B+S.
Not a word from any "Obama supporters" about Hagee on this thread, so instead of actually taking on a position someone here has actually argued... Well, you'd rather do that straw man thing and create your own convenient debate opponent called "Obama supporters."
Nevermind that you can't/didn't identify them, people who hold the position you have a talking-point-arguments prepared for (and that's all you both have are talking points).
You both want prefer address "them" (i.e. some "Obama supporters", etc. who don't post on this blog) instead of squaring up with "us" ( i.e. the people on this blog you would group in as "Obama supporters").
But go ahead and keep showing your weakness. At least you know what they are, huh D?
(I loved it when you made that unsolicited confession. Self-conscious, huh? lmao!!)
I'm with Craig, let's get to the real issues.
Not only would Obama not meet with VFF, when I visited his office with Gathering of Eagles the day before, we couldn't even get one of his staffers to meet with us.
Well, Im an ex-vet down here in San Antonio, he met with me. He also met with many others like me.
I see on your profile that you support John McCain , (or atleast you have a picture of him on your profile)
Did you know, that yesterday not withstanding, (when he chose to not vote on the GI Bill) he's voted against Military Pay raises at least 4 times?
Look, you'll probably vote for McCain no matter what you learn on this blog, but I just want you to know as an ex-vet who's been to Iraq, and Afghanistan speaking only for myself ,we dont agree on the course of the war, nor how soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marine are treated afterwards.
Here's a qustion D, How come your man McCain has never sponsored a bill that would fix the Brokedown barrack's that are in some instances 50+ yrs old?
His (J-Mc)GI bill is targeted at keeping people in the Military with its sliding scale of funding troops who serve longer.
D, why is it John Mc Cain doesnt realize that there are some out there, who just want to serve there country, so they can get money for college?
I should know I served 8yrs, all of it was so I could A, pay off debt incurred when I started college, and B get money to earn my masters. It doesnt mean doesnt mean im not patriotic, because you have to have some sort of love of country, to join in the first place, it just shows you that I, took full advantage of the benifts that the military openly tries to get people to sign up for.
Your guy seems to be a little more out of touch if you ask this vet, about who knows the Military and the stresses of those who's served.
The War Over Michelle Obama
Friends May Seal Clinton's Fate
I'm with S on this one.
Smoothie,
Yes, I did know about his votes against the pay raises.
I don't knock people who do their time for the benefits and then leave.
I think McCain's focus is on the overall force, rather than the individual warfighter. I can't say I completely agree with that, but in a time of war I understand it.
Hagee/Parsley/Wright
What's it gonna be with Obama supporters? Either these associations matter or they don't. A double standard cannot be applied.
I couldnt agree more with you. But can you atleast acknowledge the FACT that others whom support Mc Cain and Clinton made this there Willie Horton Issue.
Fox News had Camera Crews outside this mans home..His Home....Can you atleast acknowedge the FACT that S. Hannity, Laura Ingram, Glenn Beck (who as a mormon should walk away from race and politics discussions) and many more like them ran soundbyte after soundbyte on continuous loop for MONTHS.
Can we expect a speech from John McCain that will at his very best sum up the struggles of the White Man, Hitler, Hunters, Catholics, Gays, and Muslim Americans? I mean if were being fair, Obama had to come up with a speech that summed up all the ill will J Wright put the country through.
At my count, Parslee and Hagee at a minimum have offended gays, The City of New Orleans, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and said God forsaw it all.
I say again, Mc Cain delivers his speech, then to me, its all fair.
"How convenient you want to let go after beating us over the head with Wright for weeks while we only pointed out that Obama's pastor was no more offensive than the people that McCain SOUGHT after for the political allegiance - I bet you do want to let it go."
No doubt. But I'd rather get ahead than get even.
It's an olive branch. Granted, that branch might snap in a week or so, but it's worth a try.
I liked the idea of a McCain v. Obama matchup because of the possibility (however slim) that these two candidates might engage the electorate and force it to educate itself on the issues. . . do a little soul-searching and avoid the automated partisan responses. . . meaning more intellect and less gut.
Parsley/Hagee/Ayers/Wright/Michelle Obama. . . all of that stuff is a distraction as far as I'm concerned. Those "issues" have more to do with the sport of politics than the job of governance.
Hillary's good at that sport. That's why I don't support her. Because our government is not (or, at least shouldn't be) a game.
Hillary's the "revenge" candidate for 8 years of Bush. Obama's the "change" candidate to trailblaze a new politics that might actually get things done instead of dig for political points.
Is this the end of the "pastor problems?" Probably not. But I can always hope.
So, the truth is: Hagee/Parsley are worst but are demonized less, if at all. After all, the truth of the matter is, short of Trent Lott like praising of these ministers in some coded or obvious language voicing agreement with them, McCain has the privilege of being an individual. Obama, somehow, was "influenced" by Wright who SUPPOSEDLY said something "offensive" but I bet D can't specify what was "offensive" about things Wright said while being HONEST.
And let's not forget... one of the "bad" things about Wright was his relationship with Farrakhan who never said anything as outlandish as "Hitler the hunter."
McCain is supposed to have as extensive, if not more extensive, a relationship with Hagee as Obama has had with William Ayers via their involvement with AIPAC. So let's be honest: somebody is not being honest.
CNN is reporting that Clinton and Obama Camp are working on a Clinton Exit Strategy.
I can tell yall know the "Dream Ticket" is getting pushed tough by the Clinton Camp..
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121148557268715077.html?mod=todays_columnists>Sex and the Sissy
Sex and the Sissy
Have a great holiday weekend,
BPM
"No doubt. But I'd rather get ahead than get even.
It's an olive branch. Granted, that branch might snap in a week or so, but it's worth a try."
I have no desire to get even.
I will however take advantage of this opportunity to point out the ridiculousness of their self-rightous indignation.
No olive branch necessary - especially when it's offered in exchange for silence.
Clinton. . . exit strategy???
We can only HOPE that this story is true.
But I'm still not buying any of that "dream ticket," nonsense.
Assuming Obama hasn't lost his mind. . . the only way Hillary gets on the ticket is if she FORCES her way on it.
That alone is counterintuitive to the concept of "party unity." Obama supporters ain't tryin' to hear anything about an Obama/Clinton ticket. And any attempt by Clinton to force her way would mean a 3 month fight ending on the convention floor. That ain't party unity and I don't see how Obama's camp could be in discussions with Clinton if she held that type of threat over their heads.
Voluntarily picking Clinton as his veep would be the ABSOLUTE WORST thing Obama could do to his campaign and political career.
If this story is true, my guess is Clinton's exit might mean that Obama has to take a top-level Clinton surrogate as his veep. If so, I'd prefer Obama/Wesley Clark.
Option #1 - Hillary as veep? - Hell no.
Option #2 - Offer Hillary veep knowing she'll reject? - No thank you. As they said, I wouldn't trust Clinton for a second if I were Obama. She'd take the spot knowing Obama couldn't complain after the fact.
Option #3 - Clinton as Senate majority leader?? Does anyone know how powerful this position is? It seems like it's not much more than a fancy job title. I mean, I've never seen Harry Reid as having much power at all.
I personally took offense to Rev. Wright suggesting that God had damned my country, and to him suggesting that our actions around the world amounted to terrorism.
A warning: if you want to play "my pastor is better than your pastor," that's fine, but don't complain when people keep digging into Wright.
History will reflect that both pastors were used for strategic reasons that obviously backfired.
As for me, it's dead.
Now....
Obama/Clark? My personal on Clark is that he sold his military background to the highest bidder, and Clinton won.
I don't see how placing a Clinton surrogate as VP helps Obama, cause they'll spend 4-8 years trying to throw him under the bus.
"Al Giordano: "The Nightmare Ticket Is Dead" (CNN is full of shit)
by Junglered1
Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:18:42 AM PDT
CNN is full of shit (see report from them below).
Al Giordano:
The Field can now confirm, based on multiple sources, something that both campaigns publicly deny: that Senator Clinton has directly told Senator Obama that she wants to be his vice presidential nominee, and that Senator Obama politely but straightforwardly and irrevocably said "no." Obama is going to pick his own running mate based on his own criteria and vetting process.
And that is all that anybody needs to know to understand the childish and wounded behavior of Senator Clinton yesterday, grandstanding hypocritically to senior citizens in Florida, telling them they should consider themselves under sniper fire in Bosnia, er, Zimbabwe, aggrandizing herself as some kind of civil rights leader (MLK? or LBJ? She didn’t say this time) and attempting to corner 30 members of the DNC’s Rules & Bylaws Committee that will meet on May 31 to resolve the disputes over whether, and, if so, how, delegates from Michigan and Florida might be seated at the convention in August.
Junglered1's diary :: ::
I'll believe Al Giordano over CNN any day of the week. Al continues:
Now that Time magazine has put the Clinton gambit out into the open, we are likely to witness, in the coming weeks, an extremely sad spectacle for Senator Clinton, whose spouse just can’t help himself and obviously is not helping her. Through being so indiscreet about his obsession with getting near the levers of state power again that the first major media confirmation of the Clinton vice presidential aspirations involved a report that he’s the one who wants it most, he has definitively reinforced that the "nightmare ticket" is deservedly off the table, and created a monstrous distraction that impedes Senator Clinton from consolidating all she has built for herself this year in the short term.
So now, when the Clinton surrogates continue to advocate that Obama choose Senator Clinton as veep, everybody will know: It’s Bill, and not Hill, stoking the fire. When New York political insider Mark Green’s Air America sent an email blast this morning to its entire mailing list featuring the milquetoast, boring and Arbitron-ratings neglected Thom Hartmann’s plea - "Obama: Ask Hillary First" (and this Air America subscriber summarily unsubscribed from that list this morning upon receiving that piece of corporate-paid advertising), everybody knows: the ventriloquist behind these Muppets is Bill Clinton.
CNN is full of shit.
The two Democratic campaigns are talking about ways for Clinton, from New York, to drop her bid for president that may include joining the Illinois senator's ticket, CNN reported. Talks are in a ``very preliminary'' stage and are described as ``difficult,'' the network said.
Her recent temper tantrum in Florida (comparing seating FL & MI to abolition & the woman's suffrage movement) can be explained specifically because of this:
Senator Obama politely but straightforwardly and irrevocably said "no."
UPDATE III:
Check out David Kroning's diary "Clinton leaks false VP negotiations" for his take on this. Rec'd his up too. The CNN lie must be publicly stomped out."
I'm sure the Jews take issue with Hagee saying that God sent Hitler as a hunter to lead them to Isreal when if fact he was a psychotic egomaniac that systematically killed and tortured thousands of people including children in an effort to cleanse. Give me a break.
Wright did not attempt to justify the killing of anyone he said that God should damn America for the killing of innocent people - including children. No comparison.
Clinton Fundraiser Hints Obama Could Lose Without They're Support"
How weak! This is Clinton's fundraiser, Hassan Nemazee:
"But there's a risk that if she isn't invited on the ticket, Hillary's political and financial supporters may not feel compelled to be as integrated and involved in the Obama campaign in order to provide the maximum support that he'll need to prevail in November."
Is this guy for real???
Here's a tip. . . if you're gonna negotiate, you might want to pick a topic other than campaign finances to get the ball rolling. We've seen Hillary's finances . . . 20 million in debt is not impressive. As far as I can tell, Obama's doing pretty well without people like Mr. Nemazee.
Plus Obama is the LAST candidate in this race to worry about money. So Mr. Nemazee's weak threat doesn't seem as powerful as he thinks it is.
He also threatened Obama by saying, "Time is not your friend."
It's nice to see someone from the Clinton camp finally admit that they've been trying to sabotage Obama's campaign all along.
I wont lie, "AT FIRST" I was a Dream Ticket person. That all changed when Billary decided on this Nuclear Option. Anyone doubting that this isnt what they (billary) is doing is fooling themselves.
I quickly after that, divorced myself from the Clintons. Now, if Barack were to go through her toy chest, I hope, that when he draws his hands out, that its clinched to a Ted Strickland, (I really want Ohio) or Gov. Phil Bredeson (though not in the Clinton camp) I think he to is in a state we could take.
I couldnt agree with you more B-Serious. With all the talk of Appeasing, I find it somewhat ironic that the Clinton Camp is making Appeasing to her,and those that follow her a condition for her exit.
::
Hell hath frozen over. I finally agree with d.
He added, "She would be a good president if something ever were to happen to him. She'll deliver a heck of a lot of women in a lot of states."
Honore is the "John Wayne Dude" that went into New Orleans after Katrina. When I saw that footage, I thought "this man is a star!". He's not in the military anymore but is working on preparedness for natural disaster. Check him out on wiki.
Not sure if Hillary did not read all the articles citing her husband is pushing the idea along with some of the SD's that are backing her and a lot of her supporters.
Oh well.
In that particulary statement I think Wright made a weak or maybe bold/headline catching attempt of paraphrasing "you reap what you sew"- Basically saying that America was reaping for it's crimes against others. I agree with Ms. Martin. NO COMPARISON- not on that one!
Against Race Politics
She will do absolutely anything to hold on to power, to be elected president.
She will inflame the sentiments of some nutcases. The fact that there is always a reference to "something happening to him" is alarming in its bodaciousness.
And it's repeated over and over again by the broadcast media nuts.
She's a car wreck. America can't take its eyes off her. She knows it, and so she creates more attention by running another car off the road.
She, not he, is the one who has risen to power behind a cult of personality so powerful, her surrogates and supporters completely unravel in perfect unison with the demagogue they so blindly worship.
If Nixon is on Obama's ticket, she'll have him removed from the top spot by any means necessary.
If anything happened to Bush, (god forbid nothing does by the way) then look who would be the next President..
I'd take my chances with a Strickland Presidency of which i dont agree with, (but if the OBAMA CAMP is even considering appeasing by picking a surrogate) over a Dick Cheney Presidency any day of the week.
Barack has a very difficult VP decision to make. You have to consider with Senators which seats you can give up w/o the risk of losing them. (which is why I think Webb is out)
You have to consider when picking a gov. can they carry there state (bye bye Sebellius)
He also has to consider the Party.(bye bye hagel) This is the toughest part. His wing doesnt want any thing to do with the Clintons. (bye bye Hillary). Her wing is saying you must appease to us in some way that doesnt come off as you dissing us..(so id imagine this means bye bye richardson.)
With that said , Im becoming more and more of a fan of Joe Biden. Does it blare a light on one of what is perceived to be his weaknesses, YES.
With Biden, though, you get a fighter, a person who looks more then eager to take the reigns if neccesary, and you get someone from what I gather is loyal.
Not much of a campaigner, but neither was Gore, or Cheney.
"The fact that there is always a reference to "something happening to him" is alarming. . ."
Exactly.
I cringe when I hear people say things like that so often. America loves a black martyr. It's as if the media is planning a memorial as we speak.
Not cool.
-----------------------------------
I totally agree! I'm getting put out with this sh%t day after day! It's as if they're expecting something to happen--- God forbid! I don't remember hearing this much talk about "if something happened to him" during the 2000-2004 elections! It makes you think--What the f%%% is up?
“We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK,” Obama said.
We can’t? So at what temperature would other countries like me to keep my home, then, and how much should I eat?
Obama, like so many liberals, seems to believe anything bad about the United States, without even submitting it to critical thinking. He said on May 19, 2008, that 3% of the world’s population (i.e., in his calculation, the United States) accounts for 25% of the greenhouse gases put into the atmosphere. In the 1970s, the liberals used to talk about 6% of the world’s population using 25% of the world’s energy. Even before Obama, they were blaming America first.
If we mean by “energy” the modern sources of energy – electricity, the Franklin stove, the steam engine, the piston engine propelled by gasoline (and now by electric and/or hydrogen batteries), the processing of crude oil into gasoline, nuclear energy, the jet engine, the development of ethanol and other fuels derived from plants, and other devices – all of these except one were invented by the people of the United States, as their gift to the world. (The exception was the steam engine, invented by our cousins in Britain, and further developed here as well as there.)
In other words, the United States has invented nearly 100% of what the modern world means by “energy.” And it has helped the rest of the world to use 75%.
Why can’t the other peoples of the world learn how to discover, invent, and develop new kinds of energy? Why must the whole burden be placed upon the people of the United States? And why must we alter our behavior to please them?
And, by the way, it is not so hard to foresee the day when new kinds of batteries, also invented in the United States, will nearly entirely replace gasoline as the propellant of our cars. Think what will happen to the Middle East when oil becomes too expensive, too dirty, and just plain obsolete.
Obama's fails to recognize America's exceptionalism as the leading innovative force on the planet and reduces us to merely greedy consumers.
Not a winning message.
During a campaign stop yesterday at a Boca Raton synagogue, Obama was asked about his association with Columbia University Professor Rashid Khalidi, who has made repeated statements supportive of Palestinian terror.
Obama replied: "You mentioned Rashid Khalidi, who’s a professor at Columbia. I do know him because I taught at the University of Chicago. And he is Palestinian. And I do know him and I have had conversations. He is not one of my advisors; he’s not one of my foreign policy people. His kids went to the Lab school where my kids go as well. He is a respected scholar, although he vehemently disagrees with a lot of Israel’s policy."
Continued Obama: "To pluck out one person who I know and who I’ve had a conversation with who has very different views than 900 of my friends and then to suggest that somehow that shows that maybe I’m not sufficiently pro-Israel, I think, is a very problematic stand to take," he said. "So we gotta be careful about guilt by association."
but according to Aaron Klein, Jerusalem bureau chief of World Net Daily, Obama's ties are much closer:
"The board of a nonprofit organization on which Sen. Barack Obama served as a paid director alongside a confessed domestic terrorist granted funding to a controversial Arab group that mourns the establishment of Israel as a "catastrophe" and supports intense immigration reform, including providing drivers licenses and education to illegal aliens.
The co-founder of the Arab group in question, Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, also has held a fundraiser for Obama. Khalidi is a harsh critic of Israel, has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror and reportedly has worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was involved in anti-Western terrorism and was labeled by the State Department as a terror group.
In 2001, the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based nonprofit that describes itself as a group helping the disadvantaged, provided a $40,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN, for which Khalidi's wife, Mona, serves as president. The Fund provided a second grant to the AAAN for $35,000 in 2002.
Obama was a director of the Woods Fund board from 1999 to Dec. 11, 2002, according to the Fund's website. According to tax filings, Obama received compensation of $6,000 per year for his service in 1999 and 2000.
Obama served on the Wood's Fund board alongside William C. Ayers, a member of the Weathermen terrorist group which sought to overthrow of the U.S. government and took responsibility for bombing the U.S. Capitol in 1971.
Ayers, who still serves on the Woods Fund board, contributed $200 to Obama's senatorial campaign fund and has served on panels with Obama at numerous public speaking engagements. Ayers admitted to involvement in the bombings of U.S. governmental buildings in the 1970s. He is a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
The $40,000 grant from Obama's Woods Fund to the AAAN constituted about a fifth of the Arab group's reported grants for 2001, according to tax filings obtained by WND. The $35,000 Woods Fund grant in 2002 also constituted about one-fifth of AAAN's reported grants for that year."
Mc Cain on the Economy.
not his strong suit
When the next potential POTUS cant engage into a debate against his own party about how to fix the economy, then i seriously question how he plans to run an economy in a recession. (I was gonna say teetering, but many financial experts say this is infact what we are experiencing)
I get it, McCain like many of the GOP'ers out there is going to try his best to stay on the offensive with National Security. ( though being clearly proven wrong with this CURRENT administraion, the Israeli gov't. and there sit down with Syria, and various members of the senate who suggest meeting with enemies)
This issue will fail him, and then he's only left with identity politics. He's economically light, came out against the GI Bill thus making him a pro war, and NOT pro servicemember guy, and to make it worse his health is a question.
I like how he leaked out that edited version of his Medical record on a Friday. The day the MSM pretty much takes off.
STFU Diane! I'm tired of this sh%t! You can bet Hillary put her up to it! These mofos need to f%%% off.
The nominee have a right to pick his own VP!
Not NO but Hell f-ing NO.. Hillary!
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com
And no I am not trying to be racist, sexist ect. by posting this. I just thought it was funny.
Well diane can now join
Gov. Strickland from Ohio whocalled the ticket "unbeatable"..
This is how it starts, First Bill came out in Time. Second Clinton News network (CNN) came out with this "bogus talks are in place" crap. Third you have the CLINTON surrogates spewing filth like
Strickland saying how this ticket will be "unbeatable"
Im waiting on Mc Aulfie and Wolfson. Once one of them even brings it up, I'll know it to be true. They are gonna push this HARD on Barack. From surrogates, the MSM, and Fundraisers.
So far nothing they have pushed has worked and I don't imagine this will either.
::
Anyone who references anything published on WorldNetDaily ought not be taken seriously.
More than half of the bullshit on that sight is a flatout lie. Most of the rest is pure distortion.
Yawn.
1. Posted by retired military | May 22, 2008 9:17 PM
-----------------------------------
From a poster at Wizbang! Do you see their mindset? It's as if these mofos is expecting something!
The fact is that the president only has limited powers to affect what happens to our economy, but he still can make a real difference. Future economic growth will be influenced by tax rates, government spending, regulatory policy, and trade policy, all of which require joint action by both Congress and the president. All branches of government are severely limited without some cooperation from the other branches, including the courts, as to what they can accomplish. The Federal Reserve largely controls the rate of inflation, and is most often responsible for the country falling into a recession.
Court rulings and tort actions can greatly affect the ability of business to function properly and create new jobs. There are uncontrollable variables, such as the weather, earthquakes, wars, and the trade and growth policies of other countries, which are outside the control of anything the president or Congress do, but can greatly affect U.S. economic growth. Once elected, the presidents and members of Congress often act very differently from their promises during the campaigns -- most often taxing and spending more than they said they would, and almost always this is a mistake.
It is the private sector that creates most productivity increases and real jobs, and hence real economic growth. Economic policies that reduce tax, regulatory and trade barriers on productive activity, as well as low inflation, lead to strong economic growth and good economic legacies.
Obama will increase taxes only "on the rich" (ha), increase the size of government (passing the burden of an ever growing nanny state on to future generations), and oppose free trade. A pandering, populace agenda, not sound policy for promoting economic growth.
McCain will not raise taxes, cut the capital gains and ATM taxes, cut the corporate tax rate, promote free trade and provide a free market based solution to healthcare.
Americans are living longer than ever before. To be sure, age and general health of a candidate are something to consider, and I am happy to see that McCain released his records. No doubt the MSM will be pouring over them and will highlight anything of concern.
If age if pushed too hard as a negative, many seniors may take great offense to the ageism behind the constant harping on McCain's age. Seniors are a most reliable, active voting bloc and it would be wise to respect one's elders.
But what of Obama's health?
Obama, a former (?) smoker, has yet to release his medical records. As you know, African Americans are predisposed and at greater risk for a variety of health problems. When will we his Obama's medical records.
It will take much more than non-support of Webb/Warner to damage McCain's credibility with regard to support for our troops. But when it's all you've got...
The national security argument will not fail McCain. Obama is furiously trying to back pedal on the "Obama Doctrine." He is plagued with doubts about him among Jewish voters and he refuses to recognize the signs of success in iraq, which nancy Pelosi and the nyt have even begun to grudgingly acknowledge.
How about a credible rebuttal? What lie? What bs?
Or do you believe ignorance is bliss?
I'm hoping Black Eagle took care of business in the Crow Nation.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/mccains_fantasy_war_on_earmark.html
McCain receives 4 pinocchios.
Obama/Webb 08
You forgot to Add, Sen.Hagel (R-NEB), Sen Spector (R-PA) Current Sec of Defense Robert Gates and I could go on and on about the many people who think that ENGAGING in Serious talks with our enemies is something we should start.
McCain/Bush foreign policy is exactly what a country en-trenched into 2 wars and owing another Country Billions (China)
African Americans are predisposed and at greater risk for a variety of health problems. When will we his Obama's medical records
Not gonna fall for your trap with this one. I'll just hit you with this, If Race an any form becomes an issue i would imagine that the 36 million AA's this country has will certainly remember it...
Look, your guy is 72, has had cancer at least 3 times, and has confirmed anger management issues fellow members of the Senate (including members of his own party) acknowledge. He only released 8 yrs of recent Medical records, and gave a 3hr time frame of viewin them. he also denied people the opp. to snapshot, or photo copy them.
Least we forget this respectable vet served time in the military. Not one of those records were released. As a vet, i know how easy it is to acquire one's records from the VA. You think the people of the US have the right to know what ills befail him while he served this country?
PTSD is very real and he's a POW. Direct confrontation might be the trigger all sorts those anger reactions we all know hes prone to have.
Another thing S,
Were still waiting on the tax records of on Cindy McCain..Any day now? Your guy Johnny Mc can call barack an elitist, but least we forget the near 100 million dollar net worth of his wife who has refused to release her tax info..
It would also be nice to know exactly how many lobbyist are backing McCain.
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/popup?id=4223496&contentIndex;=1&start;=false&page;=1
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-eskow/dear-hillary-how-can-we-m_b_103268.html
WHAT?!?!?!
Could you please provide a link. I need to see that.
That is a career-ending gaffe. There's absolutely NO place for that. And the Democratic Party. . . actually, anyone with a shred of decency. . . needs to speak out against this.
THIS BITCH DONE LOST HER MIND!!!
>Hillary Raises Assasination Issue
The endorsement by US Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-California) of Obama today sends an extremely firm message to the Clinton campaign, and not only because he was, until today, a Clinton superdelegate.
The Field has learned that Cardoza is the first of a group of at least 40 Clinton delegates, many of them from California, that through talking among themselves came to a joint decision that all of them would vote for Obama at the convention. They have informed Senator Clinton that it’s time to unite around Obama, and that they will be coming out, one or two at a time, and announcing their switch between now and the convention if Senator Clinton doesn’t do the same.
Cardoza is one of the leaders of this effort (which includes not only superdelegates, but here’s something that should set off some paranoia in Camp Clinton: there are pledged Clinton delegates in “The Cardoza 40,” too). One Field Hand reports that during a recent Cardoza fundraising event in California the effort was discussed openly in front of other Democrats. Cardoza’s announcement, today, sent the message that the effort is serious and for real.
This is not “excellent news for Hillary Clinton.”
An exodus of 40 delegates from Clinton to Obama, mathematically, increases his lead by 80 delegates, because she loses one for every one he gains.
Cardoza, in his endorsement today, said:
“I am deeply concerned about the contentious primary campaign and controversy surrounding the seating of delegates from Florida and Michigan – two states Democrats need to win in November. I will not support changing the rules in the fourth quarter of this contest through some convoluted DNC rules committee process. Yet, we must find a resolution to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates so these states’ voters are represented at the Convention. I believe we need to avoid this potentially divisive situation by uniting behind one nominee and bringing the party together immediately. Therefore, I have made the decision to support Senator Obama at the Democratic Convention in my role as a super delegate.”
If that was a little wordy for ya, let me translate. It means:
“Checkmate.”
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=1258
I'm f-ing mad! Sounds like Hillary is sending a damn message for someone to harm Obama!
That dirty bitch! She knows exactly what she is doing!
I just heard the Kennedty comments.. This goes waaaay beyond her racebaiting...I wish nothing but the worse for HRC...
I'm trying to understand what the hell did she do this time...
Rushing to get back to work and I find this news!
I'm am done...this is it guys...they need to end this race. Or suspend hers!
Engaging in talks with our enemies WITHOUT PRECONDITIONS is Obamas stated position and the BIG difference in his foreign policy approach you so conveniently overlook.
We are involved in two wars because we were attacked on 9/11.
IF race becomes an issue AMERICANS will remember it. Just keep in mind, the term race-baiting means seeing racism WHERE NONE EXISTS. Keep that card off the table now or up your sleeve...
John McCain has endured torture and cannot raise his arms above his head. Detailing Mccain's triumph over torture and solitary confinement to live and long, productive, successful life is a conversation I welcome.
PTSD is real and not always permanent, disabling condition. As a survivor of early childhood sexual abuse, I myself have suffered at one time from PTSD. Again, overcoming adversity adds to one's inner strength, resolve and character. None need not fall victim to one's circumstances...
It is no trap to expect Obama to release his medical records.
Cindy McCain's tax returns. Michelle Obama's remarks on the campaign trail. Let's not make the spouses central to the debate here.
This is about as damaging and productive as the Wright/Hagee/Parsley debate.
As for the lobbyist issue, this is a double-edged sword.
Okay. Fine. I think it's stupid to try to purge every campaign of anyone who has ever lobbied, since most campaign and political professionals need work in non-campaign years, and one of the most widespread options is lobbying firms.
But if you want to have this fight, then can we expect a front page story on:
Daniel Shapiro, one of Obama's foreign policy advisers on the Middle East, registered to lobby for several corporate clients in the last year, since leaving the office of Rep. Bill Nelson (D-Fla). Shapiro, who worked during the 1990s for President Bill Clinton's National Security Council, counts some of America's biggest corporate names among his clients, including beermaker Anheuser-Busch, carmaker Daimler Chrysler, the American Petroleum Institute and Freddie Mac.
Obama considers the point that he doesn't take money from oil companies (no one does; he just takes money from their employees) worth mentioning in an ad. So if their money is tainted, why is it okay to take advice from their lobbyists? How can Obama say he'll get tough on automakers to make sure they make fuel-efficient vehicles, if a Daimler Chrysler lobbyist has his ear?
Stupid argument? No more so than the idea that Charlie Black will be setting McCain's Africa policy.
Wait there's more:
"Three political aides on Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) payroll were registered lobbyists for dozens of corporations, including Wal-Mart, British Petroleum and Lockheed Martin, while they received payments from his campaign, according to public documents.
The BP connection is through Teal Baker, who worked for the Podesta Group.
Or how about lobbyists for those dreaded insurance companies?
Brandon Hurlbut, Obama’s liaison to veterans, union members and senior citizens in New Hampshire, represented clients such as the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies and the Allegheny County Housing Authority from January to June, according to public records. Six clients paid B&D; Consulting $380,000 for Hurlbut to lobby their causes.
Or how about pharmaceutical companies? They're popular in Democratic circles.
Hillary Clinton's campaign, which accepts lobbyists' donations and is now trailing in the polls, has sought to question Obama's commitment to his lobbying ban. In a debate Saturday night in New Hampshire, she noted that Obama's campaign co-chairman in New Hampshire, Jim Demers, is a state-based lobbyist whose clients include pharmaceutical companies. He is not registered at the federal level.
Wait, there's more. How about AT&T;, opponent of "net neutrality" and a company that cooperates with the NSA on wiretaps?
The Washington Post previously reported that Moses Mercado, a veteran political adviser to the likes of Dick Gephardt's former presidential bids, was negotiating last fall to become an adviser to Obama. Mercado was registered in Washington to lobby on behalf of several several corporate clients, including AT&T.;
Mercado said today he ultimately decided to skip becoming a paid adviser and instead is volunteering his advice and time in hopes of sidestepping the questions about being a lobbyist on the Obama payroll."
"The Associated Press, reviewing 1,173 pages of medical documents spanning 2000 to 2008" declares John McCain to be in good health.
Did I say "good health"? Actually, they report an assessment that "physiologically he is considerably younger than his chronologic age based on his cardiovascular fitness," [Mayo internist Dr. John] Eckstein said in an interview Thursday. "I got a call from the cardiologist who said that he had not seen anyone that age exercise for that long in a long time."
Do you know how many earmarks John McCain has procured for the state of AZ. ZERO. That's right $0.00.
He walks the walk on this issue and I trust him to be able to cut spending in Washington and believe he will make good on his pledge to veto any legislation which contains earmarks.
By Peter Wehner
Barack Obama is increasingly embodying the “old politics” he says he will overturn.
The most recent example is his campaign’s effort to distance Obama from comments he made last July. When asked if he would be willing to meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea “without precondition” during the first year of his administration, Obama famously answered, “I would.” It’s a commitment he repeated throughout the Democratic primary.
But now Obama’s top advisers like Tom Daschle are saying, “I would not say that we would meet unconditionally. Of course, there are conditions that we [would] involve in preparation in getting ready for the diplomacy. . . . ‘Without precondition’ simply means we wouldn’t put obstacles in the way of discussing the differences between us. That’s really what they’re saying, what Barack is saying.” And Obama himself insisted that he didn’t necessarily have President Ahmadinejad in mind when he said he’d meet with the leader of Iran — and, anyway, “this obsession with Ahmadinejad is an example of us losing track of what’s important.”
This explanation is Clintonian. As Robert Novak helpfully pointed out in his column on Thursday, last September Obama was asked at a press conference whether he still would meet with Ahmadinejad. Obama replied, “Yeah . . . I find many of President Ahmadinejad’s statements odious. . . . But we should never fear to negotiate.” And in November, on NBC’s Meet the Press, Obama defended “a conversation with somebody like Ahmadinejad.”
Rather than admit he made a mistake, however, Obama now blames us for our “obsession” with Ahmadinejad. And as is so often the case, any criticism of Obama, on any grounds, is causing us to “lose track of what’s important.” One senses that Obama and his supporters, while happy to pound his opponents, believe criticism of him is indecorous and even illegitimate.
There is yet more in the Obama oeuvre of old politics.
In October 2007, Obama and not his critics made the American flag pin on his lapel an issue by saying it had become a “substitute” for “true patriotism.” He proudly declared, ”I won’t wear that pin on my chest.” That pledge has apparently become inoperative. Obama has been wearing the American flag pin on his lapel at campaign events. Apparently it’s no longer a substitute for “true patriotism.”
In his speech on race, Obama said “I can no more disown [the Reverend Jeremiah Wright] than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother.” But after Wright’s comments a few weeks later at the National Press Club, the Reverend Wright found himself not only disowned but tossed under the bus — not so much because of Wright’s critical comments about America but because of his critical comments about Obama.
Senator Obama has claimed as president he’ll be able to rise above partisan politics — yet he has done very little to work with Republicans on major, controversial issues. Obama is not only the most liberal person in the Senate but also one of the most reliable Democratic votes. He has voted against such outstanding Supreme Court nominees as John Roberts and Samuel Alito. No person who is serious about acting in a “post-partisan” manner would have cast those votes or acted the way Obama has during his Senate career.
Obama repeatedly speaks about the corrupting influence lobbyists have on politicians — yet he seems rather less vocal about his close association with Antoin “Tony” Rezko, who is on trial on 24 counts of corruption. Rezko was among the first people to support Obama’s maiden campaign, was a key fundraiser for all of Obama’s campaigns, and Rezko and his wife helped the Obamas buy their house by purchasing the lot next door.
According to the Chicago Sun-Times, in June 2005 Obama and Rezko purchased adjoining parcels. Obama paid $1.65 million for a home while Rezko paid $625,000 for the adjacent, undeveloped lot. Both closed on their properties on the same day (the Obama’s were able to purchase their parcel for $300,000 less than the asking price while Rita Rezko, the wife of Tony Rezko, paid the full price). And in January 2006, Obama paid Rezko $104,500 for portions of his land. The transaction occurred at a time when it was widely known that Rezko was under investigation. And according to ABC News, Rezko contributed more than $120,000 to Obama’s 2004 Senate campaign — much of it at a time when Rezko was the target of an FBI investigation. “It surprised me that late in the game [Obama] continued to take contributions from somebody who was under a rather dark cloud in the state,” according to Cynthia Canary of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, a group that has worked closely with Obama and supported his legislative efforts.
* * * *
Is Barack Obama’s record on these matters unprecedented for a politician? No. Has he acted in ways that are dishonorable or that call into question his basic integrity? Not in my judgment. But they matter because they go to the core of his campaign, which is to present Obama as a figure who is different, and better, than those who have come before him. He is a man who will bring “change” to Washington, cast aside the “old politics,” and heal deep divisions. We are led to believe that he is a transcendent figure, more high-minded and unstained than, well, just about anyone in American politics.
But reality is now shattering the myth. Obama turns out to be a Chicago politician — highly ambitious, extremely talented, and neither untainted nor uncompromised. Maybe it’s time for the national media, many of whom (like Newsweek and MSNBC, for starters) are enraptured by Obama, to acquaint themselves with the real man. Is that too much to ask when selecting our next president?
You f-ng bore me! F-ing haters!
Sorry to hear about what happened.
I cant imagine what you must have went through..
Keeping on the topic though, you dont seem to make much mention of the gutting of McCain's staff. From Lobbyist, to pastors. It speaks volumes to how one can imagine how he intends to run a cabinet..
Also worth noting, can you please explain the temper of your canidate? Do you not think a person who's is described by some of his fellow party members as someone one with Anger issues. Look, the guy is a flat out mean man.
Finally, I got one question where exactly does your guy Mc Cain plan to find troops for his future Iran war? Do the guys who gave everything in AFG, and Iraq simply go home to crappy barracks for 6 months and gear up for another stretch in Iran?
Look, Your canidate may have the best intentions in the world, but he has bought a high amount of stock into the Bush Foreign Policy.
Until he can figure out a way diplomatic method that doesnt require songs of bombing Iran, then expect him to remain the Senior Senator from Arizona....
this happenss from time to time. Supporters from one camp infiltrate blogs that support the other. Let S and he who shall not be named get there points out.
All they are doing is confirming the Bush/McCain plan to extend every single mistake that went on in the past 8 yrs.
Not one mention of how there canidate will differ from bush's policy on economics, foreign policy, and the housing crisis. All of which no matter what poll you look at are the top issues of this election season.
Not one mention of the FACT that McCain is slowly loosing the conservative wing of that party and how those votes are open.
Not one mention of how there canidate who once voted against the tax cuts Bush sent out, then flip flopped..
Trot out the resident black person to give legitimacy to her excuses.
Surely, all those black leaders in Clinton's camp see their careers crumbling before their eyes.
Let me know what she says....
It's the grace of God upon you b/c you're a patient person!
Whoever are you referring to?
Yes, McCain has flip-flopped on some issues. Yes, the conservative base ain't in love with him. And yes, McCain has a temper.
Hell, maybe a mean country needs a mean president. I don't know.
So, now that we've gotten that put there, let's discuss how many times Obama has backtracked, flip-flopped and outright blown his statements on the War on Terror and foreign policy.
I will concede that Obama might be better than McCain on domestic issues. But he's clueless on foreign policy and national security.
Just keep reaching into that bag of tired memes and talking points...but frankly many of your charges (he's mean, he wants war with Iran, etc.) are absurd.
I do not hope to change your mind about McCain, but I have enjoyed the debate.
BTW, Cindy McCain has released her tax returns. Guess what...she's rich!
Have a good weekend.
The OPEC policy of limiting production in the face of increasing demand is like that of a cruel dog-owner who puts a collar snugly around the neck of a young puppy, but then refuses to let it out as the dog matures. So as the dog grows, the collar gets tighter and tighter until it chokes to death. But it is not the growth of the dog that kills the dog; the culprit is the dog owner who refuses to let out the collar. This is what OPEC is now doing to the United States, the industrial world at large, and to the Third World — whose impoverished people can least afford to pay for overpriced oil.
And this is just the beginning. OPEC leaders, including Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, are already openly discussing raising the price of oil to $200 a barrel or more. In that case, Americans' oil tribute will rise to $1.8 trillion per year, paid to an evil cartel whose total worldwide extortions will cost the global economy more than $7 trillion. If we want to avoid complete economic defeat, we need to destroy the oil cartel.
In order to stop the OPEC looting of the U.S. and world economies, we need to break the cartel's vertical monopoly by creating fuel choice on a global scale. Congress can make this happen with a stroke of the pen, by passing a law requiring that all new cars sold in the United States be flex-fuel vehicles that can run on any combination of gasoline, ethanol or methanol. The technology is readily available and it only costs about $100 per vehicle.
By making America a flex-fuel vehicle market, we will effectively make flex fuel the international standard, as all significant foreign car makers would be impelled to convert their lines over as well. Around the world, gasoline would be forced to compete at the pump against alcohol fuels made from any number of sources: This includes current commercial crops like corn and sugar; cellulosic ethanol made from crop residues and weeds; methanol, which can be made from any kind of biomass without exception as well as coal, natural gas, and recycled urban trash.
By creating such an open-source fuel market, we can enormously expand and diversify humanity's fuel resource base. We will thus protect all nations from continued blackmail, robbery and — indeed, in some cases — starvation induced by the oil cartel.
Taxation without representation is tyranny.
With 94% of the world's oil supply locked up by foreign governments, most of which are hostile to the United States, the relatively puny American oil companies do not have access to enough crude oil to significantly affect the market and help bring prices down. Thus, Exxon Mobil, a small oil company, buys 90% of the crude oil that it refines for the U.S. market from the big players, i.e, mostly-hostile foreign governments. The price at the U.S. pump is rising because the price the big oil companies charge Exxon Mobil and the other small American companies for crude oil is going up.
This is obviously a tough situation for the American consumer. The irony is that it doesn't have to be that way. The United States--unlike, say, France--actually has vast petroleum reserves. It would be possible for American oil companies to develop those reserves, play a far bigger role in international markets, and deliver gas at the pump to American consumers at a much lower price, while creating many thousands of jobs for Americans. This would be infinitely preferable to shipping endless billions of dollars to Saudi Arabia, Russia and Venezuela.
So, why doesn't it happen? Because the Democratic Party--deliberately keeps gas prices high and our domestic oil companies small by putting most of our reserves off limits to development. China is now drilling in the Caribbean, but our own companies are barred by law from developing large oil fields off the coasts of Florida and California. Enormous shale oil deposits in the Rocky Mountain states could go a long way toward supplying American consumers' needs, but the Democratic Congress won't allow those resources to be developed. ANWR contains vast petroleum reserves, but we don't know how vast, because Congress, not wanting the American people to know how badly its policies are hurting our economy, has made it illegal to explore and map those reserves, let alone develop them.
In short, all Americans are paying a terrible price for the Democratic Party's perverse energy policies.