Senator Obama is an opportunist

Obama: Unscripted and Unprepared

2008-08-13T22:31:00.001-07:00

Original Link: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/13/obama-unscripted-and-unprepared/

By Ani

Every day, Barack Obama reminds me a little more of George Bush. I can’t help it. The similarities are too striking to ignore: His love for vacations at the worst possible time. And he, like King George, purports to be a ‘Uniter.’ Well, let’s test this claim.

How would you characterize a man who:

has played the race card to great effect repeatedly and with impunity throughout his campaign, and gotten the mainstream press and the Democratic elite to gamely play along;

has insulted or ignored anyone who didn’t vote for him;

is too politically shortsighted to realize that by nixing a roll call for Hillary and not placing her name in nomination, he is probably costing himself the election, further alienating her voters.

Forgive me, but he doesn’t sound very unifying.

More telling are Senator Obama’s unscripted moments – very Bush-like. I know Senator Obama reads a teleprompter well, and perhaps imitates the cadence of Rev. Martin Luther King. But the message underneath rings hollow.

In moments of crisis, and the leader of the free world will encounter many, there may not be time for 20 scriptwriters to pull him together if he himself cannot exhibit the proper leadership to guide this nation. He will not have a long weekend as he did in creating his “scintillating speech on race” to distract from the debacle that was Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

Jonah Goldberg’s op-ed in the LA Times yesterday, Obama Without His Script, was a welcome surprise, considering the source – a newspaper that, with rare exception, has given the newbie Illinois Senator glowing coverage. The subtitle…

Judging by his reaction to the Georgia-Russia crisis, Obama’s make-believe presidency isn’t ready for prime time…

…makes it look as though, at least for this columnist, the bloom is off the rose. Mr. Goldberg’s recent columns hit both Obama and McCain pretty evenly, but for the LA Times even to print this, wow! Senator Obama must have made a boo boo:

The Obama campaign has for months pursued the odd strategy of having the junior senator from Illinois act as if he were already kinda-sorta president of the United States. In June, it tried sticking a quasi-presidential seal on his lectern. Then in July, he conducted what seemed like official state visits with foreign leaders and delivered something like a “prenaugural” address in Berlin, inviting comparisons to JFK and Reagan.
…
If the would-be president can seem plausibly presidential, voting for him might not seem like such a crapshoot. It all makes sense, even if it fosters an air of presumptuousness.
…
The invasion of Georgia elicited a wan written communique instead of the sort of exciting rhetoric we’ve come to expect from his make-believe presidency. But he did make it in front of the cameras the next day for a rally celebrating his vacation in Hawaii. He promised “to go body surfing at some undisclosed location.”

During Obama’s make-believe presidency, we’ve heard about bold action, about the courage to talk to dictators. When faced with a real “3 a.m. moment,” Obama – who boasts about 200 foreign policy advisors, broken into 10 subgroups – proclaims, “I’m going to get some shave ice.”
…
Indeed, President Bush’s jaunt to the Olympics as a “sports fan” should also have been cut short the moment tanks started rolling over a country he’d proclaimed a “beacon of liberty” during his visit there in 2005. By Monday, both Bush and Obama were playing catch-up to Sen. John McCain, who seemed to have grasped the gravity from the get-go…

Putting Bush and Obama in the same sandbox and well behind McCain’s much touted handling of the 3 A.M. moment is not the kind of press Obama wants at this point.

But, for once, in the press, the assessment is honest. This country doesn’t need any more versions of someone caught flatfooted reading “My Pet Goat” instead of standing up and taking appropriate action to get on top of the situation.

Referring to Obama’s statement on the crisis, Steve Huntley, in yesterday’s Chicago Sun Times made the point:

It took first-term Sen. Barack Obama three tries to get it right. Headed for a vacation in Hawaii, the presumed Democratic candidate for commander in chief issued an even-handed statement, urging restraint by both sides. Later Friday, he again called for mutual restraint but blamed Russia for the fighting. The next day his language finally caught up with toughness of McCain’s.

Making matters worse, Obama’s staff focused on a McCain aide who had served as a lobbyist for Georgia, charging it showed McCain was “ensconced in a lobbyist culture.” Obama’s campaign came off as injecting petty partisan politics into an international crisis. This was not a serious response on behalf [of] a man who aspires to be the leader of the Free World. After all, what’s so bad about representing a small former Soviet republic struggling to remake itself as a Western-style democracy?

The comparison between the two candidates served to emphasize the strength McCain’s experience would bring to the White House in a dangerous world.

Obama’s favored approach to international issues, diplomatic talks, failed to stop Russia’s invasion. Vladimir Putin, a KGB bull in the former Soviet Union, wants to restore Russia as the supreme power of Eurasia…

However the world’s newest war ends, America’s leadership must recognize and respond to the underlying dynamic of Russia’s resurgent aggressive instincts — the power bestowed on Moscow by its oil and gas riches.

I am not endorsing Senator McCain. I think by now, everyone knows who my candidate is. Hillary exhibited great foresight about this crisis. But Senator Obama is making newbie mistakes all over the place. These are schoolyard games – harping about lobbyists at a time like this? There are far larger issues at stake here.

Mr. Goldberg of the Times further observes:

[Obama] has been playacting at being presidential in order to convince voters that we live in a “new moment” with “new challenges” – and that he is the president we need for this new era.

This moment calls for more than playacting, yet Obama looks lost without a presidential script. Events in the Caucasus – and, for that matter, in Beijing – suggest that the times aren’t so new after all. Two powerful antidemocratic foes are once again flexing their muscles at a moment when America seems weak and distracted.

That is not a new challenge but a very old one. Perhaps this is not a time for a novice spouting grand rhetoric about a new page in history, but for someone who’s actually read the pages of some old, but still relevant, books. Perhaps this is not the time for playacting.

Perhaps it is not the time for body surfing?

Obama presents grave cause for worry. He may actually be naïve enough to think that he can just “delegate” the yucky stuff and someone else is going to do the actual clean up.

I have witnessed many of his supporters recite a similar mantra – “He’ll surround himself with great people. Congress does everything anyway. He has really good judgment.” This is the President they want? A figurehead to make a “speech” and leave the rest of the work to the grown ups? This Democratic Congress isn’t doing very well – and after the behavior I have witnessed these past seven months, these are not the people I want ‘running the show.’

Aside from choosing David Axelrod (better known as Axel-Rove) as his slash and burn campaign manager, what were his good decisions exactly? I reference here my earlier assessment of why I cannot support him and his prior ‘boneheaded’ actions. This is another way he reminds me of Bush. Every time I think I have looked into the nadir, Obama does something else to earn my mistrust. I have actually started to get numb and lose track.

His shocking reversal on FISA, for example, from a supposedly dearly held belief in the sanctity of the fourth amendment betrays an arrogant “well, too bad, where else are you gonna go” attitude, taking advantage of and even diminishing the value of his most fervent supporters. Tiresome as it may be, I will remind people once again that Senator Clinton voted correctly on FISA. What happened to the filibuster Senator Obama promised us?

No off-shore oil drilling, anyone? Another one of his campaign promises. To quote Senator Obama, “Words, just words.”

But Senator Obama would be gratified to know a number of those original supporters are still making excuses for him. I would imagine it is getting both exhausting and frustrating for them.

Further, his plan to ‘accept’ the nomination at Invesco Field before an audience of 75,000 smacks simultaneously of hubris and bullying – just squash the competition, the detractors, the protesters with a wall of noise and size.

This is reminiscent of George Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” declaration where, to quote General Wes Clark, Bush “pranced around on the deck of that aircraft carrier.”

I was a lifelong Democrat until two months ago. I certainly hoped we’d have a better choice at this point than to be force fed a man so arrogant and inexperienced; someone who is more interested in image management than rolling up his sleeves to do the work required to deal with the world that is – not the world he wishes could be. Perhaps he really believes that he alone can ‘heal our planet.’ Unfortunately, this is grandiose to the point of being delusional.

Leaders in other countries will not be so easily hypnotized just because our American press has been. Putin, for example, may not get a ‘tingle up his leg’ as Chris Matthews has.

Surely it has occurred to the Party elite that if Democrats cannot win the election in this ‘no-lose year,’ with the Republican brand damaged as it is, the Democratic Party will be over. Not that that would be a bad thing in its current state.

More and more, I remember Hillary’s claim to be ‘ready on day one.’ I believe she is. And we’re going to need somebody who is.

Delusions are not required. Solutions are.

Hillary's Growing Shadow

2008-08-13T22:14:00.001-07:00

Original Link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/hillarys_growing_shadow.html

By Victor Davis Hanson

Barack Obama and John McCain are running neck and neck.

Impossible?

It would seem so. Republican President Bush still has less than a 30 percent approval rating. Headlines blare that unemployment and inflation are up -- even if we aren't, technically, in a recession. Gas is around $4 a gallon. Housing prices have nosedived. Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, has been indicted -- another in a line of congressional Republicans caught in financial or sexual scandal.

Meanwhile, the GOP's presumptive candidate, John McCain, is 71 years old. The Republican base thinks he's lackluster and too liberal.

So, everyone is puzzled why the Democratic candidate isn't at least 10 points ahead. It seems the more Americans get used to Barack Obama, the less they want him as president -- and the more Democrats will soon regret not nominating Hillary Clinton.

First, Obama was billed as a post-racial healer. His half-African ancestry, exotic background and soothing rhetoric were supposed to have been novel and to have reassured the public he was no race-monger like Al Sharpton. On the other hand, his 20-year career in the cauldron of Chicago racial politics also guaranteed to his liberal base that he wasn't just a moderate Colin Powell, either.

Yet within weeks of the first primary, the outraged Clintons were accusing Obama of playing "the race card" -- and vice-versa. Blacks soon were voting heavily against Hillary Clinton. In turn, Hillary, the elite Ivy League progressive, turned into a blue-denim working gal -- and won nearly all the final big-state Democratic primaries on the strength of working-class whites.

Americans also learned to their regret how exactly a Hawaiian-born Barack Obama -- raised, in part, by his white grandparents and without African-American heritage -- had managed to win credibility in what would become his legislative district in Chicago. That discovery of racial chauvinism wasn't hard once his former associate, his pastor for over 20 years, the racist Rev. Jeremiah Wright, spewed his venom.

Obama himself didn't help things as he taught the nation that his dutiful grandmother was at times a small-minded bigot -- no different from a "typical white person." And in an impromptu riff, Obama ridiculed small-town working-class Pennsylvanians' supposed racial insularity.

The primary season ended with a narrow Obama victory -- and a wounded, but supposedly wiser, Democratic candidate.

Not quite. Without evidence, he unwisely has claimed his opponents ("they") will play the race card against poor him. In contrast, on the hot-button issue of racial reparations, he recently played to cheering minority audiences by cryptically suggesting that the government must "not just . . . offer words, but offer deeds." He later clarified that he didn't mean cash grants, but his initial words were awfully vague.

Second, many are beginning to notice how a Saint Obama talks down to them. We American yokels can't speak French or Spanish. We eat too much. Our cars are too big, our houses either overheated or overcooled. And we don't even put enough air in our car tires. In contrast, a lean, hip Obama promises to still the rising seas and cool down the planet, assuring adoring Germans that he is a citizen of the world.

Third, Obama knows that all doctrinaire liberals must tack rightward in the general election. But due to his inexperience, he's doing it in far clumsier fashion than any triangulating candidate in memory. Do we know -- does Obama even know? -- what he really feels about drilling off our coasts, tapping the strategic petroleum reserve, NAFTA, faith-based initiatives, campaign financing, the FISA surveillance laws, town-hall debates with McCain, Iran, the surge, timetables for Iraq pullouts, gun control or capital punishment?

Fourth, Obama is proving as inept an extemporaneous speaker as he is gifted with the Teleprompter. Like most rookie senators, in news conferences and interviews, he stumbles and then makes serial gaffes -- from the insignificant, like getting the number of states wrong, to the downright worrisome, such as calling for a shadow civilian aid bureaucracy to be funded like the Pentagon (which would mean $500 billion per annum).

If the polls are right, a public tired of Republicans is beginning to think an increasingly bothersome Obama would be no better -- and maybe a lot worse. It is one thing to suggest to voters that they should shed their prejudices, eat less and be more cosmopolitan. But it is quite another when the sermonizer himself too easily evokes race, weekly changes his mind and often sounds like he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

In a tough year like this, Democrats could probably have defeated Republican John McCain with a flawed, but seasoned candidate like Hillary Clinton. But long-suffering liberals convinced their party to go with a messiah rather than a dependable nominee -- and thereby they probably will get neither.

Bought and Paid For! By Nancy Pelosi

2008-08-13T21:58:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/13/bought-and-paid-for-by-nancy-pelosi/

By Dr. Lynette Long

As Americans sat glued to their television sets watching the most hotly contested presidential primary in American history, pundits counted pledged delegates won in caucuses and primaries and discussed the highly prized superdelegates’ endorsements. Eventually it would be these superdelegates, Democratic officials, governors, and members of congress, who would determine the nominee, since neither contestant won enough pledged delegates in the 52 primary contests.

What the pundits forgot to tell the American public was that these superdelegates were doing some counting of their own. They weren’t counting how many of their constituents had voted for Senator Clinton or Senator Obama, but rather how much money was being put into their war chests by the Obama campaign and the Democratic hierarchy. This money, moved from one candidate to another via PAC’s, would determine their endorsements and ultimately the nomination.

Since 1987, Nancy Pelosi has represented California’s eighth district– including most of San Francisco. An Italian American, Pelosi was raised on politics. Her father was a Congressman from Maryland and the Mayor of Baltimore. Pelosi was elected as Democratic Speaker of the House 2002. Pelosi shattered the glass ceiling in the House of Representatives when she was elected the first female speaker in 2007. A shrewd politician, Madame Speaker exercises a lot of influence over the members of congress. She determines Committee assignments and in conjunction with the DNC and Howard Dean decides how much money and support the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee gives to each member of congress in their bid for re-election.

In addition, Pelosi also contributes money directly to the congressional campaigns of certain candidates through her Political Action Committee “PAC to the FUTURE.” Her PAC receives money from other PAC’s such as Service Employees International Union $10,000, American Bankers Assn $10,000, Sheet Metal Workers Union $10,000, International Association of Fire Fighters, $10,000, and Goldman Sachs 10,000. It also receives money from individuals.

In the 2008 election cycle, the Center for Responsive Politics (www.opensecrets.org) reports that Nancy Pelosi’s PAC received 585,400 and contributed more than $445,000 of this to 59 congressional candidates. PAC to the FUTURE gave money to 38 incumbents and 21 challengers.

Of the 435 members in the house, Pelosi gave money to 8.5% of them. Of the members who received money from Pelosi, 71% were men; only 29% were women. Only eleven percent of the female members of congress received support from Pelosi’s PAC. It’s disappointing that a female speaker did not symbolically make some contribution to all Democratic women in the house.

But even more important than the gender implications of Pelosi’s behavior was her impact on the Presidential election.

Publicly Madame Speaker did not endorse either Obama or Clinton in the Democratic Primary, but was she was anything but neutral.

Pelosi gave money to the campaigns of thirty-eight members of congress, twenty-eight of these endorsed Obama; ten endorsed Clinton. Pelosi contributed to the campaigns of Obama endorsers almost three to one. Pelosi not only gave to a greater number of Obama supporters, she collectively gave them more money.

Pelosi gave $250,000 to the campaigns of superdelegates that endorsed Obama and only $80,000 to the campaigns of superdelegates that endorsed Clinton. Money talks, and Pelosi and her PAC spoke volumes….in shorthand. She may not have publicly endorsed a candidate, but the members of the House of Representatives knew she supported Obama.

Of the thirty-eight Members of Congress Pelosi gave money to, sixteen went against the grain for Obama. This means, their state voted for Hillary, their district voted for Hillary, yet they endorsed Obama. Why? Follow the money.

By endorsing Obama, all of these Members of Congress went against the will of their constituents, twice, at the state level and at the district level. Only two members who received money from Pelosi’s PAC went against the grain and endorsed Hillary.

Is sixteen against the grain for Hillary and two against the grain for Obama a coincidence?

Pelosi’s contributions to the campaigns of state representatives followed a similar pattern. Sixty-three percent of the state representatives to whom Pelosi gave money, endorsed Obama in a state won by Clinton.

Ten thousand dollars, PAC to the FUTURE’s typical contribution, doesn’t seem like a lot of money but besides getting money from PAC TO THE FUTURE, most of these members got contributions from other PACs.

These contributions were most likely orchestrated by Pelosi and company since the overlap is too startling. Congressman James Clyburn from South Carolina has BRIDGE PAC. BRIDGE PAC gave money to all but two of these same members of congress. Steny Hoyer from Maryland has AMERIPAC. AMERIPAC gave money to almost every single one of these same members of congress. Typical donations from both of these PAC’S were $10,000.

And then there is the NATIONAL LEADERSHIP PAC and the NEW DEMOCRAT COALITION, and of course there is the HOPE FUND owned by Barack Obama. All of these PACs donated an average of $10,000 to most of their campaigns. These young representatives got a lot of pressure to endorse Obama no matter which way their district or state voted. The voices of their constituents were irrelevant.

It seems Obama was just posing as a Washington outsider. But in reality—all the real Washington insiders Pelosi, Dean, Kennedy, Clyburn, Hoyer, and Kerry were on his team all along. Pelosi’s Pac might be named PAC to the Future, but it took direct action to purposely undermine the first significant female candidate for the presidency in history. In so doing, she pushed women back decades.

ACTION: Call Pelosi’s office at 415-556-4862 and let her know how you feel. Let’s not just call her biased against women; let’s call her finished.

FIGHT FOR DEMOCRACY, BEFORE IT DISAPPEARS.

Monsoon Season in Colorado: Stormy Weather Ahead

2008-08-13T21:49:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/13/monsoon-season-in-colorado-stormy-weather-ahead/

By medusa

What’s going to happen in Denver during the Democratic Convention? Well, lots of out-of-towners are going to suffer from altitude sickness. And while it’s likely to hit 100 degrees with an average humidity of 12%, it’s also monsoon season, so the Pray for Rain brigade may luck out:

Thunderstorms are common in summer afternoons, specifically during the late summer monsoon season.

Recreate 68 has announced its lineup. It appears to be a training ground for protesters/ rock concert. The lineup is an alphabet soup of the marginalized, those mad-at-everybody, the unwashed dread lock-wearing, drum-circling, white, upper-class boys. Picture the crowd outside the gates of a Dead concert, alongside some with loud political agendas. While Ward Churchill will speak, Cynthia McKinney and the Green Party report that are listed by mistake:

Cynthia McKinney, Green Party candidate for President, and Rosa Clemente, Green Party candidate for Vice President are NOT participating in any Recreate ‘68 activities.

And inside the Pepsi Center you’ll find a convention designed as a “Town Hall” meeting with a series of themes. Clearly this allows the party to control for content and against spontaneity. ABC is sending Charlie Gibson and Diane Sawyer to Denver but oddly enough, al-Jazeera English will be located in Golden, CO, the home of Coors Brewery. If you’re anything like me, you don’t give a rat’s patooti about the presumptuous nominee’s pick for VP. In fact, the only thing I’m interested in is what impact Hillary and her supporters will have on the convention and the nomination process. According to CNN, delegates, super and otherwise, can vote for whomever they want:

Clinton can still win votes from delegates at the Democratic National Convention even if her name is not placed in nomination. Delegates are free to vote for anyone they want to at the convention.

Knowing how popular Hillary remains, and how devoted and disgruntled her supporters are, it’s not surprising that the Atlantic and other Obama-media outlets are once again dissing her, her campaign and of course, her supporters. The sexists insults continue (women are infamous for being indecisive, so why not say that Hillary couldn’t make decisions.) While Josh Green trots out emails and memos that demonstrate the “catty” behavior in Clinton’s campaign, Dowd uses the opposite end of the spectrum in her sexists putdowns: Hillary is “orchestrating” the events of the convention. In fact, if you read Dowd’s Op-Ed while ignoring her uncontrollable nastiness and jealousy toward all things Clinton, her portrayal of Hillary (and Bill) contradict all the Hillary-blaming in Green’s CDS Opus. For example, Dowd writes:

While Obama was spending three hours watching “The Dark Knight” five time zones away, and going to a fund-raiser featuring “Aloha attire” and Hawaiian pupus, Hillary was busy planning her convention.

Wow, if this is true, rock-on Hillary! The corrupt forces of Pelosi, Brazile, Dean et al, stole the election from Democracy, disenfranchising Michigan, Florida and 18 million voters, and Obama’s supporters want Hillary (and Bill) to:

“get in the box” or get lost if they can’t show more loyalty, rather than giving them back-to-back, prime-time speaking gigs at the convention on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Not only is Hillary not getting in the box (whatever that means), according to Dowd:

Hillary’s orchestrating a play within the play in Denver. Just as Hamlet used the device to show that his stepfather murdered his father, Hillary will try to show the Democrats they chose the wrong savior.

Yes, Dowd wrote “savior.” Wonder why that word came to mind? And while Dowd spins this as negatively as her one-track rhetorical skills allows her to, for many of us, what Hillary is doing is creating a moment of Real Democracy. The voices, desires, concerns, fears and objections, etc, of Dems who don’t want Obama will be heard. Dowd continues her sexism by calling Hillary’s female followers “gals” but even with Dowd’s green-eyed prose, this makes me proud:

{Hillary} said she thought it would be good for party unity if her gals felt “that their voices are heard.” But that’s disingenuous. Hillary was the one who raised the roll-call idea at the end of May with Democrats, who were urging her to face the math. She said she wanted it for Chelsea, oblivious to how such a vote would dim Obama’s star turn. Ever since she stepped aside in June, she’s been telling people privately that there might have to be “a catharsis” at the convention, signaling she wants a Clinton crescendo.

Clearly Dowd thinks the convention is just a pro forma performance to crown His Majesty; the paternalism in this statement is stunning:

Obama also allowed Hillary supporters to insert an absurd statement into the platform suggesting that media sexism spurred her loss and that “demeaning portrayals of women … dampen the dreams of our daughters.”

Of course, the Democratic Party has created this myth that Obama is the choice of the party. Sacha Millstone, who did valuable volunteer work for Hillary’s campaign and is a delegate for Hillary, is being brow-beaten by Party Officials:

The Colorado Democratic Party would like Boulder delegate Sacha Millstone, who is devoted to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, to give up her spot as a delegate to the Democratic National Convention.

Apparently, the CDP wants strict party loyalty to extend to speech:

Party officials said Monday that they won’t insist Millstone resign. But in an e-mail last week, Billy Compton, state political director of the Colorado Democratic Party, ordered Millstone into his office to explain disparaging comments she made about Barack Obama.

Sounding frighteningly undemocratic, Millstone receive this message:

“You are hereby directed to come in to the party Headquarters and explain your comments and why you should remain a national delegate to the 2008 Democratic National Convention in light of these comments,” the letter said.

A lesser person may have caved after receiving a letter like this, but Millstone hired a lawyer. She writes:

“Isn’t there a right to free speech? Isn’t this right in line with our time-honored tradition with the Dems?” she said. “These intimidation tactics have a chilling effect on people feeling comfortable speaking up.”

What’s happening in Denver? Much more than a convention paying homage to The One selected by a corrupted Democratic Party. What’s going on here affects you and I much more than we know.

State Democratic Party chair Pat Waak, who said it would be nice to have a united delegation when 50,000 conventioneers arrive in Colorado, called the Millstone matter “moot.” “We’re getting too near the convention, and she’s refused to come in,” Waak said. Any effort to intimidate Clinton supporters won’t work, at least not on at-large Clinton delegate Sonya Jaquez Lewis, who lives in unincorporated Boulder County. “It makes me angry,” Jaquez Lewis said. “It makes me want to now really be even louder about issues and concerns that before I was willing to look the other way.”

Obama on Georgia — Simply Lost

2008-08-12T22:21:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/12/obama-on-georgia-%e2%80%94-simply-lost/

By Charles Lemos

Let’s see if I got this right, Obama is calling for:

1) United Nations Security Council Resolution condemning Russia. Problem: Russia is a Permanent Member of the United Nations with Security Council and thus has veto power over any resolution. Sure you can have a debate at the Security Council, actually there already have been, but it isn’t going to go anywhere. Obama does not seem to understand how international politics is played. While Obama talks, Russian tanks have severed Georgia in two. Gori has fallen and Russia seems to have set its sights on the capital, Tbilisi.

2) Replacing Russian peace-keeping troops in South Ossetia with a multi-national force. Problem: Russia is a Permanent Member of the United Nations with Security Council and thus has veto power over any UN peace-keeping force. And does Senator Obama really think that Russia is going to allow a United Nations peace-keeping force made up of foreign troops, albiet under UN command, on its southern flank? Proposing non-starters is a waste of time. Try being realistic.

3) Condemning Russian actions in the court of world public opinion. Problem: Does Russia care what the world thinks at this point? Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin met with US President Bush in Beijing the day the crisis erupted. President Bush issued stern warnings to both sides. Putin then flew off to North Ossetia to direct the Russian campaign. French President Nicolas Sarkozy is off to Moscow tomorrow. The Russians have already stated that the French peace proposals are DOA (dead on arrival).

4) Sending an objective and neutral International Mediator to the region. Problem: There’s nothing to mediate at this point. I wrote earlier that Russia will accept a cease-fire when Russia achieved its war aims. I was mistaken to believe those war aims were limited to ousting Georgian forces from South Ossetia but it is now increasingly clear that Russia aims to take control of Georgia. Georgia is an imperfect democracy but it is a democracy. It won’t be one much longer. A puppet government is on its way and I expect right now that President Mikhail Saakashvili will form a government in exile. What is there to mediate? And between whom? Russia will redraw the borders in the Caucusus because it can. We are powerless. I wrote earlier that we lost this round, let’s not lose the next. The next one is the Ukraine and Moldova.

Obama’s assertion that Russia has escalated this war beyond South Ossetia, while factual, misses the whole point. This war is not about South Ossetia. South Ossetia may have been the casus belli but this splendid little war for Russia is a message to the United States, to Europe and to NATO that Russia is a player. Call it a greeting card from a resurgent Russia.

The West made many mistakes. We pushed for Kosovar independence and recognized a state that has no business being a state. When Brazil and India note that they would only recognize Kosovo when Serbia did, that was the right path to take. Furthermore, the Bush Administration pushed for missile defence systems in the Czech Republic and Poland to protect Europe from an Iranian attack. I am not sure how putting such a shield in Poland protects Europe from Iran. No matter the intent, the Russians clearly felt that these were directed at them. With the prospects of Georgia and the Ukraine becoming NATO members, Russia was clearly unhappy at that. Georgia is paying the price of Western mistakes plus its own miscalculations. Much is yet unclear how this war was orchestrated but it does seem that Russia goaded Georgia into an armed intrusion into South Ossetia. It was a trap. The West now faces tough choices.

Obama’s calls seem more of his kumbaya oh lord kumbaya rhetoric that simply shows how out of touch the very junior Senator from Illinois is. The joke is that when Obama found out that Georgia had been attacked, he asked if Atlanta was okay. The corollary is that when McCain found out, he promised to send to General Sherman.

Georgia is lost. Let’s not lose the Ukraine. Putin has run circles around Bush, can you imagine Obama? At least with McCain, he has been sounding the alarm for a decade. Experience does count. So does realism and Obama on Georgia shows a fatal flaw. He is divorced from reality.

Hillary Still Trumps Obama on Leadership

2008-08-12T22:17:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/12/hillary-still-trumps-obama-on-leadership/

By Ani

As we have been hearing frightening reports of Russia’s actions against South Ossenia and beyond in Georgia, you might be interested to read this statement issued by Senator Hillary Clinton on Georgia and Ukraine on April 18, 2008:

I am deeply disturbed by the latest Russian actions regarding Georgia, and Russia’s broader policies towards its neighbors.

Several weeks ago I called on NATO to extend a Membership Action Plan (MAP) to Georgia and Ukraine at the Bucharest Summit. I emphasized that this move would be a litmus test for the success of President Bush’s leadership of the trans-Atlantic community. My support for MAP was based on the need to send a positive signal to Tbilisi and Kyiv to encourage them to stay on track with their positive reforms as well as to send a signal of our concern to Moscow about the future security of these countries.

I deeply regret President Bush’s inability to convince our NATO allies to take this action. This is the first time in memory a U.S. President has traveled to a NATO summit and failed to achieve his publicly proclaimed goals.

Now the Russian government has taken advantage of the lack of unity coming out of the Bucharest Summit to further ratchet up the pressure on young democracies on its borders. Moscow’s actions this week to strengthen ties with the separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia undermine the territorial integrity of the state of Georgia and are clearly designed to destabilize the government of President Mikheil Saakashvili.

Georgia is a small democratic state in a turbulent region. It must not be allowed to be undermined. Two weeks ago President Bush sat with President Putin in Sochi just a few kilometers away from the Georgian border. He prided himself on his close working relationship with Vladimir Putin. President Bush should call on the Russian leadership to immediately rescind these steps.

I also call on President Bush to immediately send a senior representative to Tbilisi to show our support for the government of Georgia. The United States should raise this matter in the United Nations Security Council, in a special 26+1 session of NATO’s North Atlantic Council (NAC), and in the NATO-Russia Council. Russia needs to hear a unified message from the United States and our European partners about our shared commitment to Georgia’s security and territorial integrity.

These are not the only Russian moves that I have found troubling. Senior Russian officials have engaged in a pressure campaign to prevent Ukraine from seeking deeper ties with NATO. President Putin even raised the prospect of retargeting nuclear missiles against Ukraine.

I am not advocating, nor do I envisage, a return to a new Cold War with Russia, which I believe ought to remain in the G-8, where the United States and its allies can together address our growing list of concerns with Moscow. But the current Administration’ s mishandling of Russian relations has contributed to Moscow’s belief that it can do as it pleases. America and its allies can and must do better.

Since Hillary is no longer ‘in the race,’ not wishing to upstage Senator Obama, I believe, she did not issue any further statement over the weekend, although clearly she has a deep understanding of this crisis and our role here. As reported previously, Senator McCain was also touted as a having a 3 A.M. moment on this issue.

In stark contrast, here was the ‘Statement from Senator Obama, on the Grave Situation in Georgia’ on his way to his Hawaiian vacation on August 8th:

“I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict. Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full scale war. Georgia’s territorial integrity must be respected. All sides should enter into direct talks on behalf of stability in Georgia, and the United States, the United Nations Security Council, and the international community should fully support a peaceful resolution to this crisis.”

I will point out that upon checking Senator Obama’s website just now, he has issued two subsequent statements after the one above, one that came on August 9th and one on the 11th — each of which, respectively, was longer and more detailed than the last and perhaps, more reflective of copying Senator McCain’s homework on the subject.

Hey, take a mulligan, Senator Obama – keep floating those statements till one clicks with the appropriate gravitas.

As you can see, Hillary required no such tutoring, but exhibited a very clear, detailed grasp of the crisis, well before it reached the boiling point, when she urged President Bush to act.

Here is the opening phrase of yesterday’s missive from Senator Obama:

The situation in Georgia continues to deteriorate because of the escalation of Russia’s use of military force. I have spoken to President Saakashvili, and conveyed my deep regret over the loss of life, and the suffering of the people of Georgia.

Why Obama would be calling President Saakashvili, I have no idea. Who is he? He is not yet the official Democratic nominee, never mind that he is not the President. A mere technicality, I suppose.

Between Senators Clinton and Obama, it is eminently clear who has a far stronger grasp of foreign policy issues and certainly on the economy, she is hands and feet above a man who does not even understand what a capital gains tax is – nor could he explain it when he was questioned by Charles Gibson during the ABC debate before the Pennsylvania primary.

Who is the DNC planning on coronating, er, nominating, again?

The San Francisco Chronicle’s top story, that Clinton Supporters are pushing to get her name into nomination, reports how diligently the Obama camp is working to block such a thing from happening:

“It’s a simple thing to do, and it’s the biggest sign of party unity,” said Laura Spanjian, a San Francisco-based Clinton delegate, who also supports the move.”

Clay Dougherty, another San Francisco delegate for Clinton, says that “if the situation were reversed, the Obama people would feel the same.”

Let’s imagine if the situation were reversed. Since Obama has asked that the FL and MI delegates be seated in full now, the magic number has reverted to the correct 2210. He does not possess that number. If Hillary did not have enough pledged delegates to seal the nomination — or super delegates for that matter, imagine if Hillary tried to prevent a roll call that would honor Barack’s historic candidacy. There would be hell to pay. And she would be paying it daily. Such behavior on her part would not be tolerated.

“For the first time in a generation, it’s been a close election … and this was such a unique situation,” he said, in which both the first major African American presidential candidate competed with the first major female presidential candidate. “We need to honor both candidates,” he said.

And many Democrats suggest that the move to accommodate her supporters may be politically smart…

[Texas Delegate Garry] Mauro insisted that since it was such a closely contested election, he is mystified as to why the Obama campaign is resisting and even balking at a roll call vote, according to some reports.

“Are these folks so new to politics, are they so arrogant that they think he’s different from every other nominee we’ve ever had?” he asks.

I guess I don’t need to answer Garry’s question.

Serrano Sewell even stated, in an attempt to assuage any worry on the part of the Obama camp, there is no connection between Hillary’s delegates and PUMA:

“We’re not trying to drag Obama down,” he said. “We’re Democrats. We’re precinct captains. We’re fundraisers. We’re the kind of Democrats Obama will need to win in November.”

Similar to Senator Obama’s lack of detailed understanding of foreign policy, so, too, his arrogance and political shortsightedness is clearly in evidence in preventing a roll call vote for Senator Clinton. Or shall I say, his fear is showing.

Again, this is not indicative of good leadership, of putting the country or the Party’s interests before his own.

A true leader would not wish to treat 18,000,000 voters and 1918 delegates disrespectfully. If, as Michelle Obama says, he is going to ‘heal our broken souls,’ how does he intend to do that by throwing millions under the bus in another show of pettiness, bullying and arrogance?

Regarding the current acts of Russian aggression, a true leader, as he claims to be, looking to demonstrate his readiness for the toughest job in the world, might stop to do his homework before realizing that the first “essay” he handed in was rather flimsy.

I know I am not wrong in wanting the truly qualified candidate to be our nominee. The one who needs no tutoring. Certainly, Hillary Clinton would know better than to do what Senator Obama did yesterday: indicate he would be announcing his pick for Vice President via text message. Some traditions do need to be adhered to. The world is watching.

Senator Obama’s action do not indicate respect – either for his V.P. choice, or for us.

That is not healing.

That does not indicate political knowledge, maturity or gravitas.

Lastly, that is certainly not good leadership.

Crotchety Jack Cafferty Calls The Denver Group “Humorless”?

2008-08-12T22:09:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/12/jack-cafferty-calls-denver-group-humorless/

By SusanUnPC

Cough. Jack, you old grouch. During the primaries, you might as well have had “I overlook no opportunity to undermine Hillary” stamped on your forehead. Here’s the crabby curmudgeon’s latest attack:

Some Hillary Clinton supporters want to make sure that the upcoming Democratic Convention doesn’t turn into a “coronation” of Barack Obama.

A humorless organization called “The Denver Group” ran an ad in a Capitol Hill newspaper demanding that Hillary’s name be placed in nomination at the convention and demanding that speeches be allowed in support of her nomination. They’re just full of demands. [HOW UNAMERICAN OF THE DENVER GROUP! Why, THEY’RE NO BETTER THAN THOSE GEORGIANS WITH ALL THEIR DEMANDS! FOR DEMOCRACY, NO LESS! HOW UNREASONABLE IS THAT?!?!?!? DEMANDING DEMOCRACY! SUCH RENEGADES!]

And if they don’t get their way they are threatening a revolt. The ad says, “Will Howard Dean and the DNC turn the Democratic Party into the Boston Tea Party?” More demands. They demand a roll call vote on her nomination… presumably after those speeches they are demanding. This despite the fact that she lost and dropped out of the race months ago. …

PHOTO CAPTION: Bitter old women complaining about undemocratic behavior. Ludmila Bigayeva-Kinkadze, an ethnic Ossetian woman married to a Georgian man, condemns the Russian-Georgian conflict at a rally near Vladikavkaz, the main city of North Ossetia, Russia, Tuesday, Aug. 12, 2008. The rally was a response to threats received by ethnic Georgians in the ethnically mixed village of Verkhnyaya Balta outside Vladikavkaz. (Via Yahoo News — AP Photo/Dmitry Lovetsky)

Check out The Denver Group’s latest ad, run in Roll Call.

Special thanks to Just Say No Deal for alerting us to this story.

Obama’s Coattails Just Got a Little Shorter

2008-08-11T22:39:00.001-07:00

Original Link: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/11/obama%e2%80%99s-coattails-just-got-a-little-shorter/

By Ani

According to The Washington Times’ article Centrist Voters Tilt from Obama:

Sen. Barack Obama is doing what Republicans once thought only a presidential candidacy by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton could do – united the right and center.

State Republican Party leaders interviewed by The Washington Times said fear of a far-left Obama presidency is warming once-skeptical voters to Sen. John McCain, fueling growing enthusiasm among Republicans that Mr. McCain’s more aggressive campaigning can lead to victory.

“It appears that the more that Obama speaks, the more afraid folks in South Carolina get,” said Spartanburg County Republican Party Chairman Rick Beltram. “We are seeing ‘die-hard’ Democrats tell us that Obama is not their man.

“We are expecting the white Democrats to be fleeing the Democratic ship when November 4 comes around – plus, the Democratic candidate [Bob Conley] that is running against Senator [Lindsey] Graham is also running away from the Democrats, and you can quote me on that,” Mr. Beltram said.

Holy Cow, Batman! This is one of the states Howard Dean said he could turn blue in the fall!!

Look, this is an article quoting some state party leaders and the conventions have not happened yet; all too true. But one of the DNC’s main reasons for pushing Obama was their confidence in picking up seats for down ticket Dems. That Democratic candidate for Senator Bob Conley is “running away from the Democrats” does not bode well. And we know he is not only one to have done so these last couple of months.

In union-dominated Michigan, a state targeted by both major parties, state Republican Party Chairman Saul Anuzis said he is seeing signs that independents and Reagan Democrats are moving toward Mr. McCain.

“People who may have been apprehensive about McCain now see this race as potentially winnable,” Mr. Anuzis said.

What accounts for this development?

Republicans credit Mr. McCain’s gains in recent weeks partly to the campaign’s new feisty, hard-hitting ads painting Mr. Obama as a self-absorbed celebrity who ducks meetings with wounded American troops and wants to raise taxes.

Couple that with the fact that foreign policy issues are coming to the fore once again with Russia attacking Georgia – McCain was widely touted as having his 3 A.M. moment this weekend and having been prescient on his warning about the dangers of Putin.

If Senator Clinton were still in the race, McCain would not be able to take advantage of this right now. Hillary would be way out in front with a specific call to action and policy recommendation – unlike Obama, making some vague, generalized statement about this new conflict, on his way to yet another vacation.

“People are getting more enthusiastic about McCain because he is getting more aggressive toward Obama, which makes Republicans and conservatives believe McCain actually can win,” said Jeffrey M. Frederick, the newly elected Republican Party chairman in Virginia.

“…the more people hear about Obama, the more enthusiastic they get about McCain,” Mr. Frederick said.

Uh. Isn’t it supposed to be the opposite? The more you hear about Obama, the more you like? Apparently as more people get to know the real Senator Obama, his poll numbers are sinking. Even his hugely touted foreign tour didn’t give him a bump.

People used to think they ‘hated’ Hillary – certainly reflecting the after-effects of 15 years of incessant media brainwashing by the Republican machine that did not want this lady to succeed – either with universal health care or any progressive agenda. She was labeled in the worst possible terms. Over the years, without knowing why, people started to think they agreed with those unfair assessments.

But a surprising thing happened out on the campaign trail – particularly in the last three months of the primary. Voters got to know her and hear her on the stump, and many were converted. In fact, some voters were left scratching their heads as to where this initial reputation came from. She also won a grudging respect from many on the Republican side who had previously been her detractors. I personally know many Republicans who had every intention of voting for her in November, confident of her preparedness, smarts on the economy as well as feeling safe with her centrist foreign policy.

In Indiana for example, despite being massively outspent, despite the negative drumbeat in the media and the dirty snarks of Pelosi et al, and no matter what voting shenanigans happened in the state, Hillary pulled out a win. Obama was supposed to take Indiana comfortably. It is, after all, his neighboring state. And now…:

“It’s the polls - it’s definitely happening,” said [Indiana] state Rep. Jackie Walorski, a Republican from Elkhart. “But it’s not that these hard-core conservatives I talked with at the county fair here are softening their attitudes toward McCain. They’re sliding toward him out of fear of a liberal Obama presidency, and they think McCain can win.”

In Michigan, Mr. Anuzis said, “the idea that McCain all of a sudden could win is generating a degree of excitement and involvement among people, many of whom may not have been very excited or motivated by McCain at the time he locked up the nomination.”

Jay Kenworthy, communications director for the Indiana Republican Party, said his state’s voters are getting to know Mr. Obama and not liking what they see. “We hear people saying, ‘McCain may not have been my guy, but we can’t afford Obama,’” he said.

But where are all those ‘Obamicans’ we kept hearing about back in February? It just might turn out they were just being “Democrats for a day” after all.

Mr. Kenworthy said a tax raiser who is weak on national defense - the image Republicans are trying to create for Mr. Obama - is “not a good combination in the Hoosier state.”

These are battleground states: South Carolina, Virginia, Indiana, Michigan. Wow.

How about Nevada?

“McCain is attracting independents and Hillary Democrats. The more time he spends in Nevada, the more people like him. It’s a small state and easy to reach out to voters,” [Nevada Republican Party Chairman Sue Lowden] said.

Uh oh.

Down ticket Democrats may have some reason to worry. Senator Obama’s fundraising may not be the continuing cornucopia his campaign bragged about. In the past week, I have received six fundraising letters from him. Just me. Obviously, I’m not sending him a dime. Why are they pushing so hard if they’re rolling in it? Even if he has plenty of dough, since Senator Obama decided to forego public financing, those running in state races have expressed unhappiness because his need to fundraise for his own election bid is cutting into contributions they might otherwise receive. Further, his policies, to the extent that he can stick to them, don’t seem to be registering very well out in the heartland.

It looks like the DNC was brainwashed, too, when it bought into the Clinton Derangement Syndrome that labeled Hillary as “divisive and polarizing” – turns out, she may not be after all. In fact, she would have been – and still is – the stronger choice. Just as she always predicted.

Divisive and polarizing?

It looks like Senator Obama may wind up being the man stuck with that moniker.

Obama’s Bin Laden Whopper

2008-08-11T22:26:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/11/obamas-bin-laden-whopper/

By Larry Johnson

How did Barack Obama turn a fabricated story into a well-played race card during the primaries?

Obama has been playing race card politics in this campaign for a long time, principally against Hillary Clinton. To be precise, he plays race baiting card politics, accusing others falsely of playing the race card against him.

Back in January, when Obama was posing as the victim of present and past acts of racial attacks he happened to mention a dramatic incident from his 2004 U.S. Senate campaign. Here’s the CNN report:

CNN/AP: Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Obama: It’s not all in the name

WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. Barack Obama doesn’t think name recognition is necessarily a plus as he seeks the Democratic Party presidential nomination in 2008.

“When your name is Barack Obama, you’re always an underdog in political races,” the Illinois Democrat said Wednesday.

Appearing on CNN, Obama said that when he was running for the Senate, “there was an image of me superimposed over a picture of (al Qaeda leader Osama) bin Laden. I think people like to play with my name.”

Pretty awful, Obama’s face morphed into Osama bin Laden’s. Unfortunately, there’s a problem with Obama’s account. It never happened. At least it didn’t happen to him. It did happen to then Senator Max Cleland, Democrat of Georgia, Vietnam War hero, in a vicious TV commercial put on the air by his Republican opponent.

This particular smear was pioneered earlier in 2004 in the Democratic presidential primary campaign against Howard Dean. He was the first person to watch his face morphed into Bin Laden’s. Who would engage in such a nasty, underhanded dirty trick? Karl Rove? Nope. Guess again. The perpetrator of this smear tactic was none other than Robert Gibbs, who just happens to be Obama’s communications director. Read the Chicago Tribune report:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-o…

“Obama’s communications director and one of his closest advisers was once employed by a group that ran a television ad shortly before the 2004 Iowa caucuses that used a picture of bin Laden to criticize Dean’s foreign policy credentials at a point when Dean was the Democratic front-runner.”

Here is that hateful video:

“At the time, Robert Gibbs was working with a shadowy group called Americans for Jobs, Health Care & Progressive Values. The so-called 527 political group paid for the ad but refused to disclose in a timely manner who was financing the effort because federal law did not require it to do so.”

Let’s get this straight: Obama told Democratic voters he had been smeared in 2004 in a way that never happened to him. But the one who invented the smear was someone he decided was so clever he hired him as his communications director. Then, through innuendo, Obama subtly suggested by inference that Hillary might use that tactic against him in the primaries, or smear him in similar ways. That in itself was a smear.

You’ve got to hand it to Obama. He got away smearing Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton as racists while playing the race card and the victim card himself. And nobody has yet to catch up to all the lies.

CNN - STOP the Media Bias against Senator Hillary Clinton

2008-08-11T19:32:00.001-07:00

Original Link: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/cnn-stop-bias-against-senator-hillary-clinton.html

by Lauren Francesca Hammond

This is a petition to end the constant Media Bias projected at the democratic nominee Senator Hillary Clinton, by the news network CNN.

Such bias that has consistently gone against Senator Clinton in favor of Senator Obama, has been explicit, untrustworthy and destroyed the credibility and faith that supporters of Senator Clinton have in CNN in bringing them an an objective and factual account of the primary process.

The news slant has been incredibly unfair and has ultimately hurt the Clinton Campaign beyond recognition - voters have been denied the ability to evaluate both candidates in a fair light, on their merits, abilities and achievements.

Not merely have CNN painting Senator Obama in a more favorable light, they have failed to cover in - depth the events that threaten to tarnish his credibility as a candidate; moreover the consistent and unrelenting criticism targeted at Senator Clinton has created the impression that she is the less experienced, less accountable and less colorable candidate.

It has consequentially created the illusion that Senator Obama is more honorable and deserving of positive coverage. This does nothing to aid voters in their efforts to understand or assess who they would choose to elect.

CNN as a commanding news network should know better and it has not merely been distasteful, but ultimately outrageous to watch such behavior being sanctioned - both in the analysis and reporting of the process.

We would urge CNN to examine its approach for the forthcoming primaries, and to strive towards a more balanced and veritable approach that allows voters and viewers to make the right decision, based on the right information.
Petition:
Please sign this petition against the distasteful and unfavorable treatment that CNN has displayed toward the democratic nominee Senator Hilary Clinton.

It is highly unfair and discriminatory to present a candidate in the light in which she has been consistently shown, and it is time for CNN to re-examine their approach in the way in which they choose to report the forthcoming primaries both on the air and on their website.

The favorable treatment of Senator Obama over Senator Clinton will not be tolerated and it is our responsibility as viewers to ensure that CNN is made aware of our objections and that a fair, more balanced approach much be taken in the future.

How John Edwards Helped Destroy Hillary

2008-08-10T21:39:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/10/how-obama-treats-labor/

By Larry Johnson

If the story were known last December of John Edwards’ “egocentric and narcissistic” sexual “liaison,” as he calls it, with a woman he says he wasn’t in love, at a time when he says his wife was in remission from cancer (strangest rationalization for an affair ever recorded in human history), there can be little doubt that today the strongest, best qualified candidate, Hillary Clinton, would be the Democratic nominee.

Instead Edwards stayed in the race, harboring his secret life, knowing that it was likely to be exposed and that if he were somehow to emerge from the primary pack he would be humiliated and obliterated, just as he is now.

In the meantime, knowing full well that he was damaged goods, Edwards engaged in a ferocious negative campaign against Hillary–not Obama.

In effect, he was acting as Obama’s running mate. And Obama benefited enormously from having Edwards do some dirty work against Hillary.

Here’s Edwards’ record of negative attacks against Hillary below. For this, more than for his human failings, he deserves scorn. EDWARDS:12/04/07 Edwards said Hillary puts ‘the profits of Wall Street over the interests of Main Street.’  [Source: Edwards Statement]

11/29/07 HEADLINE: Edwards Hammers Clinton by Taking Aim at Lobbyists  [Source: Wall Street Journal]

11/21/07 HEADLINE: Edwards gambles on attacking Clinton  [Source: Raleigh News & Observer]

11/18/07 HEADLINE: Edwards goes atomic on Hil for dodging nuclear energy question  [Source: Daily News]

11/18/07 HEADLINE: Edwards Criticizes Clinton over Iraq  [Source: AP]

11/18/07 Edwards: ‘Senator Clinton was not for universal health care at the beginning of this year, at the beginning of the campaign.’  [Source: CNN Late Edition]

11/18/07 Edwards said Hillary wants to ‘protect politicians instead of talking about what we can do together.’ [Source: CNN Late Edition]

11/18/07 Edwards said Hillary was ‘walking away from [her] leadership role as a presidential candidate. [Source: CNN Late Edition]

11/15/07 Edwards said Hillary ‘continues to defend a system that does not work, that is broken, that is rigged and is corrupt.’  [Source: Democratic Debate, CNN]

11/14/07 HEADLINE: Edwards criticizes Clinton at Dubuque labor event  [Source: AP]

11/12/07 HEADLINE: Edwards criticizes Clinton for ‘double talk’  [Source: AP]

11/12/07 Edwards chief advisor Joe Trippi: ‘Let’s kick her ass.’  [Source: Politico.com]

11/10/07 Edwards said ‘Sen. Clinton in many ways represents the status quo.’  [Source: Politico.com]

11/06/07 Edwards accused Hillary of ‘double talk and evasions.’  [Source: CNN]

11/05/07 HEADLINE: Edwards Accuses Clinton of Two-Faced Foreign Policy  [Source: Fox News]

11/04/07 Edwards said that Hillary ‘operates within a corrupt system and defends it.’  [Source: ABC News]

11/02/07 Edwards accuses Hillary of ’spin, smoke and mirrors — the same kind of double talk.’  [Source: CNN.com]

10/31/07 Edwards said Hillary ‘is trying to have it both ways.’  [Source: AP]

10/30/07 Edwards: ‘If people want the status quo, Senator Clinton’s your candidate’:  [Source: MSNBC Debate]

10/30/07 Edwards compares believing Hillary will be ‘the person who brings change’ to believing in ‘Santa Claus’ and ‘The Tooth Fairy.’  [Source: MSNBC Debate]

10/29/07 Edwards says Hillary was not in ‘tell the truth mode.’  [Source: Foster’s]

10/28/07 HEADLINE: Edwards accuses Clinton of failing to connect with voters  [Source: AP]

10/25/07 HEADLINE: Edwards blasts Clinton, Romney on Iran  [Source: AP]

10/23/07 Edwards advisor said that Hillary would have ‘toxic coattails.’  [Source: LA Times]

10/21/07 HEADLINE: Edwards attacks Clinton fundraiser  [Source: United Press International]

10/19/07 HEADLINE: Edwards campaign slams Clinton push for rural vote  [Source: Boston Globe]

10/19/07 Edwards Campaign manager says Hillary ’should explain why she does not mean what she says.’  [Source: Bonior Statement]

10/08/07 Edwards spokeswoman says Hillary is ‘defending a rigged system in Washington.’  [Source: Washington Post]

09/18/07 HEADLINE: Edwards hammers Clinton on health care  [Source: Chicago Tribune]

09/18/07 HEADLINE: Edwards slams Clinton fundraising lunch  [Source: AP]

09/08/07 HEADLINE: Edwards slams Clinton on health care [Source: AP]

09/08/07 HEADLINE: Edwards Takes On Special Interests, Hits Clinton  [Source: AP]

08/27/07 Edwards advisor says Edwards ‘has a better chance of being elected pope’ than Hillary elected president. [Source: Washington Post]

08/24/07 HEADLINE: Edwards takes shots at Clinton ‘nostalgia’  [Source: Chicago Tribune]

08/23/07 HEADLINE: Edwards slams Clinton, ‘establishment elites’  [Source: CNN.com]

08/07/07 Edwards said I am not “the candidate that big corporate America is betting on.” [Source: AFL-CIO Forum]

07/24/07 Edwards said ‘we will not have big change through compromise or triangulation.’ [Source: Atlanta Journal Constitution]

06/07/07 Headline: ‘Edwards Assails Clinton’s Terror Remarks’ [Source: AP]

05/04/07 Edwards called Hillary’s proposal to deauthorize the Iraq war ‘just noise.’ [Source: Edwards statement]

02/05/07 Headline: ‘Edwards Steps Up Hill War’ [Source: New York Post]

How Obama Treats Labor

2008-08-10T21:30:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/10/how-obama-treats-labor/

By SusanUnPC

This is from LaborPains.org, a pro-labor, pro-union blog. The title tells the story:

Stood Up and Hung Up

Then blogger J. Justin Wilson tells the story:

I just got off the AFL-CIO’s kick-off conference call with Obama. What a tragedy of errors.

First of all, Sen. Obama was about 40 minutes late to the show. You can image how fantastic 40 minutes of Muzak went over. Finally, John Sweeney introduced Obama.

Next …

After rattling off nearly the exact same speech he delivered a few months ago to the AFL-CIO (see above), Obama proceeded to hang up. Click. Just like that.

Someone at the AFL-CIO muttered something like “is that it?” and then we went back to hold music.

A lady came back on and made an excuse, saying Obama’s line was cut off and that he would come back on the call. Minutes pass, and then she came back on and said that Obama had left the building. …

Go to “Stood Up and Hung Up” to view a video and to listen to the actual phone call.

Oh well. I completely understand.

It is such an annoyance to have to talk to those “typical” little people.

Barack Obama has a media problem

2008-08-10T21:17:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/jon-friedmans-media-web-obamas/story.aspx?guid=%7BB9117539%2DF95B%2D4518%2D9F05%2DE3101B7695BF%7D&dist=hplatest

By Jon Friedman, MarketWatch

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- I'm starting to worry about Barack Obama.

From a journalistic perspective, he seemed like such a refreshing departure from the oft-paranoid media relations practiced by Bill and Hillary Clinton and the two George Bushes.

Now I'm not so sure.

Too often, Obama and his handlers have overreacted to what we've come to accept as frivolous, basically harmless "coverage" by the celebrity-obsessed mainstream media.

Two examples of him getting his back up: Obama made a federal case of the appearance by his daughters on "Access Hollywood" and he was snippy with reporters when he was pressed about his unexpected email friendship with actress Scarlett Johansson.

Sure, these are minor events. But if he is going to be anal about the small stuff, it may get ugly if he loses his composure about something important.

Obama has staked his claim by offering American voters a fresh voice and a strong sense of optimism about the future. When he was on the way up, he was the favorite son of the media, who heaped almost unprecedented praise on him. Now that he has all but secured the Democratic nomination, Obama has shown little patience for standard media practices, which can range from silly to stupid.

The Obama team may still think the "old" rules apply. By old, I'm referring to the kid-gloves treatment the media gave him when he was an up and comer and Hillary Clinton was heavily favored to secure the Democratic nomination.

Even before Obama stunned Clinton by winning the Iowa caucus, the first high-profile showdown between the rivals last fall, the media had all but decreed that Obama would be their darling, the one who could do no wrong.

If Obama was designated "hero," the media had to find a "villain" to complete the convenient story line and, of course, Hillary Clinton was consigned to wear the black hat.

That was then. Now, Obama and his staff must accept the reality that the game has changed as he prepares to battle John McCain. As PBS anchor Jim Lehrer told me a few weeks ago, it wasn't so long ago that McCain was the media's darling. See related column.

The story line the media love best is to hail the candidate who was down, but not out, and somehow rallied to achieve a stirring victory. This is McCain's saga over the past year.

Obama has to realize that he will be subject to increasing scrutiny as the campaign really heats up. What we've seen so far is the orchestra tuning up. The real show begins after Labor Day, as the Obama-McCain debate season begins to take shape.

The mainstream media, as well as bloggers who have a point of view, will seek to exploit any situation as way to create news. Don't forget that all hell broke loose when the New Yorker, which you'd think was solidly behind Obama in his fight against McCain, published (I thought) a biting and witty look at the stereotypical way many Americans view Barack and Michelle Obama. See related column.

Still, some accused the magazine of exploiting Obama and his wife. Others said it was a racially insensitive cover. These critics completely missed the point that the New Yorker was mocking bigots in the strongest fashion. Or, perhaps, they wanted to miss the point as a way to advance their arguments.

Members of Barack Obama's campaign thought he got a raw deal from the media during his battle with Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic nomination. Perhaps they were just trying to stir an argument because any fair-minded observer could see that Clinton was the one should have felt mistreated by the press.

Obama had better toughen up -- fast. The media spotlight -- or is it a glare? -- will only get brighter in the months leading up to Election Day. Expect the incessant charges that Obama is too inexperienced and unprepared to be president and a Pollyanna cockeyed optimist to get more shrill, too.

Obama has resented the media for treating him like a presidential candidate -- someone with a personal life, a family and a past. He had better get used to it. The pace is sure to quicken between now and Election Day.

And you win, Mr. President-Elect, look out. Things can only get worse.

Obama shifts affirmative action rhetoric

2008-08-10T12:10:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12421.html

By DAVID PAUL KUHN

No Democratic candidate for president has ever come so close to calling for an end to the era of identity-based affirmative action as has Barack Obama.

Since 2004, the first black major party nominee from either party has been offering comments suggesting that economic status should match or even trump race and gender as a criteria for who should benefit from the program — though he has yet to propose a specific policy, let alone one that matches his rhetoric.

After four decades of affirmative action, Obama’s historic candidacy itself is seen by some as proof that such programs are no longer needed.

“A lot of non-black people will say that the election of Barack Obama is now proof we don’t need affirmative action,” said Democratic House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, who is concerned by the notion. Clyburn added that in an Obama administration he’d like to head up an affirmative action task force that would consider class to some degree but maintain the current emphasis on race and gender.

It’s not clear if a President Obama would be interested in such a task force — or, for that matter, if or how he’d change affirmative action, since at different times he’s offered seemingly contradictory opinions on the subject, as has John McCain.

In recent weeks, affirmative action, a hot issue in previous elections, has returned to the presidential political debate, owing to comments by Obama and McCain and ballot initiatives proposing to end racial, ethnic and gender preferences in all taxpayer-funded programs — from university admissions to government contracts — in Arizona, Colorado and Nebraska.

On the one hand, Obama opposes the current state ballot measures (McCain supports them), thus offering at least de facto support for the current policy that gives preference to minorities and women and is rooted in the programs begun by President Kennedy and later significantly expanded by President Nixon.

On the other hand, Obama’s said that his two daughters should not be given preferential treatment, owing to their relatively privileged upbringing, and has called for government to “craft” a policy “in such a way where some of our children who are advantaged aren't getting more favorable treatment than a poor white kid who has struggled more.”

Such hints of a possible new policy focus are a relatively recent development from Obama, who once said that he had “undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action” in his own academic career, though he didn’t specify at what institution he had so benefited. Friends have since recalled him saying that he did not list his race on his Harvard Law School application, though the candidate has said only that "I have no way of knowing whether I was a beneficiary of affirmative action either in my admission to Harvard or my initial election to the Review. If I was, then I certainly am not ashamed of the fact, for I would argue that affirmative action is important precisely because those who benefit typically rise to the challenge when given an opportunity.”

While as a presidential candidate he tends to draw attention to the diversity of the people he met as a community organizer after graduating from Harvard, in his 1995 memoir “Dreams From My Father: A story of race and inheritance,” Obama stresses that he settled in Chicago with the idea of "organizing black folks at the grass roots for change."

As a state senator representing the 13 district on the South Side of Chicago, he deemed traditional, race-oriented affirmative action “absolutely necessary,” and pushed hard for programs that mandated race and gender-based hiring preferences.

In the 2004 Democratic Convention keynote speech that catapulted him onto the national stage, he began publicly offering a broader view on race, famously saying, "There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America — there's the United States of America."
In his 2006 tome, “The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream” — the difference in tone is nicely captured in the subtitle’s repurposing of the word “dream” — he wrote, “An emphasis on universal, as opposed to race-specific, programs isn’t just good policy: It’s also good politics.”

If Obama does propose a new preferences program based on class, not race, poll numbers suggest it would indeed be “good politics.” A Rasmussen poll published last week found that 58 percent of Americans opposed government programs that offered “special treatment to women and minorities,” compared to 26 percent who support such a policy.

Though hardly a top issue for most voters, a majority of Americans believe a candidate’s “position on affirmative action programs is important in determining how they will vote,” according to Rasmussen.

An analysis of surveys by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press shows that a majority of whites are of two minds about affirmative action, with most supporting the idea of government programs that make “special efforts” to “make up for past discrimination” and yet most opposing programs that directly favor minorities and women.

When race and gender are removed from the equation, support increases dramatically: A 2005 Pew poll found that nearly nine out of ten whites reported support for a policy that would help Americans from “low income brackets” to “get ahead.”

While a new, class-based affirmative action would still largely aid those minorities, including blacks, that are overrepresented amongst the poor and working class — in fact, officials in California have attempted to use income as a proxy for race-based preferences after voters disallowed their use in a referenda — Obama has yet to offer any specific plan of his own.

“Obama is missing an enormous opportunity because a lot of those who are skeptical [of him] could close escrow on him if he could give some very visible explanation of his non-raciality,” said Ward Connerly, the former University of California regent who is funding the three anti-affirmative action measures on state ballots this year, and who has previously pursued such measures successfully in California, Washington and Michigan.

Connerly believes such a stance would lose Obama only a small part of his black support while allowing him to “make far larger gains” among whites.

Obama, though, has kept his policy views close to his vest while maintaining his opposition to Connerly, who has fared far better at the ballot box than in the legislative hall.

Obama told a convention of minority journalists in Chicago last month that “I am disappointed that John McCain flipped and changed his position. I think in the past he had been opposed to these kinds of Ward Connerly referenda or initiatives as divisive. And I think he’s right.”

In 1998 McCain did characterize a similar proposed anti-affirmative action measure in Arizona as “divisive,” though that proposal never made it on to the ballot. Over the years however, McCain has generally opposed affirmative action programs, and called for a new, economic-based system to replace the current race and gender-based one.

While ballot initiatives appear to have increased turnout in non-presidential years, “there is precious little evidence that these ballot initiatives drive up turnout in the presidential election,” notes Kenneth Bickers, who directs the political science department at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

For this reason Bickers doesn’t expect the ballot initiatives there to directly impact who wins Colorado, which many expect to be a key swing state this fall.

"I don’t think he is missing an opportunity on affirmative action," said Clyburn. “Affirmative action ought never to be used on simply color," he continued. Rather, it is needed " when the color of one’s skin puts one in a position of being treated unequally."

Bickers, though, believes race-based affirmative action works against Obama: “It racializes the campaign in a sense that Obama has been trying to avoid.”

Even after Obama’s call for a “national conversation on race” following the emergence of inflammatory comments by his longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, he’s engaged the topic of race very selectively, even declining to speak to The New York Times for an article on that very conversation.

Obama, Bickers went on, “needs a very large black turnout in several key states. And if he takes a position that suppresses the enthusiasm of potential voters who are [supporters of] affirmative action, then he’d be in trouble,” he said.

Polls have consistently shown Obama’s support among blacks at over 90 percent, and given the popularity of class-based affirmative action among whites, embracing that view could earn him considerably more new white votes than the black votes he might lose.

Obama, said Bickers, “could use it if he wanted to have his own Sister Souljah moment about affirmative action to redefine it in economic terms and that would play in to a post-racial candidacy."

Why I Turned PUMA

2008-08-10T10:24:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/09/why-i-turned-puma/

By LisaB

I’ve given a lot of thought to why I turned PUMA. On paper, I should be a loyal Democrat excited about this year’s “break-through” candidate.

But I’m not. I will not vote for Obama under any circumstances I can think of (well, OK, if Cheney became the Republican nominee, I’d go for Obama).

Given my history of voting for AA and Democratic candidates, this really doesn’t make sense, does it?

Hillary was never the perfect candidate. Luckily, I didn’t expect her to be. I expected she would sometimes disappoint me and take a position I disagreed with. Such is life, quite frankly. I was initially intrigued by Obama - a fresh face and a promise of change. But as the season wore on, I settled on Hillary. Why?

Read the rest ->

Hillary has a history of giving a damn. That’s rare enough in today’s Washington. More rare is someone who gives a damn and has been giving a damn for years. Any read of Hillary’s resume shows deep experience and any talk with her will show you this lady knows her stuff.

And.

As a woman, Hillary has long experience watching men in power. She knows the fault lines of that power and how it often misses the concerns of more than half the population - women and children. She “got it.” Even if I disagreed with her on an issue, I knew it wouldn’t be because Hillary didn’t understand what it is like to be a working woman, mother or someone condescended to on a regular basis.

That meant a lot. Policy might or might not change much under Hillary, but I had a sense that it would certainly be more nuanced to include everyone. What could be more revolutionary today? Really? It’s often the subtle change that has the biggest impact.

But the DNC selected inexperience with an attitude. Even worse, a candidate whose very reason to run was as a “break-through” candidate shows absolutely no “break-through” policies or attitudes. We got race-baiting and a stunning disregard for people of good will who might disagree. We got misogyny freely and subtly applied and applied with a trowel. We got the newbie / juvenile “face scratch” and campaign music with “message lyrics.”

We also got an example of a race-fueled scorched-earth policy and execution of the same. How else do you explain the utter destruction of the Clinton history of working for the AA community? Disagreement from time to time? Sure. But the label of racist? Uncalled for. That’s truly wanton destruction, without regard for truth, history or people. Completely amoral and without any justification.

The willingness to “nuke” the Clintons in this manner means no one is safe. No matter your intentions, history or work, the “safety” is off and you, too, can be forever labeled a racist or just dropped forever like former “friends” and “mentors.”

Nothing and no one matters - not even if you vote for this man or support him, not even if you are the grandmother who raised him.

My vote for Hillary was a vote for experience, a woman’s perspective, a “stick-to-it” philosophy of working the problem and sheer intelligence. Competence, a willingness to work hard and an attitude of “never give up” completed the package for me. After 8 years of Bush, what could possibly be more different?

But none of that matters now. All of my reasons to vote for someone got shoved under the label of racism at one time or another during this campaign. Experience was turned into “working for the man,” a woman’s perspective got turned into “she periodically lashes out,” “stick-to-it philosophy” got turned into “take her into a back room until only one comes out.” Competence got turned into “likable enough” and “bitch” in campaign music, a willingness to work hard and a “never give up” attitude got turned into ungraciousness and unwillingness to, for-god’s-sake step-the-hell-aside.

That’s not just an attack against a rival, that’s an attack against the very things I’m looking for in a candidate. The Democratic party isn’t even offering me “half a loaf.” Their scorched earth policy has crisped me up, and the completely naked power grab by the party and its number one man has been breathtaking to watch. McCain is by no means perfect, but he didn’t shoved me under the bus. I’m there, courtesy of the “democratic” party.

And half a loaf is still better than nothing.

Obama’s Impending Pearl Harbor

2008-08-10T10:16:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/09/obamas-impending-pearl-harbor/

By Larry Johnson

After a very productive time (working, not playing) in Hawaii, I believe that the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor is an apt metaphor for what awaits Barack Obama if he becomes the Democrat’s official nominee. Michelle’s “whitey” tape and the controversy over his birth certificate are the least of his concerns. Opponents of Obama and some proponents of McCain have acquired information that will rapidly erase any memory of the audacity and perfidy of John Edwards.

The “surprise” attack by the Japanese should not have caught the US fleet at Pearl Harbor unawares. There were advanced warnings that people in key positions ignored or shrugged off as unimportant. Well, guess what boys and girls? Similar warnings are now in the hands of the Democratic leadership and they are choosing to ignore the flashing red lights that signal danger ahead.

Just today, courtesy of the Rocky Mountain News, we confirmed that Barack aka Barry Soetoro Obama was a citizen of Kenya since 1963. Barack has yet to stipulate when he renounced or relinquished that citizenship. That will be a distracting issue in the upcoming campaign. Americans don’t want to elect a Kenyan as President. It is that simple.

But then there is the Indonesian problem and his Hawaiian birth certificate.

I confirmed today that several teams/individuals visited Jakarta during the last six months to gather up critical documents regarding Barack. It is amazing what money can buy. The information includes details of how Barack made his way to Pakistan. Oh! Did I mention there have been similar efforts underway in Pakistan. There are several lessons and warnings in the John Edwards affair for Obama. First and foremost, you cannot hide your past.

Did I also mention how small Hawaii is? Republican operatives, with help from their own island backers, have unearthed critical information on Obama and are just biding their time until after the convention to drop it on him. Such as? Having a birth certificate that lists you as Barry Soetoro.

Barack aka Barry Soetoro might have escaped scrutiny back in 1960 when there was no internet. Controlling information back then was so much easier. Not today. It is there for the taking and the Democrats foolishly chose to trust this clown just as they trusted John Edwards.

Who would have thought that John Edwards and his wife would be so arrogant and so disconnected with reality that they would embark on a presidential campaign even though they knew about his affair and the crazy nature of his paramour. Well, that kind of audacity and bamboozlement is not limited to the Edwards family. Meet the Obamas. You don’t know them? Don’t worry, Republican operatives are loaded for bear and you are going to meet a Barack Obama that was hidden and disguised during the Democratic primary. And when the introduction is over the Obama supporters will wish the only thing they had to worry about was a video with Michelle saying disparaging things about caucasians.

Dems. You’ve been warned. Don’t be surprised when the attacks come.

Oh, Hillary…

2008-08-10T10:12:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/10/oh-hillary/

By Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy

It just pains me that you have to go out campaigning for Obama while he and his family dig around in Hawaii and try to find a birth certificate that dosn’t look forged - um - I mean, get some much deserved rest (I know - I could barely type that out without cracking up myself. It’s HARD to be the Messiah, you know?!?)?

After all the DNC and Obama have done to you, it just makes me ill. I know you’re between a rock and a hard place - one the DNC and Barry put you between. I know it, I see it, but holy cow, he should be stumping for YOU! But there you go with your most awesome self, talking to the people, showing them how wonderful you are, how brilliant, how thoughtful and possible your policies are, especially now, with Georgia and Russia fighting, with tensions mounting in the Middle East, with that 3:00 a.m. call coming for real…

Wait a second. Now, just hold on - this is freakin’ BRILLIANT!!!!!! Yes, by all means, Obama, you just go away for a respite, and let HILLARY go around the country talking to the people - BEFORE THE CONVENTION HAS HAPPENED!!!

Abso-freakin’-lutely, you just run along, and let the GROWN UP do the talking.

People will be reminded of what a far superior candidate SHE is, and what a slouch YOU are, especially in the answering questions department, or talking department, or policy department…By all means - take all the time you want! Aloha!!

Come to think of it, as Diamond Tiger wrote in an awesome post yesterday, if Obama now wants to have all of the delegates restored, that would make the difference between the two only 59 delegates (nod to Marc Rubin for writing about that! FIFTY-NINE!!! That is statistically insignificant. It is statically MEANINGLESS. So, if the delegates are restored, as they SHOULD be anyway in a DEMOCRATIC manner (both small and Big “D” way), Obama should not be the presumed candidate. It’s basically a TIE, people.

And by “People”, I mean YOU, Super Delegates! Stop this foolishness already. Stop pushing this guy who is more secretive than DUBYA!! A guy who refuses to even present his REAL birth certificate! Who will not allow ANY of his records, college or grad school, to be released! The guy who has the same attitude problems toward the media that Bush has? Who cannot come up with his own policies?? Are you KIDDING me?? When Hillary Clinton goes out on the road soon, LISTEN. WATCH. THAT is a real leader. And a real leader is just what we need in these times. So stop messing around, forget about who gave you more money - pay attention. And cast your SD vote for the BEST candidate, not the hand-picked candidate. Do it for your country.

Here’s another action for you, again, courtesy of the amazing GeekLove on Donna Brazile, Obama’s puppeteer:

Why Obama Must Lose: One Progressive’s Opinion

2008-08-10T10:08:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/10/why-obama-must-lose-one-progressives-opinion/

By Bud White

The Just Say No Deal/PUMA movement is evidence of a deep rift in the Democratic Party, one I believe the polls are not reflecting. Contrary to what the neo-liberals may say, the movement is not comprised of bitter old women — although many are bitter, many are women, and some are perhaps old. Instead, this deepening divide is the classic split of any political organization during a power struggle. The Daley Machine gave way to McGovern; and Goldwater conservatism rebuked Rockefeller’s liberalism.

But this movement has a twist: Obama lacks legitimacy. The continuation of this rift is not about Hillary “losing.” Clintonistas, like myself, know that losing elections and having your heart broken is the inevitable risk of politics. Anglachel writes:

With John Edwards in the news these days, I have been reflecting on the theme of “Two Americas” and have applied a twist that more accurately reflects the two Americas within the Democratic Party - those whose bigotry and biases are excused because they are of the right class and those whose flaws are inexcusable, even when the flaws do not exist.

This “class” split in the Democratic Party is much more than an economic split. As Anglachel suggests, it is evidence of a values divide. These values are not the black-and-white split of abortion. Instead, this divide is a matter of emphasis. Obama talks about access to health care, but he doesn’t offer a universal plan. Obama criticized Hillary for her Iraq War vote, but he wasn’t in the senate to vote. Obama lectures Americans to learn Spanish–an irony not missed by many– a language he doesn’t speak.

But the differences of emphasis were not themselves the deal-breaker. The deal-breaker, I believe, was about Obama’s tactics in the campaign and the Democratic Party’s complete bias and vote-rigging for their chosen candidate. Donna Brazile’s embarrassing performance at the RBC was so transparent in its bias that she became the most visible Obama shill massaging rules for her candidate, all the while lecturing us on rules. Do they really think we’re that stupid?

Clintonistas, and now PUMAs, are revolted by four major issues. This is by no means an all-inclusive list, but includes the followings:

(1) The Democratic Nomination was Stolen

garyinchapelhill writes about Obama’s lack of legitimacy resulting from a stolen nomination:

Obama’s decision to return full voting status to delegates from Michigan and Florida does not make up for the fact that the RBC stole delegates from the uncommitted voters, as well as all write in votes, AND 4 of Hillary’s delegates. Until that travesty is corrected the votes of those delegates can not be considered legitimate.

And Marc Rubin of The Denver Group considers Obama’s current flip flop on Florida and Michigan as a ploy to entice disgusted Democrats into the fold:

Florida and Michigan were one of the earliest examples of how dishonest, two faced underhanded and fraudulent Obama can be, when he claimed in speeches that he stood for “voices being heard” and “every vote must count”, and then clamped his hand over the mouths of almost 3 million voters in Florida and Michigan because he didn’t like what those voices were saying, which was a loud “go home”. And in all likelihood are still saying “go home and will continue to say it. Clinton beat him by landslide numbers in both states and this little act of political self preservation isn’t going to fool anyone. Anyone, even an Obama supporter can see it’s nothing more than another cynical political ploy to try and win back voters who were disgusted with him a long time ago because he needs them now.

(2) Obama Race-Baited the Clintons

Obama’s race speech was compared to Lincoln by his sycophants in the media. It was closer to Nixon’s infamous “Checkers” speech, a disingenuous, hateful piece of sophistry created to dove-tail with white liberal guilt. The conflation of Jeremiah Wright’s homicidal racism with Geraldine Ferraro’s simple observation was only the most glaring evidence of Obama’s tactics. Anglachel points out that Obama’s demonizing of low income whites was a basic political calculation:

working class voters are not the socio-economic slice of the “white” vote that votes Republican. They are the least likely portion of white voters to do so, which is part of what made the constant slamming of this group so infuriating during the primaries. This was the slice of the white demographic most likely to vote for Hillary, and that was the reason they were being singled out for shaming and insults.

And Alegre puts her finger on why PUMAs find Obama unacceptable:

I think I can speak for millions of Hillary’s 18 millions supporters when I say that Camp Obama stepped over a serious line when they tarred the Clintons as racists in the lead-up to the SC primary (and since). Those attacks were simply unforgivable and may be a big reason (among many!) why many of us won’t get on that unity pony of Howie’s.

(3) Obama Attacked Hillary from the Right

Attacking Hillary from the Right was not by itself a deal-breaker. But the fact that Obama went after Hillary on health care — after everything she had fought for in the 1990s — was a disgraceful appropriation of Right Wing tactics and talking points. As SusanUnPC writes:

The sad reality, of course, is that Obama has no fealty to commitments over issues. Issues are merely fodder to be used to grab what he seeks above all else: Victory…Now, every politician has to be focused on winning. But most politicians have some issues about which they genuinely care and are knowledgeable about. Obama doesn’t seem to hold any issues dear.

(4) The Democrat Party Rejects Racism, Embraces Sexism

Democratic Party leaders and Obama supporters stayed silent while egregious misogyny was leveled against Mrs. Clinton. As feminist blogger Violet Socks said to me, the silence from our “brothers” on the Left regarding this sexism has been one of the most disappointing political events in the annals of progressivism. So we must have an accounting, and a defeat. There are worse things than losing elections, and I believe we have just witnessed them during the primaries. Obama’s use of sexist stereotypes against Hillary gave cultural permission for the venom against Hillary. It was outside the realm of acceptable behavior for a Democratic politician, and must be vehemently rejected. Voting for Obama is condoning tactics which are anathema to why we are Democrats in the first place.

Lynette Long writes:

I am not Lolita. I will not crawl back into bed with a party that raped me. I will not stay in an abusive relationship because I have nowhere else to go. I will not be placated by a pat on the head or a worthless trinket. I will not spend the rest of my life waiting for tomorrow or listening to people tell me that today is better than yesterday.

Defeat is Good

Just as Barry Goldwater’s defeat by Johnson in 1964 was considered the end of the conservative movement, Obama’s victory is seen by the neo-liberals as a rejection of third-way progressivism. However, the PUMA movement is not an end but a beginning. It’s not the continuation of Bill Clinton’s moderate policies, but a movement of dedicated progressives who embraced Mrs. Clinton’s far more bold agenda, an agenda more analogues to FDR than Bill Clinton, and one which is much more progressive than Obama’s. Our nascent movement parallels the rise of the conservative movement:

All the pundits saw the size of Goldwater’s defeat. Almost none grasped the implications of the fact that the Goldwater campaign had twice as many volunteers as Johnson’s — or that while 66,000 people donated to the Kennedy and Nixon campaigns of 1960, over a million gave to Barry Goldwater in 1964. Among other things [it is an] account of how a rebellious and at first marginal political faction moved toward power reminds us of the dynamic character of politics and the dangers of static analysis

I am a Democrat because I believe in universal health care, because I despise racism, race-baiting, and sexism, and because I believe in the democratic process. On all these counts, our Party has failed us. We must rid our Party of race-baiting, sexism, and vote stealing, and return our Party to its glorious heritage of patriotism, equal opportunity, and care for the most vulnerable.

Thanks to Medusa for her help with this essay.

Empty Suit Barack Obama In Portland Oregon Crowd of 75,000

2008-08-10T09:59:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://www.gulflive.com/opinion/mississippipress/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1217326515151840.xml
By Jeff Johnson

At least some members of the much-touted crowd of 75,000 people at a May 18 rally in Portland for Barack Obama may have been there, in part, to see a popular local band that normally opens its concerts with the national anthem -- of the former Soviet Union.

National media outlets have widely reported estimates of between 72,000 and 75,000 people in attendance at Obama's rally. What th More..ey have largely failed to report, however, is that many in the crowd may have attended as much for a free concert as to express their support for the Democratic frontrunner.

"The rally drew 75,000 people, but the media did not give any credit to the opening act, The Decemberists, who are wildly popular in Portland," says Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Media Institute of the Media Research Center. "I'm not saying that Obama wouldn't have drawn a big crowd, but certainly when you have a band that popular opening for him on a beautiful day, that probably should have been mentioned [by the media]."

By not mentioning the band, Knight says, the media has been able to avoid a well-known fact about The Decemberists. "You'd think the media would find it interesting that a presidential candidate had a band open for him that typically plays the Soviet national anthem, the song that celebrates communism in Russia," Knight says. "But the media has taken no interest in it."

Obama is an empty suit

2008-08-10T09:56:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://www.gulflive.com/opinion/mississippipress/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1217326515151840.xml

By Stuart Beardslee

Once again Sen. Obama tried to dazzle us with his brilliant oratory skills while in Germany.

Sen. Obama has a great gift of gab but is totally lacking in his knowledge of history. During his attempt at eloquence he stated that the fall of the Berlin Wall was an example of what can happen when all nations speak as one. This one statement shows just what an empty suit this man is.

Those of us who lived during this period know that there were two major powers at that time -- the Soviet Union and the United States of America. We also remember that the Soviet Union had its nuclear armament pointed at the United States and western Europe.

It was during this time that this country had a leader named Ronald Reagan who had the courage to face this evil empire and make a move that brought demonstrators to the streets in the hundred of thousands. He installed the Pershing Missile System in Western Europe and Western Germany, all aimed at the Soviet Union.

At the same time the SDI, or Space Defense Initiative, was inaugurated, which was given the label of Star Wars. This system was designed to take out any launched missile.

Since the Soviet union did not have the resources at the time to counter this threat Mr. Gorbachev came to the peace table and when President Reagan made the statement, "Mr. Gorbachev, Open up this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, Tear down this wall," he had no choice but to comply.

It was not all nations coming together, it was the United States of America exercising its world leadership that brought the wall down.

Mr. Obama has shown once again that he does not care for truth if distortion will serve him better. It is also apparent that the drive-by media finds this totally acceptable behavior, for not one of their anchors made any attempt to point out this falsification of historical fact. All they want is to be blessed by his holiness and to continue to receive his favor. America be afraid; be very afraid.

Obama: Another empty (Brooks Brothers) suit

2008-08-10T09:53:00.001-07:00

Original Link: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71850

By Kathleen Willey

As Barak Obama barnstormed around Europe last week, the thought occurred that we aren't looking at a man, nor are we observing the not-yet officially nominated presidential candidate. We are looking at a "brand." Barack Obama has been branded. We are looking at the result of "Mad Men" at their finest. We are looking at an image. Think "Marlboro Man."

Every moment is designed. Every photo-op is choreographed. Every background is contrived. Every word is practiced, which makes one wonder if any of his thoughts are his own. Where is his core? Does he even have one? Who is this man who glides into every room channeling Henry Fonda?

Does he have a "stylist" like George's Clooney's, who chooses all of his clothing for Oscar night or movie premieres? Does his stylist match his suit to each occasion? Does he don his Armani attire on the West Coast and his Brooks Brothers on the East? Is he wearing an L.L. Bean shirt, sleeves perfectly rolled up to his elbow, when he meets with blue-collar workers? Picture perfect.

Reporters are now asking Michelle who designs her clothes. Women were flocking into stores to buy the black and white sundress she wore on her first appearance on "The View." Where did she get those signature pearls? She is being compared to Jacqueline Kennedy. The Obamas are appearing very "Kennedyesque," the young and vibrant political duo ready to change our world. It's all about image. Who is this couple? What do we really know about them?

Barack Obama counts William Ayers among his friends and advisers, a domestic terrorist who loathes our country. He chooses as his pastor and spiritual adviser, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. For 20 years, Obama sat in his church listening to his vitriolic tirades and hatred for this great country of ours. He finally left the congregation when he was taken to task for the venom that the reverend spewed, then and only then.

Sen. Obama travels throughout the world apologizing for the sins our country has supposedly committed. He is embarrassed because Americans speak only English, forgetting that the rest of the world is only too anxious to learn and speak our language, the language of freedom and success. He claims that we are bitter, disillusioned and frustrated, forced to carry guns and go to church. Just this week, while campaigning in Elkhart, Ind., he told a 7-year-old girl that America is no longer what it could be, what it once was.

While speaking to a group of minority journalists last Sunday, Obama, pressed for his position on apologizing to blacks or offering reparations, said he was more interested in taking action to help people struggling to get by. Because many of them are minorities, he said, that would help the same people who would stand to benefit from reparations. He subtly suggests that our country should acknowledge the "wrongs" of the past, but stops short of saying that we should actually apologize. He traveled all the way to Iraq and couldn't be bothered with visiting our wounded and injured soldiers because he could not turn it into a photo-op.

When was the last time he said something good and positive about our great country? His wife tells us that only now has she come to be proud of America.

Obama's message is all about change. He and his wife have been afforded the opportunity of attending our country's best universities, receiving an education that is second to none. They live in a $1 million home. He is a political neophyte who has been a senator for only three years, one of which he has been running for president.

It takes a certain arrogance to run for the office of president of the United State. That cannot be denied. He and his wife have gotten where they are today because of the opportunities our country has afforded them.

Obama's message is one of "change." Indeed, what is there to change? If this nation is as bad as they say it is, why do they even want to stay?

Obama is an Empty Suit

2008-08-10T09:50:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://www.yelp.com/topic/san-francisco-obama-is-an-empty-suit

By Jim "Serial Yelper"

Obama stands for change?

I have never seen a candidate struggling so hard to please everyone... he is a wimp looking to "make friends" with the Republican party. The only change we will see with Obama will be all the first year hype about a Black man in the White House. After the honeymoon is over he will be chop meat and will cow down to every Republican demand.

The Republicans are just salivating for a Obama win in the primaries.

He is a pretty face with no experience and no spine... I'll be surprised if he can even carry his own state.

I just hope we all come to our senses and vote for Clinton.

Shamobama: Obama as Shaman….

2008-08-10T09:45:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://steadyhabits.wordpress.com/2008/08/02/shamobama-obama-as-shaman/

“Sen. Barack Obama is charismatic. The carefully knotted ties and the dark, conservatively tailored suits only accentuate the exoticness of his shamanism; he has entered the American psyche not as a hero but as a healer.” (Michael Knox Beran; WSJ City Journal 7/30/0

Much is made of the appellation “empty suit” when referring to Barack Obama. Although the “suit” is nearly empty when it comes to governance experience and legislative accomplishments the “suit” is full of nostrums, even panaceas for our national ills. In the above mentioned essay Beran notes:

“The country, or much of it, has longed for such a figure, a man from the once-oppressed race whose rise to power will atone for the sins of slavery and racial stigmatization. But Mr. Obama’s rhetoric encompasses more than a promise of racial healing. He is not the first politician to argue that politics can redeem us, but in posing as the Adonis who will turn winter into spring, he revives one of the more pernicious political swindles: the belief that a charismatic leader can ordain a civic happy hour and give a people a sense of community that will make them feel less bad…

Defining Barack Obama: “Phony Smile on an Empty Suit”

2008-08-10T09:39:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://husaria.wordpress.com/2007/06/30/defining-barack-obama-phony-smile-on-an-empty-suit/

“Obama” = “Phony Smile on an Empty Suit”
It is well known that a word’s meaning can be inferred from its context, or the way it is used in a sentence. As an example, “to nifong” means to falsely accuse someone of a crime for personal gain, whether political or financial. Robert A. Heinlein’s “Pravda means ‘Truth’” was written so the context of “Pravda” meant bovine excrement.

Obama’s chief supporters are a woman with what looks a ring or stud in her tongue and a crush on Barack Obama, along with George Soros, Allan Houston, Jeremiah Wright, Al Sharpton, and MoveOn.org.

We have finally come to the conclusion that “Obama” is an obscure word that means “Phony Smile on an Empty Suit,” a point underscored by this picture of him with a prominent racist and anti-Semite.

(The way Sharpton’s tongue is hanging out, he must be fantasizing over a burning Jewish-owned store in Harlem, like Freddy’s Fashion Mart.)

Please circulate this definition as widely as possible, to keep this fraud from getting anywhere near the White House except as a tourist.

Obama fatigue setting in?

2008-08-09T17:13:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0808/Heard_too_much_about.html

By Michael Calderone

In a new Pew study, nearly half the respondents say they've heard too much about Barack Obama in recent days.

By a margin of 76% to 11% respondents in Pew's weekly News Interest Index survey named Obama over McCain as the candidate they have heard the most about in recent days. But the same poll also shows that the Democratic candidate's media dominance may not be working in his favor. Close to half (48%) of Pew's interviewees went on to say that they have been hearing too much about Obama lately. And by a slight, but statistically significant margin — 22% to 16% — people say that recently they have a less rather than more favorable view of the putative Democratic nominee.

'Obama Fatigue' Could Follow Avalanche of News Coverage

2008-08-09T17:02:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/08/06/obama-fatigue-could-follow-avalanche-of-news-coverage.html

By Kevin Whitelaw

A new poll finds voters might be beginning to tire of Obama's high media profile

Barack Obama's rock-star status has helped him gobble up the lion's share of the media attention so far in this campaign, but a new poll shows that "Obama fatigue" may be starting to set in with many voters.

Nearly half of Americans say that they have been hearing "too much" about Obama lately, according to a new poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.

While a wide majority of Republicans unsurprisingly say that they have heard too much about the Illinois senator, 51 percent of independents agree, along with as many as a third of Democrats.

Almost everybody seems to think that Obama is getting the greater part of the attention. The poll found that more than three quarters of the public reports having heard more about Obama in the past week or so than about McCain.

There is one massive media event on the horizon that could, at least briefly, sideline some of the campaign coverage. The Olympic Games start Friday in China.

Sexy Sadie Does Berlin

2008-08-08T21:32:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://www.hillaryis44.org/?p=691

For months we’ve explored “pet rocks”, The Music Man, Elmer Gantry, and the Heaven’s Gate cult, as earlier, pre-Obama, incarnations of pop flim-flam phenomena.

We have discussed a February 2008 article published by Berlin’s Der Spiegel on the Obama cult. German historians know the devastation wrought by cults of personality and the need to remember history:

The rise of democratic frontrunner Barack Obama signifies an alarming victory of style over substance. Not unlike the dot-com hype, his campaign promises more than he can deliver. The one thing his voters can count on is that they will ultimately be disappointed.

Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama reminds many people of former President John F. Kennedy or civil rights leader Martin Luther King. But when I hear him speak, I have to think of the crazy days of the New Economy.

It was a magical time, even for the most levelheaded of business executives. For several years, wild promises seemed to be the most valuable currency in circulation. Profits? No big deal! Experience? Unnecessary! Realism? More of an obstacle than anything else. While some entrepreneurs undoubtedly had realistic business models and administrative talent, most of them were simply peddling ideas.

The Der Spiegel article described well the effects of the snake oil, Hopium, which Obama was peddling.

The future is a hotly traded commodity in the 2008 US presidential campaign. Voters are hungry for change and for radical departure from a present they now perceive as mediocre, especially after seven meager years under the current president, George W. Bush. A man like Barack Obama is adept at taking advantage of this yearning. He utters beautiful sentences that massage the soul, sentences like: “We are the ones we have been waiting for” and “Our destiny will not be written for us, but by us.”

At his campaign appearances, Obama and his adoring supporters toss his campaign slogan, “Yes, we can,” back and forth until the room is in a frenzy. His events are reminiscent of Sunday morning exchanges between a fiery pastor and his enthusiastic congregation, except that Obama’s crowds are even more fervent.

But anyone able to look past the rhetoric of the 46-year-old candidate will recognize a growing sense of doubt — doubt that Obama easily manages to quell in his next speech, or his next one after that. The senator’s successes in the primaries also have a narcotizing effect. Obama defines himself as a new type of politician, as someone who refuses to be judged by the old standards.

The entire Der Spiegel article is a must read as Obama torments the citizens of the great city of Berlin:

Nevertheless, if Obama is elected he will eventually be forced to disappoint his voters. Politics in a democratic society is a balancing of interests, not a revivalist meeting. It takes finesse, experience and power to transform ideas into reality. Hope and optimism can enhance these qualities, but they cannot replace them. Obama’s message is more of a promise to heal the nation than a campaign platform.

The future Obama is promising seems foggy and indistinct. He wants to change the rules of engagement in politics, but he neglects to explain how and in what direction. He wants to write a new page in the history books, but what handwriting does he plan to use to make his entry? He wants to drive out lobbyists, but if he does, who will champion the interests of union members, war veterans and chemical corporations? He wants to negotiate with the world’s dictators, but to what end, exactly?

Will the bubble burst before late August?

If democracy functions only half as well as the market economy, the Obama bubble will burst. The burning question is: When? Will it happen before the Democratic nomination this August — or not until afterwards?

* * *
For some it is too late to wake up from the effects of Obama’s Hopium. James Lee Bishop, convicted murderer, died as penalty for his crimes. His last thoughts were Hopium addled ones about Obama.

“For those who oppose the death penalty and want to see it end, our best bet is to vote for Barack Obama because his supporters have been working behind the scenes to end this practice,” Bishop said. [snip]

Bishop’s final words were: “God bless America. It has been great living here. That’s all.”

Unlike some of Obama’s prominent friends and spouse Bishop blessed America even as American law permitted Bishop’s life to be taken in retribution.

What (34 years old and white) James Lee Bishop failed to understand was that Obama is not a death penalty opponent. For Obama the death penalty debate is merely a political matter of life and death - Obama’s political life and death.

Still, Obama found himself on various sides of the death penalty debate.

Five months into office, he voted to expand the list of capital crimes to include the brutal murder of a senior citizen or a disabled person. Four years later he opposed adding murders that were part of “gang activity” to the list, saying the term was a “mechanism to target particular neighborhoods [and] particular individuals.”

James Lee Bishop was not alone among the duped or confused by Obama as Obama plays all sides on every issue.

* * *

The Big Media Party which has both dispensed and consumed vast quantities of Hopium is growing is also growing truculent as their increasingly arrogant Obama tail wants to wag the Big Media dog.

Some journalists are now regurgitating the toxic Hopium.

But, as Obama ascended from underdog to front-runner to presumptive nominee, the flame seems to have dwindled. Reporters who cover Obama these days grouse that Obama’s flacks shroud the campaign in secrecy and provide little to no access. “They’re more disciplined than the Bush people,” a reporter on the Obama trail gripes. “There was this idea of being transparent, but they’re not. They’re total tightwads with information.” [snip]

Still, the campaign hasn’t helped itself, approaching reporters with a sense of entitlement. “They’re an arrogant operation. Young and arrogant,” one reporter covering the campaign says. “They don’t believe in transparency with their own campaign,” another says.

Reporters who have covered Obama’s biography or his problems with certain voter blocs have been challenged the most aggressively. “They’re terrified of people poking around Obama’s life,” one reporter says. “The whole Obama narrative is built around this narrative that Obama and David Axelrod built, and, like all stories, it’s not entirely true. So they have to be protective of the crown jewels.” Another reporter notes that, during the last year, Obama’s old friends and Harvard classmates were requested not to talk to the press without permission.

Last thing Obama wants is the fictions in his book and campaign exposed further.

* * *

As Obama marches through the vast Unter Den Linden in the shadow of the Victory Column monument in Berlin Hopium-free Americans grow resistent to the not-qualified Obama.

No matter how hapless and retrograde the John McCain candidacy is, Americans remain wary of Obama. No matter how much money Obama spends, no matter how much advertising is employed to sell Obama, no matter how little coverage McCain receives, no matter how much things go “well” for Obama and “bad” for McCain the question arises Why is Obama such a hard sell?

Lots of speculation on the web, and in whispering circles, about why Obama’s foreign trip–a slam-dunk success substantively and in photo-op terms (Obama laughing with Petraeus in the helicopter was the best)–hasn’t resulted in a polling bump. The emerging conventional wisdom seems to be that the trip is a bit too grand, too…presumptuous and voters are wary of that.

Far from receiving a “bump” Americans refuse to consume the Obama cotton candy.

Republican John McCain has quickly closed the gap between himself and Democratic rival Sen. Barack Obama in several key battleground states even as the Arizona senator struggles to break through the wall-to-wall coverage of Obama’s trip to Europe and the Middle East this week.

McCain and Obama are in a statistical dead heat in Colorado, Michigan and Minnesota while the Illinois senator has a more comfortable double-digit edge in Wisconsin, according to polling conducted by Quinnipiac University for washingtonpost.com and the Wall Street Journal during the past week. Only in Colorado, however, does McCain hold a greater percentage of the vote share than Obama. [snip]

The surveys are part of a four-month long effort to measure voter sentiment in key battleground states that could determine the outcome of the race. The path to the presidency runs through a handful of battleground states, as both Obama and McCain seek the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House. Thus, the four states surveyed in this project provide a snapshot of where things stand less than four months before Election Day.

It was not so long ago that Obama and Big Media insisted that this election was different. Now, it’s back to the same old “battleground states”.

The first in the series of polls, conducted in the four states in mid-June, showed Obama comfortably ahead of McCain in Wisconsin and Minnesota while the races in Michigan and Colorado were closer although Obama still held the lead. The latest polling, showing a much tighter race, was conducted July 14 to 22, during Obama’s high-profile trip to the Middle East. [snip]

While both campaigns are heavily engaged on television in most of these states, it’s not immediately clear from the data what accounted for McCain’s rapid rise — particularly in Minnesota and Colorado.

Americans deep down have grave misgivings about Obama. Deep down Americans know Obama is “riskier” even as Big Media sells as a glorious new toy the “pet rock” of the year.

A majority of Americans think Barack Obama is a riskier choice for the presidency, but he maintains a six-point lead over Republican John McCain, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

With slightly more than 100 days until the election, the survey provides a glimpse of the challenges facing both presidential candidates.

For McCain, it comes amid a toxic political climate for Republicans. Just three in 10 respondents approve of President Bush’s job. Only one in seven McCain voters say they’re excited to vote for him. And the percentage of Americans who believe the country is on the right track is at its lowest mark ever in the poll.

For Obama, it’s that a majority think he’s a risky choice for the presidency; that less than half say the Illinois Democrat shares their background and values; and that there are concerns he’s too inexperienced.

“When it comes to mood, the Republicans face very long odds,” says Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted this survey with Republican pollster Neil Newhouse. “And when it comes to perceptions of Barack Obama, I think the Democrats and Barack Obama have a job to do.”

There is little enthusiasm for McCain in what is supposed to be a very big Democratic year. Bush and the Republicans are almost universally loathed. Many Americans know the nation is on the “wrong track”. The bad news for McCain comes in daily. And yet, Obama is only barely ahead.

The news of Obama avoiding bitter and clingy American troops stationed in Germany won’t assist Obama in his efforts to appear qualified to be president.

* * *

For Democrats and Obama the sound track to this election year is Sexy Sadie.

Sexy Sadie was the “pet rock” of music group, The Beatles. The song “Sexy Sadie” was originally titled “Maharishi”. The title change to “Sexy Sadie” was made to avoid potential lawsuits due to the depiction of the guru Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in a harsh way. Recall:

John Lennon wrote this about the Maharishi while he was leaving India in 1968. After attending his Transcendental Meditation camp with the other Beatles, Lennon thought The Maharishi was a crock.

The song describes Lennon’s total dissatisfaction with the Maharishi. While at his retreat, it has been said that the Maharishi attempted to rape Mia Farrow. Once The Beatles learned of this, they immediately went to the Maharishi, and Lennon announced they were all leaving. The Maharishi asked why? Lennon said, “If you’re so cosmic, you’ll know why.” As originally written, some of its lyrics were considered obscene, and had to be refined. Lennon had used the Maharishi’s name, but had to change it for fear of being sued. But, Sexy Sadie is the Maharishi. Needless to say, that was the end of the Maharishi and The Beatles relationship.

The new Sexy Sadie is Barack Obama marching his way through world capitals after failing to do any work in the U.S. Senate.

[Lyrics HERE]

Sexy Sadie what have you done
You made a fool of everyone
You made a fool of everyone
Sexy Sadie, ooh, what have you done

Sexy Sadie you’ll get yours yet
However big you think you are
However big you think you are
Sexy Sadie, ooh, you’ll get yours yet

Sexy Sadie, it’s another way of saying:

Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.

Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Barack Obama And The Race Card

2008-08-08T21:07:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://www.hillaryis44.org/?p=697

If John McCain wants to help himself with Hillary Clinton supporters: fight Obama on the race card.

John McCain has plenty to be ashamed of in his history with the Clintons. John McCain himself has plenty to be ashamed of. Yes, after John McCain has slimed Bill and/or Hillary Clinton he has usually apologized. Barack Obama has had no such decency. Barack Obama still has not apologized to Bill and Hillary Clinton for all the calculated smears and mud Obama has flung. Barack Obama pretends he is an innocent, but Barack Obama is as dirty as they come. And in Chicago, that is plenty dirty.

It is not only Bill and Hillary Clinton that have been slimed and smeared with Obama’s Chicago mud. We Hillary Clinton supporters have been smeared and slimed too. Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton can forgive Barack Obama for Obama’s slimes and smears directed at them. But we Hillary Clinton supporters do not forgive or forget Obama’s slimes and smears directed towards us.

Here on Big Pink, with a large group of African-American Hillary Clinton supporters, we will not support the smear merchant Barack Obama. Because we have not, nor will not support the unqualified, race-baiting, and gay-bashing, and woman hating, Barack Obama we are accused of being racists. Even African-American Hillary Clinton supporters are unfairly attacked as racists.

We at Big Pink do not believe in unilateral disarmament. We do not believe in whining. We do believe that sometimes you get a dog to eat a dog.

Hillary Clinton supporters who will support and vote for John McCain in NOvember if the Democratic Party decides to commit suicide by selecting the unqualified, race-baiting, and gay-bashing, and woman hating, Barack Obama should communicate to the John McCain campaign the need to defend Bill and Hillary Clinton from the race-baiting Obama.

It is not enough for John McCain to send the very capable Carly Fiorina to speak with Hillary Clinton supporters. Hillary Clinton supporters who will vote for John McCain must insist that John McCain defend Bill and Hillary Clinton. We are pleased to read this:

“Say whatever you want about Bill Clinton,” McCain campaign chieftain Steve Schmidt tells Politico’s Jonathan Martin and Ben Smith, “but it’s deeply unfair to suggest his criticism of Obama was race-based. President Clinton was a force for unity in this country on this subject. Every American should be proud of his record as both a governor and president. But we knew it was coming in our direction because they did it against a President of the United State of their own party.”

There are a number of prominent African-American Democrats who would disagree that Bill Clinton’s criticism of Sen. Barack Obama during the primaries was beyond reproach, but it of course long before Sen. John McCain got into the act, Bill Clinton was the first one to accuse the Obama camp of playing the “race card.”

[Tip to the McCain campaign: study the Axelrod race-based campaign in New York City for Fernando Ferrer in the wake of the Sharpton and Mark Green primary fight during the earlier election cycle.]

Yesterday, we noted how Rick Davis, the John McCain campaign manager replied to the Obama smear on race. In the comments, many noted Big Media (especially Andrea Mitchell) and its full throated support for race-baiting Obama. We noted the nexus of Bernie Mac, Ludicris, and Barack “I’m just messing with you” Obama. We noted that Obama played the race card against Hillary. Now the Obama campaign is playing the race card against McCain.

Rick Davis and John McCain have said what is needed to be said:

Barack Obama has played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck,” Mr. McCain’s campaign manager, Rick Davis, charged in a statement with which Mr. McCain later said he agreed. “It’s divisive, negative, shameful and wrong.”

For those that don’t gamble, Rick Davis, was referring to cheating when he accused Barack Obama of playing from the bottom of the deck. When a playing card dealer in a gambling casino deals the playing cards in an honest fashion, the card dealer takes the cards from the top of the card deck and distributes them fairly. If a card dealer secretly places an “Ace”, a valuable card, at the bottom of the deck then when needed deceptively takes that high card from the bottom of the deck and distributes it to a crony - that is called cheating. This dirty dealing is what happened during the primary season.

Obama dealt the race card from the bottom of the deck.

Obama dealt the race card, his most valuable card, during the Jeremiah Wright scandal. The questions during the Wright scandal were of Obama’s judgment and friends of 20 years, the use of the “N” word in church, the sexual “humping” of the podium by Wright in front of children in Obama’s church, and whether Obama approved of his long-time mentor and pastor saying “God Damn America” on the Sunday after September 11, 2001. Obama played the race card and did not answer any of these questions. Obama answered questions about his own lack of judgement with a speech about race relations. Obama played the race card.

Obama plays the race card in an attempt to smear anyone who takes note of the fact that he is unqualified to be president and in order to label any and all criticism as racist.

Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton can forgive Barack Obama for sliming and smearing them, if they so choose. Bill and Hillary Clinton were unable in a Democratic primary and especially not in the African-American community they saw as friends, to fully take Obama on for his race-baiting (especially with the smears coming from “neutral” Obama cronies Brazile and Clyburn).

Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton may forgive. We believe the slimes and smears against us however have to be answered with a total rejection of Barack Obama and his dirty cronies and Dean/Brazile/Pelosi.

John McCain has Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and us, as examples of those Barack Obama has slimed and smeared when Obama played the race card. McCain better not be surprised when Obama plays the race card again from the bottom of the deck.

We are not surprised that Obama deals from the bottom of the deck because Obama is the bottom of the barrel.

Hillary Held Hostage

2008-08-08T21:02:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://www.hillaryis44.org/?p=698

It is both amusing and nauseating to read Hillary Haters and/or Big Media commenting on what Hillary supporters think/feel. The speculations about what we Hillary Supporters think/feel are so off the mark we typically ignore them.

Perhaps those speculations are merely wishful thinking disguised as analysis so herewith we will correct some impressions about our impressions.

* * *

Note to the Obama campaign and the Ve Vill Haf Unity contingent: you do not understand Hillary Clinton supporters, at all.

At any event with Hillary we notice what a classy lady Hillary is. We take note of her inner and outer strengths. We know her history as a real uniter, forging coalitions with those who hate her in order to make policy changes that will benefit the American people.

We have been amazed in the past as she forged alliances with Hillary and Bill Clinton haters (even former impeachment Republicans). We were amazed this past year as Hillary Hater extraordinaire Richard Mellon Scaife endorsed Hillary in the Pennsylvania primary after Scaife stopped the hating and started listening to Hillary.

We know Hillary Clinton is not weak and does what she thinks is best. At times her reasons are kept private, at times she does her duty. Hillary Clinton is an extraordinary person whom we respect.

Yesterday, we read about this event hosted by EMILY’s List:

Join Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Special Guest Michelle Obama for a gala reception at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

It is easy to understand that Hillary would help raise money for EMILY’s List because the organization endorsed Hillary for President.

But understand this Hillary Haters (and that includes you Barack and Michelle): these “Unity” events do not have the effect you imagine they cause.

Watching Hillary with Barack or Michelle or FISA Pelosi, or Brazile merely makes us loathe Barack, Michelle, FISA Pelosi and Brazile even more.

When we see Hillary Clinton with Dean/Obama/Brazile/Pelosi it does not inspire unity. It inspires revulsion. We feel we are watching a hostage event.

We do not like to see hostages paraded around by the Taliban or Al Queda or terrorists of any kind. We don’t like to see videos of John McCain used for propaganda purposes by his North Vietnamese captors. We don’t like to see anyone who is captured in any conflict or war paraded about and parroting what the captors want to hear.

We discount statements made by captives while they are captive. We don’t like hostage events.

Dean/Obama/Brazile/Pelosi and other Obama cultists must understand that we do not see unity - we see captivity. We see a glorious bird held in a cage, temporarily.

* * *

Obama with Big Media as his campaign volunteers and all the advantages possible in what is supposed to be a very huge Democratic victory year continues to no more than tie John McCain in the polls. Meanwhile the Democratic Party leadership persists in an attempted suicide by selecting Obama.

Hillary Clinton supporters are trying to stop the Democratic Party suicide. But we are dealing with obstinate, willful fools. The leadership of the Democratic Party continues to oppose the Democratic grassroots.

Fearful of a surging McCain campaign and of an increasingly resistant Democratic grassroots, Obama/Dean/Brazile/Pelosi want, like Eastern bloc dictators, to prevent any possibility of Democracy at the Democratic? National Convention. They are propagandizing in Big Media outlets that it is Hillary that does not want a roll call vote at the Democratic? National Convention. But we know better (video from July 31, 2008):

Hillary, for Democratic reasons, wants a roll call vote at the convention. Hillary also says “I hope everybody knows I don’t have a lot of control over this”.

Why is it that Democrats have to be forced to hold votes? At every turn during the primary campaign the call from Obama/Dean/Brazile/Pelosi has been to shut down voting. Obama/Dean/Brazile/Pelosi want to block a convention vote and they are putting words in Hillary’s mouth or trying to force their captive to agree to shut down Democracy and not vote.

We demand a roll call vote.

Free Hillary! from her captors.

Former Hillary supporters turned into Obama supporters are now calling us “dead enders

2008-08-08T20:57:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://www.hillaryis44.org/?p=699

Former Hillary supporters turned into Obama supporters are now calling us “dead enders.” Intellectually dishonest former Hillary bloggers who used to write about how inexperienced and unqualifed Barack Obama is and how the country came before the party now support Obama and call us “dead enders”. The poison to our political system, Maureen Dowd, is unhappy with the NObama NOvember “dead enders” too.

The term “dead enders” is an ugly reference to Iraqi “insurgents” who continued to resist American occupation of Iraq. The term “dead enders” is meant to convey that NObama NOvember Hillary supporters are as deranged as those in Iraq who resisted American power.

Those shouting “dead enders” the loudest are also the ones who acknowledge that the “dead enders” in Iraq have had a powerful effect and therefore American troops must withdraw from Iraq. With this history in mind, shouldn’t those labeling NObama NOvember Hillary supporters as “dead enders” pause a bit before shouting their epithets?

NObama NOvember Hillary supporters, a huge part of the Democratic Party base, oppose Obama because we know that the grassroots have been swindled by Obama/Dean/Brazile/Pelosi. We know this leadership does not listen the the people. These leaders must not be rewarded with votes for their undemocratic plots and exploitation of sexism and misogyny.

NObama NOvember Hillary supporters are also fighting for the Democratic future. We are fighting for a big tent party that does not discriminate against the white working class and latino and women voters. That is hardly a dead end. That is the future.

If there is a group of dead enders - those fighting as a personality cult for a personality that is rejected by the majority of voters - the dead enders are Obama supporters.

It is Obama, the personality, the black face as Andrew Sullivan and John Kerry termed it, that is a dead end.

The Democratic dead enders are berating NObama NOvember Hillary supporters because we will NOT support the unqualified, race-baiting, and gay-bashing, and woman hating, Barack Obama.

Save your breath and typing fingers Obama-blind bloggers. NObama. NOvember.

* * *

Donna Brazile and other Obama vote theives fought to make sure Florida and Michigan would be disenfranchised. Today, Barack Obama wants to bamboozle Americans, particulary those in Florida and Michigan, into thinking they have not been disenfranchised. It’s as if George W. Bush would today acknowledge that Al Gore received the most votes from Florida and the most electoral votes in 2000.

When Florida and Michigan voters voted, Obama/Dean/Brazile/Pelosi did not count their votes. Now it’s bamboozle time from Obama. Delegates the voters of Michigan entrusted to Hillary were stolen by Obama/Dean/Brazile/Pelosi. Florida and Michigan voters were insulted and disenfranchised by Barack Obama. They will remember in NOvember.

* * *

The dead enders who demand we ignore the fact that Obama is unqualified, race-baiting, and gay-bashing, and woman hating, continue to be embarrassed by Barack Obama.

The vote undemocratic Party over the country, dead enders are a joke. The dead ender bloggers (particulary the ones who supported Hillary and therefore know better) are an even bigger joke. We wrote in late June about these dead enders:

Obama’s dedicated internet dens of Hopium are experiencing what used to be known as “a bad trip”. The hallucinogenic Hopium has gone as bad as Obama’s promises to filibuster a FISA bill with telecom immunity included. The DailyKooks, Talking Pimps Memo, Arriana Huff n’ Puff (collectively, the PINO Big Blogs) are getting thrown under the bus by Obama. As Obama spanks them with every broken promise, they reflexively respond “Thank you sir - may I have another.”

Just think, we have two more months of Obama making fools of these fools and of himself.

When Obama slapped these fools in the face by voting for FISA we mocked them for the impotent fools they are. Now the impotent fools mock themselves.

The latest stupidity from these dead end fools is begging Obama.

The Nation magazine, a dead enders keep, is begging Obama to be, or become a progressive. The fools at The Nation and other Obama Hopium dens have a petition (called Change We Can Believe In). Wow, that will really impress Obama. Only fools will sign a petition written by foolish dead enders who still think Obama listens to them or is in any way a progressive (Hint: Obama can’t be trusted by friends or foes). Keep begging you dead end fools. We throughly enjoy watching Obama slap you across your foolish faces.

From Hillary Clinton supporters who say “NObama, NOvember” a bit of advice to the Obama dead enders who still believe anything Obama says: Keep writing those petitions since the FISA petitions worked so well for you.

The Obama dead enders who still believe anything Obama says can start writing a new petition. Let’s call it the HOT AIR petition. Or we can call it the Inflated Tires, Inflated Ego petition.

Recall, inflated ego Obama recently made a fool of himself by saying we can save all the oil from drilling if only Americans would inflate their tires. True. The fool actually said this. Obama, like a flat tire, leaks hot air. Inflating tires to the right pressure will save some gasoline but not what Obama says this measure will save. Far from it.

Obama compounded his foolishness by then scoring the same savings if Americans would get regular tune-ups for their cars. What a fool. Only dead enders can defend such foolishness.

The Obama foolishness on energy policy (along with his bottom of the deck race-baiting) hit him right on the polls. The flacid polls led to an immediate Obama flip-flop-flim-flam.

This time the flip-flop-flim-flam is on oil drilling. Obama rejected oil-drilling, then stated he would consider it, then denied it was a flip flop. It was a typical Obama flip-flop-flim-flam. That is do a flip-flop, then deny the flip-flop. A genuine Obama flip-flop-flim-flam.

Major Obama shift on offshore drilling; some might be O.K.

Another sudden switch and another major slide toward the center by Democratic Sen. Barack Obama.

He told a Florida newspaper today he is NOT against ALL offshore drilling for new oil resources. Switching from his previous blanket oppostion to expanded offshore drilling, Obama tells the Palm Beach Post he could get behind a compromise with Republicans and oil companies to avoid a gridlock over energy policy.

“The Republicans and the oil companies have been really beating the drums on drilling,” Obama said in the Post interview. “And so we don’t want gridlock. We want to get something done.” [snip]

The public struggle between the two parties and their candidates has been going on for weeks. And recent polls have indicated a shift by voters toward approval of careful offshore drilling as a way to increase petroleum supplies and reduce stiff gas prices.

Republican nominee-to-be John McCain was asked for a response to Obama’s latest shift. The Arizona senator said: “We need oil drilling and we need it now offshore. He has consistently opposed it. He has opposed nuclear power. He has opposed reprocessing. He has opposed storage.”

Perhaps Obama’s flip-flop-flim-flam on oil drilling was announced in order to hide Obama’s NASA flip-flop-flim-flam [Obama’s first position HERE, Obama’s latest postiion HERE] or maybe it was Obama’s town hall flip-flop-flim-flam. We don’t know.

You’ll have to ask the Obama dead-enders.

John Kerry Proves That the DNC Can’t Pick a Winner

2008-08-08T20:28:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/08/john-kerry-proves-the-dnc-can%e2%80%99t-pick-a-winner/

By Ani

If more evidence is needed that the DNC is expert at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, look no further than the junior Senator from Massachusetts, John Kerry; otherwise known as ‘Lurch.’

Instances of the DNC’s poor judgment keep piling up so it’s hard to keep it all straight, but four years ago, this elitist boob was our Presidential nominee. He was destined to join the ranks of Dukakis, Mondale, McGovern and yes, even the incredibly smart Al Gore must be counted here. It seems they don’t know how to run a campaign without their noses in the air, so superior and so much smarter than the other guy. The ‘Captain of the debating team’ strategy doesn’t seem to work out so well for the Dems.

I think Hillary is an exception to the debate rule because she can string three sentences together without coming across as a snob.

Perhaps that’s one of the reasons the DNC elite can’t stand her. Too middle class. Too plain spoken. Too good at throwin’ back the occasional bourbon shot with us regular folk. Heaven forefend we pick someone who actually understands the reality of having to live on Social Security or the need for having affordable health care. Does she have a top notch education? Yes. She’s a millionaire, you say? True. But that wealth was acquired relatively late. She knows what it is to work for a living. She spent seven years working for the Children’s Defense Fund right out of school, and throughout her life has worked for veterans, first responders, women, health care and education.

She was accused of many things, but no one ever said she looked down her nose at anyone. Right, Barack? Come to think of it, maybe that’s why they chose him – he can’t debate either! He’s just a snob. Finally! I have unearthed the DNC’s strategy for victory! Get someone who can eerrr uuuhh aaaaah his way into office.

But let’s get back to Kerry, the feller who hand-picked Obama to give that Convention speech back in 2004…

Remember when Bush Sr. was running for re-election in ’92 and got labeled as out-of-touch because he didn’t know what a bar code was? Kerry recently had a ‘barcode’ moment of his own. A young woman made a moving appeal to Senator Kerry to obtain fuel assistance benefits for a senior citizen in need of a new boiler. The elderly lady apparently supplements her Social Security with a part time job. She was told that because she earned $30 too much a week, she was not eligible – ergo, no money for heat.

Senator Kerry’s idea was “why doesn’t she cut back a couple of hours?”

Well, no, John, because a) she needs the money, b) that’s like borrowing from Peter to pay Paul and c) when you’re fortunate enough to get a part time job, you don’t generally tell your employer when you feel like showing up. But I guess if you’re a U.S. Senator and married to the Heinz fortune, you don’t worry about such piddling details.

Kerry has likewise shown himself to be a turncoat dunce on many occasions. First, he endorsed Obama over Clinton. Never mind Hillary, he endorsed Obama over Edwards, his former running mate, without so much as a “Dear John” letter.

Senators Kennedy, Kerry and Governor Duval Patrick made a grand showing of trumpeting Obama before the Massachusetts primary. Odd that Hillary still trounced him to the tune of 15 points.

This was the most telling primary of all 50 states (yes, 50, not 57) since David Axelrod was also Patrick’s campaign manager. The people of Massachusetts had already experienced Obama 1.0 in the person of Patrick, and he’s not doing so well, so they decided not to sip the hopey-changey koolaid a second time.

Kerry stated Hillary Clinton’s health care plan was ‘a non-starter.’ Uh, it’s the only health care plan that would actually cover everyone. ‘Dead on arrival’: those were his words. Didn’t Chairman Dean say universal health care is a moral imperative? Not so much, I guess.

Then Kerry gave the New Bedford Standard Times an interview basically saying that we needed to elect Barack because he is African American and would build a bridge between us and the Muslim community. That’s like saying if my mother had family in Austria, she could have talked Hitler out of invading Poland. And dare I say it, John, wanting to elect someone because of their skin color is…racist.

In July, Kerry allowed his new good buddy Barack and his clueless campaign people to ‘diss’ and dismiss none other than one of the heroes of the Democratic party: Max Cleland. But I thought he was John’s good friend?

Kerry was furious that Cleland was swift-boated in 2002 by the Republicans. That negative campaign cost Cleland his Senate seat. Oddly enough, Kerry had nothing to say when Barack ‘uninvited’ Cleland from a campaign event because he was labeled a ‘lobbyist’ and Obama has ‘nothing to do with lobbyists.’ M’kay.

Cleland occasionally works on behalf of Tissue Regeneration Technologies, a company that helps injured vets recover faster. Fitting that Max would do this since he lost three limbs fighting for his country in Viet Nam and sits in a wheel chair. And they asked him not to attend a campaign event for Obama? Why? Because they were ‘afraid they would be criticized’ for having someone in attendance with ‘lobbying ties.’ How courageous.

Way to win the military vote, Barack.

Do you have any idea how many vets out there are still angry with Kerry for his protests back in ’71??? I remember this clearly because I spent many hours campaigning for him in ’04 – not because I thought he was great, but because we needed to get Bush out. Many people I spoke to with military backgrounds acted like Kerry’s protests happened yesterday. These wounds don’t heal easily.

Not everyone lives in the disposable society that Senator Obama’s campaign seems to encourage with its’ every condescending or insensitive comment or action. Something I would have thought Senator Kerry learned the hard way, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in 2004 running against arguably the worst president in history.

Here’s how many words of support for Max or rebuke for Barack were uttered from John Kerry’s lips: zero. Max Cleland, another dutiful Democrat, God bless him, remained silent. That silence spoke volumes.

Kerry’s latest lead-footed behavior was in evidence last Sunday on Meet The Press, when John decided to show what a good Obamabot he is by bringing up a subject I thought had worn itself out in the news cycle: throwing General Wesley Clark under the bus. He roundly criticized Clark for his appearance on Face the Nation where, aiming to board the unity pony, Clark made this unfortunate statement regarding McCain: “being shot down in a plane does not qualify you to be President.” It was a poor choice of words, even if true.

But there was no reason for Kerry to bring this up — again. The ‘courageous’ Obama had already thrown Clark under the bus weeks before. Did Kerry forget how hard Wes campaigned for him in 2004 after losing his own Presidential bid? Believe me, Clark would have made a far better President than Kerry, and is far less mind-numbing to listen to. While I may be furious Clark would speak on behalf of the empty suit, Obama, in the first place, if anyone can make an argument against McCain, it’s Clark. Did Kerry forget that Clark took four bullets in a jungle and still led his troops to victory in Viet Nam and has 34 years of distinguished service in the military?

Kerry allowed himself to be swift boated by the Republicans with nary a whimper and now he’s pulling the same crap? To what end? Clark has worked tirelessly for down ticket Democrats for the last five years.

I also remember Kerry campaigning before the Latino community back in ’04. He wagged his finger, reminding them in very rudimentary Spanish that voting is “muy importante”. He sounded as though he were talking to three years olds. Talking down to the voters; sounds like someone else we know.

John Kerry managed to accomplish one thing with all the above actions. He’s made me ashamed that I ever canvassed for him or made a phone call on his behalf.

And after all the years he and the rest of these pompous fools chose to back Mr. Wrong, wouldn’t you think for once they’d cop a clue and back Ms. Right?

I don’t recognize this party any more. I can’t figure out their endgame except that the losers’ club of Kerry, Dodd, Dean, Richardson and the rest, unable to win the Presidency themselves, think they will grow their own power whispering into this neophyte’s ear.

Kerry has been a Senator for 24 years and is so cozy in his job that he won’t even grant a debate to his primary opponent. Hmmm. That sounds familiar. That’s right. Kerry has a Democratic challenger in the person of Ed O’Reilly. O’Reilly may actually have a shot. Certainly there are many in Massachusetts not pleased with Kerry at the moment. Perhaps O’Reilly, a real salt of the earth gentleman, by the way, has a chance to pull this off. I’ve sent some dough to help. The primary is September 16th.

I think it’s time to send a shock wave to Kerry and the DNC. They keep advocating for change. Maybe it’s time to change them.

Barack Obama chose to side with his lobbyist benefactors over the American people

2008-08-08T20:22:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/08/painful/

By SusanUnPC

This ad is very effective. I worry that not every American has realized yet that, in 2005, Barack Obama chose to side with his lobbyist benefactors over the American people, and that he voted FOR the Bush-Cheney Energy bill. Hillary Clinton or John McCain voted against the bill.

Imho, that alone is reason enough to not nominate Barack Obama. “Words? Just words?” Well, sadly, that is all they are, Mr. Obama. When push comes to shove, you ALWAYS side with your money men. You didn’t give a single thought to the AMERICAN PEOPLE.

I just had to get that off my chest. If every American voter KNEW that Barack Obama voted WITH Dick Cheney and George Bush on energy and profiteering for big energy companies, there’d be no doubt who should be nominated.

This ad is about the average American family:

From the McCain campaign — which this blog does not endorse, but recognizes for its ability to point out the stark differences not only between John McCain and Barack Obama but also between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama:

ARLINGTON, VA — U.S. Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign today released its latest television ad, entitled “Painful.” The ad highlights Barack Obama’s record of voting to raise taxes on middle class families and his proposals for painful tax increases that will only further hurt those already struggling with higher gas prices, higher food prices and the threat of home foreclosure. The last thing we need to do is raise taxes that force families to make even tougher choices with less money in their pockets. The ad will air in key states.

VIEW THE AD HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWXqpHEsrxc

Script For “Painful” (TV :30)

ANNCR: Life in the spotlight must be grand, but for the rest of us times are tough.

Obama voted to raise taxes on people making just $42,000.

He promises more taxes on small business, seniors, your life savings, your family.

Painful taxes, hard choices for your budget. Not ready to lead. That’s the real Obama.

JOHN MCCAIN: I’m John McCain and I approved this message.

AD FACTS: Script For “Painful” (TV :30)

ANNCR: Life in the spotlight must be grand, but for the rest of us times are tough. Obama voted to raise taxes on people making just $42,000.

· Barack Obama Voted Twice In Favor Of The Democrats’ FY 2009 Budget Resolution. (S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 51-44: R 2-43; D 47-1; I 2-0, 3/14/08, Obama Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #142: Adopted 48- 45: R 2- 44; D 44- 1; I 2-0, 6/4/08, Obama Voted Yea)

· FactCheck.org: The Budget Resolution Would Have Allowed Most Of The Provisions Of The 2001 And 2003 Tax Cuts To Expire, Effectively Raising Taxes On Those Making $41,500 In Total Income. “What Obama voted for was a budget resolution that would have allowed most of the provisions of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to expire. In particular, the resolution would allow the 25 percent tax bracket to return to its pre-2001 level of 28 percent. That bracket kicks in at $32,550 for an individual or $65,100 for a married couple. But as those of you who have filled out a 1040 know, that’s not actually how income taxes work. We don’t pay taxes on our total earnings; we pay them based on our ‘taxable income.’ The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center’s Eric Toder told FactCheck.org that ‘people with taxable income of $32,000 would have a total income greater than that.’ In 2008, anyone filing taxes with single status would be entitled to a standard deduction of $5,450, as well as a personal exemption of $3,500. So to have a taxable income high enough to reach the 25 percent bracket, an individual would need to earn at least $41,500 in total income, while a married couple would need a combined income of at least $83,000.” (”The $32,000 Question,” FactCheck.org, http://www.factcheck.org, 7/8/08)

· FactCheck.org: “Obama’s Votes Indicate A Willingness To Raise Taxes.” “Certainly Obama’s votes indicate a willingness to raise taxes, and Obama has not been shy about saying explicitly that he will raise some taxes.” (”The $32,000 Question,” FactCheck.org, http://www.factcheck.org, 7/8/08)

· Obama Campaign: Barack Obama Voted For A Budget Resolution That Wouldn’t Have Increased Taxes For Any Taxpayers Making Less Than $41,500. ROSEN: “Campaign aides to Senator Obama today, called the charge that he voted for tax hikes on people making only $32,000 a year, quote, ‘bogus.’ They circulated an analysis stating that the resolution that Obama had voted for would not have increase taxes on single taxpayer making less than $41,500 a year in total income.” (Fox News’ “America’s Election Headquarters,” 7/30/08)

· The New York Times: Barack Obama’s “Vote Was On A Budget Resolution To Raise Taxes On People Making $41,500 A Year.” “FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan Web site, said the vote was on a budget resolution to raise taxes on people making $41,500 a year; the $32,000 figure, it said, was the amount of taxable income those people had.” (Michael Cooper, “McCain Goes Negative, Worrying Some In GOP,” The New York Times, 7/30/08)

· The Associated Press: Budget Resolution “Would Have Allowed Tax Rates To Return To Pre-2001 Levels, Meaning That An Individual With Taxable Income Of About $32,000 Would Have Faced A Tax Increase.” “At issue is Obama’s vote on a non-binding budget resolution in March that called for President Bush’s tax cuts to expire. Such a step would have allowed tax rates to return to pre-2001 levels, meaning that an individual with taxable income of about $32,000 would have faced a tax increase. Taxable income is what’s left after taxpayers account for deductions.” (Liz Sidoti, “Obama Dismisses Conservative Criticism,” The Associated Press, 7/12/08)

· In June 2008, Obama Said “The Senate Voted To Stand Up For Working Families In Illinois And Throughout The Nation” By Passing The Democrats’ Final Budget Resolution. Obama: “Today the Senate voted to stand up for working families in Illinois and throughout the nation by rejecting the failed policies of the Bush Administration and moving our country back on track to fiscal discipline. … Our country needs change, and this budget is an important step in the right direction. I commend House and Senate leaders for working together to move this legislation through Congress.” (Sen. Barack Obama, “Statement Of Senator Barack Obama On The Senate ’s Passage Of The FY 2009 Budget Resolution,” Press Release, obama.senate.gov, 6/4/08)

· In March 2008, Obama Hailed His Vote For The Budget As Making “Significant Progress In Getting Our Nation’s Priorities Back On Track.” Obama: “The budget passed by the Senate tonight makes significant progress in getting our nation’s priorities back on track. … We need change in this country, and this budget is an important step in helping bring it about.” (Sen. Barack Obama, “Obama Statement On The Senate’s Passage Of The FY 2009 Budget,” Press Release, obama.senate.gov, 3/14/08)

ANNCR: He promises more taxes on small business, seniors, your life savings, your family. Painful taxes, hard choices for your budget. Not ready to lead. That’s the real Obama. JOHN MCCAIN: I’m John McCain and I approved this message.

· Barack Obama Has Called For Higher Income Taxes, Social Security Taxes, Capital Gains And Dividend Taxes, And Corporate Taxes, As Well As “Massive New Domestic Spending.” “Obama’s transformation, if you go by his campaign so far, would mean higher income taxes, higher Social Security taxes, higher investment taxes, higher corporate taxes, massive new domestic spending, and a healthcare plan that perhaps could be the next step to a full-scale, single-payer system. Is that what most Americans want, someone who will fulfill a Democratic policy wish list?” (James Pethokoukis, “Barack Hussein Reagan? Ronald Wilson Obama?” U.S. News & World Report’s “Capital Commerce” Blog, www.usnews.com, 2/12/08)

· Barack Obama Would Raise Social Security (Payroll) Taxes On Families. “Obama’s proposal … would impose social security taxes on income above $250,000 per year. He would continue to exempt income between $102,000 and $250,000 from social security taxes.” (Teddy Davis, Sunlen Miller, and Gregory Wallace, “Obama Kisses Billions Goodbye,” ABC News’ “Political Radar” Blog, blogs.abcnews.com, 6/18/08)

· Barack Obama Would Raise Income Taxes. Obama: “[I] would roll back the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000.” (Sen. Barack Obama, CNN Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Manchester, NH, 6/3/07)

· U.S. Department Of Treasury: Small Business Owners “Are Frequently Subject To The Highest Individual Income Tax Rates.” “Changes in the individual income tax affect most businesses in the United States. That is because taxes on business earnings are often paid through the individual income tax when ‘passed-through’ to business owners. The business income from sole proprietorships, farm proprietorships, partnerships, S corporations, etc., is all taxed at the owners’ individual income tax rates. This year 34 million business owners are expected to receive this type of income and pay tax on this income through the individual income tax. These businesses are typically small and often entrepreneurial in nature, and a source of innovation and risk-taking in the economy. Moreover, these business owners are frequently subject to the highest individual income tax rates.” (”Topics Related To The President’s Tax Relief,” U.S. Departm ent Of Treasury, http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/reports/president_taxrelief_topics_0508.pdf, May 2008)

· Barack Obama Would Raise Capital Gains And Dividend Taxes. “Sen. Obama wants to raise the long-term capital-gains rate for families making more than $250,000 to around 20 percent or somewhat higher but not above the 28 percent level it reached during the Reagan presidency, an Obama economic adviser says. The same rate would apply to most dividend income for these investors.” (Tom Herman, “Tax Report Your Tax Bill: How McCain, Obama Differ,” The Associated Press, 6/18/08)

· In 2006, Over 26.7 Million U.S. Taxpayers Reported Capital Gains Income. (Internal Revenue Service Website, “Individual Income And Tax Data, By State And Size Of Adjusted Gross Income, Tax Year 2006,” www.irs.gov, Accessed 7/30/08)

· In 2006, Over 31.5 Million U.S. Taxpayers Reported Dividend Income. (Internal Revenue Service Website, “Individual Income And Tax Data, By State And Size Of Adjusted Gross Income, Tax Year 2006,” www.irs.gov, Accessed 7/30/08)

· Barack Obama Called For Tax Hikes On “Dirty Energy” Such As Coal And Natural Gas. Obama: “What we ought to tax is dirty energy, like coal and, to a lesser extent, natural gas.” (”Q&A With Sen. Barack Obama,” San Antonio Express-News, 2/19/08)

· Even Barack Obama Admits That His Tax Increases May Harm The Economy. CNBC’S JOHN HARWOOD: “And I found this fascinating, Maria, that on the issue of taxes, he looked to insulate himself by saying that if, in fact, economic conditions justify the fact that it might harm the economy, he might be willing to hold off some of his tax increases when he takes office in January. Let’s take a listen to Barack Obama.” BARACK OBAMA: “Some of those, you could possibly defer. But I think the basic principle of restoring fairness to our economy and encouraging bottom-up economic growth is important. So here’s what we know: We know that over the last decade or so, that more than half of the economic growth has been captured by the top one percent of U.S. citizens. That means the other 99 percent have seen their effective incomes go down. That is not a recipe for long- term economic growth.” (CNBC, 6/9/08)

· Tax Policy Center: Barack Obama Would Raise Taxes On One Out Of Every Three Senior Households. “Even though Senator Obama’s plan eliminates individual income taxes for seniors with incomes less than $50,000, his plan would raise taxes for almost 10 million senior households, over a third of the total (not shown in table). On average, seniors would face a tax increase of about 2 percent of income.” (Burman et al., “A Preliminary Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates’ Tax Plans,” The Tax Policy Center, 6/11/08)

· Tax Foundation: Seniors “Rely Most On The Stable Flow Of Income That Dividends Provide.” “Most debate over whether to extend the reduced rates on dividends and capital gains has focused on the tax benefits of these cuts to high-income taxpayers. What has been largely ignored is the impact these tax policies have on corporations’ decisions on how best to distribute their income to shareholders–including senior citizens, who rely most on the stable flow of income that dividends provide. A recent Tax Foundation analysis illustrated that a large number of those benefiting from dividends are seniors and those on the verge of retirement (See www.taxfoundation.org). A further analysis of these seniors earning dividends reveals that lower-income seniors who file tax returns depend more heavily on dividend income than high-income seniors.” (Gerald Prante, “The Importance Of Dividend Income For Low-Income Seniors,” Tax Foundation, http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1354.html, 2/8/06)

PUMA Gallery

2008-08-08T20:14:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/08/puma-gallery/

By PatRacimora

Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, and Donna Brazile are only a few of the Democratic leaders who need glasses or a wake-up pill or an old fashioned slap upside the head to see what is going on with a good portion of 18 million voters who supported Hillary Clinton.

If these people could see the picture, they would be busy trying to heal as many of the abuses the DNC (and sometimes the Obama campaign itself) has permitted, perpetrated, or tacitly encouraged through benign neglect over the last months. Instead, the discontented are discounted as Republicans (or at least not real Democrats), or sore-losing old women, or temporarily angst-ridden voters who will fall in line as soon as they “just get over it,” or racists. Barack Obama supporters are even praying for us poor souls to see the light. (That one really creeps me out.)

In truth there is no one PUMA entity (sometimes, but not always, standing for Party Unity My Ass), and agendas vary somewhat. But they all have a number of legitimate grievances. Here are some of mine against the DNC:

1. Disgust with the sexist media and no attempt by the DNC to call them on it when it really mattered.

2. Dealing initially with Michigan and Florida in punitive ways, only to ensure that they come out whole in the end—but after Obama became the presumptive nominee so Hillary did not get her due delegates.

3. Allowing candidates to donate to delegate campaigns, raising the likelihood that they can be bought.

4. Passively looking on while corruption and lack of representation plagued state caucuses.

5. Failing to vigorously argue all along that Hillary Clinton’s name must be placed in nomination in Denver, given the massive support she garnered.

6. Moving DNC operations to Obama’s Chicago before a nominee has even been selected.

Do you see others?

Why Obama Can’t Give It and Why He Will Lose

2008-08-08T19:55:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/08/respect-%e2%80%93-why-obama-can%e2%80%99t-give-it-and-why-he-will-lose/

By Ani

At the Rules and ByLaws Mugging, uh, Meeting on May31st, Howard Dean, in a truly disgraceful effort to appease Hillary’s angry supporters finally acknowledged that there might have been a bit of sexism in the campaign. But, of course, he didn’t know about it because “he doesn’t watch cable TV.” Weeks after the contest was forcibly ended, some media types dipped a toe in the waters of sexism and copped to about 5% of the brutal treatment Hillary received.

Two months after Obama has claimed the nomination, far from abating, the clamor for Hillary to be nominated has gotten louder. PUMA has grown, for obvious reasons. One big problem: R.E.S.P.E.C.T. We can’t seem to get any. Never mind sastisfaction. We ain’t getting’ any of that either.

From Rosemary Regello’s excellent piece in the City Edition:

Try telling a disgruntled Clinton activist it’s futile to wage a campaign without a candidate, and she’ll ask you if it’s easier to let a knucklehead run the country…

[T]he New York senator is bound by her blackmail agreement with the Democratic National Committee to stump for her rival, a candidate who many of her supporters regard as corrupt and inexperienced…

Why did she give up? By June 3rd, the day of the last primaries, neither candidate had earned enough pledged delegates to claim the mantle of presumptive nominee. Moreover, when you consider the Democratic National Committee’s Alice in Wonderland approach to allocating delegates, you don’t find a nominating process at all, but rather grounds for a criminal conspiracy. Thousands of complaints filed after of a dozen red-state caucuses, ranging from voter intimidation to outright ballot stuffing, suggest that some of those contests were deliberately rigged to give Obama two-to-one margins of victory. Yet even without an investigation, a sixth-grade civics student already knows that plenty of mischief has gone on here. Whatever the official explanation as to why Obama “won” the election, it can never pass the straight-face test. Beginning last March, Clinton was hounded by the party establishment and its collaborators in the American media until she quit the race. That’s not an election. That’s a coup.

One might go so far as to suggest that all those high-ranking party officials involved should be charged with treason. For the first time in American history, the Democrats are about to crown a nominee who’s not only unfit to serve, but whose ties to foreign bad boys like Aiham Alsammarae, Nadhmi Auchi and Antoin Rezko make him a candidate for the no-fly list, not the presidency.

There’s also the matter of those superdelegates. This elite cast of elected leaders and party officials can’t vote until the convention, yet the DNC went ahead and declared Obama the winner based on their input. Even on the official website democrats.org, the Chosen One was being heralded as “the Democratic nominee” within hours of the last contest. In criminal justice parlance, this is what’s called perpetrating a fraud.

I couldn’t have said it better. Adding insult to grievous injury, the misogynist, partriarchal ‘what does she want’ attitude from the Boyz in the press has not abated either:

The nonsense most folks are fed in the mainstream media is enough to make steam come out of anybody’s ears. A case in point, Kenneth Walsh files this story: Despite Obama’s Efforts, Clinton Supporters Won’t Fade Away with U.S. News. Even the title is insulting. Fade Away? 18,000,000 people voted for Hillary, more than any primary candidate in history. Fade away? To where? Wait, don’t answer that. As for ‘Obama’s efforts’ — he has not reached out in any way. Remember when he told Rep. Diane Watson of the Congressional Black Caucus that Hillary’s supporters need to ‘get over it’?

[Clinton supporters] argue that she hasn’t been given the respect she deserves even though Obama has apparently agreed to give her a coveted primetime speaking slot August 26 and he has been quite conciliatory.

Wait! Stop the presses! That charlatan has AGREED to give her a COVETED prime time speaking spot! He deigns to be conciliatory? They are still treating Hillary like the scullery maid.

Obama and his surrogates impugned her character, misrepresented her policies and her record and got away with it daily in the media. Bill Clinton was called racist, they implied she was race baiting and let her supporters be called racists and now Obama is being conciliatory? Who wrote this story? Dick Cheney?

She is getting a COVETED PRIMETIME SPEAKING SPOT – WOW. Obama you are so GENEROUS! But wait! That’s not all…

On Sunday, he endorsed the seating of the full delegations from Florida and Michigan, which had violated party rules by holding their primaries too early. Party leaders had penalized them, but Obama is now asking that the penalties be lifted. Clinton won both contests, although neither she nor Obama campaigned actively in the two states.

NOW he is going to be generous enough to seat all the delegates. Isn’t that nice of him? Once they are seated the race would amount to a tie. I think they would be all of 59 pledged delegates apart. But he is going to be really generous and allow that Clinton woman to speak!!! It speaks!! Wow.

I’ll try to contain my glee at all the respect he has shown to her and her supporters. Hillary won almost every large state, all the battleground states, has the popular vote and the electoral map in her pocket. Never mind that she is actually a real leader and not a media creation. But he’s being really generous…

The media has to perpetuate this line of reasoning, otherwise they must admit complicity in selling this phony bills of goods to the public, forever losing what little credibility they have left. They, and the DNC, are still hoping the public won’t wake up and notice the fraud that Ms. Regello discusses and that many of us are still reeling from.

Here’s another quote from the article:

For their part, some Obama backers consider the hard-line Hillary supporters to be sore losers. “What usually happens is, if you lose, you go silent for a while,” says an Obama strategist. “But Hillary’s supporters haven’t gone silent. They’re still out there in the news.”

“They went negative on us (in the primaries),” he adds. “But we didn’t fight fire with fire. It could’ve been scorched earth, but that’s not where our guy is.”

Sore losers? WE went negative? Help me out here, ladies and gents. Do I even need to dignify that one with a response? That’s not where their guy is? No. Rather Obama reminds me of Bush. A snake oil salesman wrapped up in a good marketing package.

And this is the pièce de resistance:

Now, the Obama team’s patience is being tested again, Obama advisers say. One particular problem is Bill Clinton’s apparent reluctance to campaign publicly for Obama. The former president’s role at the convention remains unclear.

Gosh. That darned President Clinton is testing Obama’s patience! That darned really successful two-term President who presided over eight years of peace and prosperity in this country. Darn him!!! He’s really testing Obama’s patience. Join the club. The clueless candidate, lost at sea without his teleprompter, has been testing my patience for months.

But, according to CNN, all is not lost because…

…[F]ormer President Bill Clinton will have a speaking role at the Democratic Convention…

The sources say he will speak Wednesday night, the night of the vice presidential nominee’s speech. Barack Obama will officially become the presidential nominee the next night.

Candy Crowley also reports Obama and Bill Clinton spoke today.
…
Obama said Thursday that the controversy over whether the New York senator’s delegates would be able to vote for her at the Democratic convention was a media creation.

“There hasn’t been controversy other than what you guys are projecting right now,” he told reporters. Obama described conversations between the two campaigns over convention planning as “seamless.” “It has not been a problem,” he said.

Seamless, eh? I think not, baby puppy.

Asked later in the day whether he would be content if Clinton’s name were placed into nomination at the convention, Obama responded “I didn’t say that. I said they are working it out, guys.”

Oh. So I guess Obama is not so conciliatory after all.

If Obama really had respect for Hillary or Bill Clinton and was generous enough to put the interests of someone else besides himself first – you know, like the American people, he would show the respect to her and to her voters and ask for her name to be put into nomination. He would want the stronger candidate to drive us to victory – whoever that may be – and let the chips fall where they may. He would want everyone to be heard, knowing, as Hillary herself has stated, we would have a better chance then to be united as a party and win in November.

However, Senator Obama’s nature is to ride a wave of arrogance in order to cover up his fear, so true unity at the Convention, true respect for Hillary and her platform obviously will not happen. Not of Obama’s own volition, anyway. This does feel very much like a coup in the Party. If Obama, and indeed the elites at the DNC, were not running scared ever since the Texas and Ohio primaries, we would not be seeing this debacle now.

The very thing that keeps the Obama campaign insistent on continuing this pattern of exclusion and disrespect is the very thing that will destroy the Democratic Party. We are supposed to be the guys who count every vote. We are supposed to champion fair reflection. The more they refuse to acknowledge his “luck” in have the DNC riding shotgun for him at every turn, the more we dig in our heels, the greater our rage at this injustice.

Frankly this man is singularly unqualified and I don’t think I can support him under any circumstances. But a man who truly loved the idea of “America returning to its best traditions” might put his ego aside for just a moment and be courageous enough to truly let the delegates have a fair vote at the Convention. In answer to the question Ms. Reggello posed earlier, I think Hillary stepped aside because she put the Democratic agenda first.

It is ironic that Senator Obama’s personal flaws prevent him from doing the one thing in August that might give him even an outside chance in November.

Olbermann v. Milbank: The Back Story

2008-08-07T22:37:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/07/olbermann-v-milbank-the-back-story/

By SusanUnPC

Aha! I knew someone would get to the bottom of this shocker (”Keith Olbermann Declares Off With Dana Milbank’s Head”). At last! The sordid details!

Politico’s Michael Calderone has the scoop, via Memeorandum.com:

Milbank’s dissatisfaction with the show started before any controversy over the Obama piece or questions from Olbermann about misquoting the Democratic candidate, according to sources.

Isn’t that what most sentient beings had already figured out? That for all of Olbermann’s heavy-breathed sternness and breathless tirade published at the distinguished Daily Kos, it turns out that it was Milbank who was sick and tired of Olbermann’s and his crew’s stunts?

A source familiar with the situation told Politico that Milbank had been unhappy on the show for a couple of months and expressed this sentiment to friends. But it wasn’t until directly after an incident last month that Milbank made a move.

During the first week of July, Milbank spoke to executive producer Katy Karp about why he had not been on the show for a couple of weeks. At that point, Milbank was told that there was an issue among staff with something positive he said the previous month about Charlie Black, a McCain senior adviser.

Oh. My. God. Milbank committed the ultimate sin! Well, the sin just below criticizing “The One.” He praised The Enemy’s Force! Oh, the hideousness of it all!

Here’s the exchange from June 23, where Olbermann talked to Milbank on-air about Black’s statement to Fortune magazine, that a terrorist attack would be a “big advantage” for the McCain campaign.

OLBERMANN: But where do we go in terms of this story from here? Does McCain have to, whether he likes it or not, fire Charlie Black or face having this bell along with other bells around his neck all summer and all fall?

MILBANK: Well, he’s going to wait and see. I imagine they are certainly going to hope that this becomes a 24-hour thing that blows over. Which it well could be, depending on what events happen in the coming days. But if it keeps being brought back to them, they’ll have to take some action here.

The irony here is that Charlie Black is a very soft-spoken, well-liked figure, and this does seem rather out of character for him to sound off in this way.

An MSNBC spokesperson confirmed there was a conversation where Black came, but the producer was only joking. The spokesperson said there was no connection between anything Dana said about Black and his not being booked on “Countdown.”

Milbank told Big Head DC yesterday that he "started contract talks with CNN on July 7" — therefore, things were underway several weeks before the July 30 column. (Indeed, Milbank reached out directly to Campbell Brown.) …

Read all.

So, if you’re looking for Dana Milbank, look no further than CNN!

And I hope that Keith Olbermann followed the instructions from Obama’s campaign to the letter.

For more fun with this “hot” story, check out Larry Johnson’s “Obama Versus the Press.”

Obama Losing Steadily to McCain On Issues of “Trust”

2008-08-07T22:33:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/07/obama-losing-steadily-to-mccain-on-issues-of-trust/

By SusanUnPC

“Voters’ Trust for McCain on Key Issues Growing,” Rasmussen Reports:

John McCain is now trusted more than Barack Obama on nine out of 14 electoral issues tracked by Rasmussen Reports. The latest national telephone surveys find that McCain has the biggest advantage on the war in Iraq, by a 51% to 39% margin.

Perhaps the most interesting finding of these polls is that McCain has expanded his leads on nearly every issue he had previously had the advantage on, while Obama’s leads have diminished over the past two weeks. …

One of the maxims that every wise person I’ve ever known has always lived by is never do anything to LOSE people’s trust. Once it’s lost, it’s extremely difficult to win it back:

This is troubling. I hope the Superdelegates are paying close attention. We need their COURAGE to make this right, before it’s too late.

In the new survey, McCain has tripled his lead on the topic of immigration. He now has a 45% to 36% advantage over his Democratic opponent, up from a three-point lead two weeks ago.

The Republican also has pulled ahead on the issue of balancing the federal budget. Two weeks ago, the candidates were tied on this issue at 40%. McCain now has a 43% to 40% lead on the issue among voters.

McCain used to be behind on the issue of Social Security but has pulled ahead of Obama for a 44% to 38% lead.

On issues that Obama has previously enjoyed huge advantages, such as health care and education, his leads have decreased. On health care, Obama leads 46% to 41%, down from a 12 percentage-point lead just two weeks ago. On education, Obama leads 43% to 39%, down from a 10-point lead two weeks ago. On environmental issues, Obama’s advantage over McCain has gone from 14 percentage points down to eight this week.

The economy is the top issue for the majority of voters this election season. Voters have consistently trusted the Democratic Party more on this issue, but the two presidential candidates are tied at 45% as to who voters trust more. A week prior, Obama had a statistically insignificant one percentage point lead on the issue.

On national security, an issue that McCain consistently performs well on, the Republican leads 52% to 40%. His lead represents an improvement from the eight-point lead he held the week before.

A poll released this week finds that over half of voters support Obama’s proposal to provide working families with energy credits but aren’t sure about his idea of taxing big oil companies. When asked who voters trust more when it comes to energy issues, voters choose McCain by a 46% to 42% margin.

Superdelegates, please. We implore you. Do something about this. Please nominate an EXPERIENCED candidate who can match McCain point for point on the issues.

Stating the Obvious

2008-08-07T22:31:00.001-07:00

Original Link: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/07/stating-the-obvious/

By SusanUnPC

A prominent conservative Republican has stated the obvious:

In a tough year like this, Democrats could probably have defeated Republican John McCain with a flawed, but seasoned candidate like Hillary Clinton. But long-suffering liberals convinced their party to go with a messiah rather than a dependable nominee — and thereby they probably will get neither.

— The author, Victor Davis Hanson, is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a recipient of the 2007 National Humanities Medal and the 2008 Bradley Prize.

You can’t say that we didn’t ceaselessly WARN the party that this would happen. You, me, Larry Johnson, and many other brave bloggers. Why the party allowed the hard left — the “authoritarian leftists” — to have its way is beyond me. Most of them are very unreliable Democrats anyway. If their preferred candidate, for ANY position, isn’t nominated, they stew and grouse, preferring to stay in a snit and allow the Republican opponent to win. In 2004, I personally watched as the hard left’s preferred candidate lost the Washington state gubernatorial Democratic primary to Chris Gregoire. (He WAS a fine candidate, but he lost. That’s life.) The hard left did NOTHING to aid her general election campaign. What happened as a result? She won, by just over 100 votes and only following weeks and weeks of recounts. For the hard left, it’s “my way or the highway.” Now she’s in a tough reelection bid against the same Republican who is backed by a huge number of highly motivated Republicans still fueled by bitterness over the outcome they are certain was illegally won. Do you think the left will come to her aid this year? I seriously doubt it, even though she has pandered to them by endorsing Obama (a huge mistake she will rue when the GOP runs ad after ad showing her on stage with Obama).

SUPERDELEGATES: It is not too late to change course!

Read all of Hanson’s article: “Hillary’s Growing Shadow.”

The subtitle?

The Left convinced Democrats to go with a messiah rather than a dependable nominee — and now they have neither

Obama’s Delusional Campaign: Seized by Demons in Their Heads

2008-08-07T21:56:00.001-07:00

Original Link: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/07/obamas-delusional-campaign-seized-by-demons-in-their-heads/

By Larry Johnson

Obama’s campaign doesn’t need fundraisers or organizers. It needs a team of psychiatrists—and quick. Obama has decided it’s just fine to give the cold shoulder to Hillary Clinton and her 18 million voters—and to former President Bill Clinton—never calling them, or including them in development of strategy, and excluding the most capable political people who worked for them, while pretending this is “party unity.” As Groucho Marx cracked, “Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”

What possible excuse can Obama invent to justify his continuing mistreatment of Hillary and his disrespect for the greatest president for African-Americans since Lyndon Johnson passed the civil rights and voting rights acts?

In case Obama has forgotten, under the Clinton administration, poverty was reduced 25 percent—one-quarter—with more than 7 million people moved from welfare to work—and 22 million new jobs created—and family incomes and real wages increased for the first time in a generation—and crime reduced by more than 25 percent.

Yes, that Bill Clinton, the one Obama smeared as a racist.

Yes, that Hillary Clinton, the one Obama smeared as racist, too, for stating the historical truth that Lyndon Johnson was essential in passing the civil rights acts and that we need a president on the side of civil rights to make them real.

And if it so happens that Obama is elected, he will be judged by those Clinton benchmarks—a president he dismissed as not producing change compared to…Ronald Reagan—who blocked progress for African-Americans.

Now what possible alibi can the Obama campaign offer for continuing to poke Hillary and those 18 million voters in the eye?

Chuck Todd, NBC’s political editor, explained today on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. According to Big Tent Democratic, on Talkleft.com, Todd has been talking to the geniuses of the Obama campaign. Here’s what they told him:

On Morning Joe, Chuck Todd said that the “feeling in Chicago,” presumably referring to the Obama campaign, is that Hillary Clinton is seeking treatment that she would never have given Barack Obama had the roles been reversed. If they REALLY believe that, then they are fools. If Hillary Clinton were the nominee, Barack Obama would have been the vice presidential nominee a month ago. I can not believe Todd is passing on this foolishness.

But Chuck Todd is not the problem. He’s just relating the unbalanced state of mind of Obama’s campaign.

Let’s follow their whacked out thinking. They fantasize that Hillary would cut them out and dump on them if she were the nominee. Therefore, it’s legitimate for them to cut her out and dump on her and her supporters. Make sense?

Had Chuck Todd consulted with any psychiatrist he would have learned that the Obama campaign suffers from what Freud identified as neurotic “projection.” Projection is a defense mechanism by which negative impulses, motives and actions are displaced onto others, especially on those serving as the objects of those negative feelings and attacks. Projection can be a fantasy rationalization and lead to full-blown paranoia. It is also obviously a form of denial.

Unless treated, the symptoms will worsen.

Obama’s campaign doesn’t have a theme song, except maybe for Ludacris’ foul-mouthed jingle calling Hillary a “bitch.”

Wouldn’t this one from Gnarls Barkley be an appropriate theme song for the Obama campaign?

Are Georgia Voters Sending Obama A Message?

2008-08-07T21:50:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/07/are-georgia-voters-sending-obama-a-message/

By Daniel Halper

Originally published in Commentary magazine on August 6, 2008. Reprinted here with the express permission of the editor.

Politicians grabbing Barack Obama’s coattails should take note: In the Georgia democratic Senatorial primary runoff held yesterday, Jim Martin defeated Vernon Jones by a 60% to 40%. Martin will now face the Republican senior Senator from Georgia, Saxby Chambliss, in November’s election. This doesn’t seem to bode well for Obama’s presidential quest. Jones’s campaign hoped to emulate Obama’s impressive primary victory in Georgia (he defeated Senator Hillary Clinton in Georgia, 66.4% to 31.1%), but now he’s failed to even make it to November’s ballot.

In fact, Jones distributed campaign paraphernalia consisting of a picture of himself and Obama, with the words “Yes We Can!” prominently scrawled underneath the photographs. Also, Jones sent a mass email meant to smear his opponent Martin:

My campaign has uncovered evidence that my opponent, Jim Martin, did not want Senator Barack Obama to be President of the United States and that Jim Martin voted against Barack Obama in the February 2008 Presidential Primary election in Georgia. [Emphasis not my own.]

He also used this line of attack in a debate, “You say you support Barack Obama, but you voted against him.” In the first round of the primary election, Jones’s strategy of cozying up to the presumptive democratic presidential candidate paid off. Although he wasn’t able to win the race outright, he came out with the most votes (over 40%) and looked poised for victory

What explains Jones’s sudden decline? Again, it’s difficult to tell, but it makes sense to look at the most recent developments in the campaign of Jones’s political inspiration. It might have been Obama’s grand tour, or it could have been Obama’s (former) opposition to drilling off-shore, or maybe it was Obama’s adoption of whatever-policy-is-popular strategy, or it might have been any one of his many policy changes. These are, after all, issues important to Georgians.

With Obama’s humongous primary victory in Georgia, and with former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr in the presidential race (likely to take many more votes from McCain than Obama), the Obama campaign likes its chances in the Peach state. But I imagine Obama will take a hard look at this race to see what went wrong. Politics has changed even since the primary. A different Obama than the one that faced Clinton has emerged, and his campaign will now have to readjust its strategy.

Where’s The Magic Bump In Polls Obama?

2008-08-07T21:47:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/07/wheres-the-magic-bump-in-polls-obama/

By NancyA

Obama stalls in public polling and ABC News Polling Director Gary Langer asked this question, “If everything is so good for Barack Obama, why isn’t everything so good for Barack Obama?”

In a year when Bush’s approval rating is very low, the Democratic challenger, Barack Obama, can’t break the 50% mark in polls. He never received the “big bounce” post Hillary Clinton’s campaign suspension. More on that:

That gap between expectations and reality comes as Democrats enjoy the most favorable political winds since at least 1976. At least eight in ten Americans believe the nation is on the wrong track. The Republican president is historically unpopular. From stunning Democratic gains in party registration to the high levels of economic anxiety, Obama should have a healthy lead by almost every measure. Yet, in poll after poll, Obama conspicuously fails to cross the 50 percent threshold.

One of the things not mentioned is that Congress’ approval rating has gone down the toilet under the leadership of Pelosi and Reid. The Democratic-led Congress is a disappointment to the American people. Their rating has fallen below Bush’s approval rating, a dismal 14%.This is how Democrats and Republicans feel about Congress:

The most recent decline comes almost exclusively from Democrats, whose approval of Congress fell from 23% in June to 11% in July, while independents’ and Republicans’ views of Congress did not change much. As a result, Republicans are now slightly more likely than Democrats to approve of the job the Democratic-controlled Congress is doing (19% vs. 11%).

(And Congress is still laughable!)

Gallup’s director Frank Newport said this,

“What’s remarkable this summer is the stability of this race,”
“In a broad sense, it is similar to previous elections.”

(I am glad something is stable, Obama seems to flip flop everyday….)

When the 2000, 2004 and 2008 elections are compared the following comparisons are drawn.

In Gallup’s last national poll prior to the 2004 party conventions, for example, John F. Kerry led President Bush 47 percent to 43 percent. In 2000, also in Gallup’s last national poll prior to the party conventions, Bush led former Vice President Al Gore 46 percent to 41 percent.

And Gallup has this to say about demographics in the race.

Three demographic groups have generally kept Obama ahead in the past two months: African-Americans, youth and Hispanics. But a lead based on those groups is a tenuous one. The youth vote, notorious for not meeting expectations, must turn out in significantly higher numbers than in past elections. Obama must continue to win the black vote nearly unanimously and still turn out new African-American voters. McCain must continue to underperform with Hispanics by about 10 percentage points compared to Bush in the summer of 2004.

(What’s the matter Obama can’t count on those college kids? And remember your best friend Donna Brazille told the true Democratic base to stay home!)

The real reason Obama has failed to get above the 50% mark is his inability to increase his support in key demographic groups. The Gallup report has something to say about it:

If there is a primary explanation as to why the race has remained close this summer, it is that Obama has failed to make gains overall with white voters, who still cast about three in four ballots on Election Day. (Are you starting to be sorry you called people in Pennsylvania bitter yet?)

As Gore did in 2000, Obama nearly splits white women and loses white men by a large margin, according to an aggregate of polling in June and July 2008 and polling in 2000 by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.

Depending upon the week in June or July, by Gallup’s measure, Obama has roughly fluctuated between splitting or, at worst, trailing by about 5 percentage points with white women. In that same period, Obama has won only between 34 percent and 37 percent of white men.

In general — and with men in particular — Pew’s data shows that Obama’s gains with young whites compared to Gore in 2000 are offset by a weakness with older whites.

Obama also seems to have hit a ceiling with Hispanics. Latino support fluctuates between 57 percent, by the latest weekly measure, to 68 percent the week before — roughly the margin of Hispanic support that has marked the entire summer, by Gallup’s measure.

(Is your head hurting yet, Obama?)

What all this suggests is a general election that is much tighter than many analysts predicted and defined by far more stubborn levels of support.

As it stands, on Aug. 3 the RealClearPolitics average of national polling had 46.6 percent of the public supporting Obama, putting him narrowly ahead of McCain. Exactly two months earlier, on June 3, that same average had Obama at the exact same level of support — 46.6 percent.

So sorry Obama. There will be no”bounce” this year in the polls. The Democratic-led Congress isn’t getting it either.

Captain Howard Dean, the 21st Century Edward John Smith

2008-08-07T21:43:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/07/captain-howard-dean-the-21st-century-edward-john-smith/

By Larry Johnson

Nope. Sorry. That’s not fair to Captain Edward John Smith. Who, you may ask, is Captain Smith? He commanded the ill-fated Titanic on its first and last voyage. Dean, like Smith, is charging full speed ahead through turbulent political waters with nary a care for what lies over the horizon. Smith, warned about the risk of icebergs, ordered the Titanic to run full tilt. I suspect he wanted to have a do-over on that choice as he sank beneath the icy waters of the North Atlantic.

So what about Captain Dean? The warning signs are everywhere. Barky Obama has no sense of humor, prickly thin skin, an ego the size of an artic iceberg, and is getting no traction in the pulls. In fact, the more folks learn about him the less they like him. And this without the Republicans mounting a significant, comprehensive ad campaign to introduce the Chicago Messiah. Anybody out there buying the notion that the Republicans will give Obama a pass come 1 September? Didn’t think so.

Howard Dean, unlike the Titanic’s Smith, can see the danger ahead. At least Smith’s crew tried to steer clear of the iceberg once they spotted the threat. But Dean’s crew? Hell no. Full speed ahead. These clowns are going to sunder the Democratic party in the name of a symbolic gesture. Hopefully they will enjoy the same happy legacy that accompanies the mention of Captain Edward John Smith. We can total the damages and loss of life that accompanied the sinking of the Titanic. The sum remains to be run on the cost of Dean’s folly in backing Obama. But I think it will be huge.

Obama Fatigue: Ripping Covers From Magazines

2008-08-07T21:39:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/07/obama-fatigue-ripping-covers-from-magazines/

By NancyA

Newsweek sent me a free subscription to their magazine, one I’ve been trying to cancel for weeks now. Every time there is a picture of Obama on the front cover I rip it off, it never makes it to the house. The cover hits the trash can at the end of the dirt driveway. Nope won’t even allow it in the house. I would much rather burn it… When I’m not ripping off the front cover, I rip whole articles out of the magazine if it even mentions Obama. I am growing tired, the mention of his name puts me to sleep.

If tearing up magazines isn’t bad enough, I throw away the section of the newspaper he is mentioned in. Nope. I refuse to recycle it even. Newspaper is a commodity in this house, I need it for packing boxes. I won’t have it wrapping my fragile items. I really don’t want to open those boxes and see Obama’s face. Nope, can’t do it.

When the TV is on and I hear his name, I have to mute the sound. If the station, usually Fox insists on showing his face, I have to change channels. The repetition makes me want to take to my bed and sleep. Did I mention I am packing to move? I shut the TV down entirely. Did I mention I don’t watch CNN and MSNBC anymore, too much of him. Can’t do it and won’t do it.

My own personal boycott.

And now this. Ugh! The one thing I can say is I agree with all of it. He reminds me of Paris Hilton and all those other people who are famous for being famous.

Obama’s Celebrity Revisited is revealed to day in this article. People have this to say about Obama:

On the surface, the “celebrity” charge is a personal attack on Obama, coupling him with people universally recognized as being famous just for being famous. But there may be something more going on here. A new poll by the Pew Research Center showed that about half of respondents felt they had been hearing too much about Obama recently while about 38 percent said they had not heard enough about McCain.

And this from Salon.com, I’m so bored with O-B-A-M-A:

This may be about the most lopsided margin in winning the headline wars since James Monroe ran virtually unopposed in the 1820 election. But now, with voters suddenly curious about McCain (judging from the Pew numbers), Obama may be a victim of too much too soon. As singers and comedians have known since the early days of vaudeville, the cardinal rule in show business is to leave the stage with the audience wanting more.

I’m yawning now. And here’s hoping I can stay awake until November.

Obama’s Creation of a Cult Personality

2008-08-06T22:59:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/06/hot-mccains-new-ad-hammers-obamas-creation-of-a-cult-personality/

By SusanUnPC

While this blog does NOT endorse John McCain, we are — quite frankly — in awe of his latest strategies. We have written for months and months about our concerns that Obama’s campaign is entirely reliant on developing a “cult of personality,” which has nothing to do with governance and policy deliberations.

As one example, we are quite certain that, if quizzed, Barack Obama would be unable to name the ranks in the military branches. I’m very sure that the military, at all levels, is extremely concerned about this man’s readiness to be Commander in Chief. (A caller to DCMediaGirl’s great show last night made this clear: The caller is stationed at Ft. Bragg, has twice been to Iraq, and described the conversations among soldiers about Obama’s ignorance of the military as well as Obama’s failures to even SHOW UP to talk to the military.)

In one of the last debates, when the late Tim Russert asked both Barack and Hillary who the new head of Russia would be, Obama IMMEDIATELY turned his head to Hillary, hoping — no, expecting! — that she would answer. It is frightening that such a woefully ill-prepared person would even presume to run for the presidency. He needs to learn more before running for this most important office at this most critical time.

FROM THE McCAIN CAMP:

ARLINGTON, VA — U.S. Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign today released its latest television ad, entitled “Family.” The ad highlights Barack Obama’s support for higher taxes and increased government spending that will only put more burdens on America’s small businesses and cost jobs. While Barack Obama is the biggest celebrity in the world, that doesn’t do much to help American families who are hurting from higher gas prices and the threat of home foreclosure. John McCain has proposed an “all of the above” energy plan — the Lexington Project — to produce more energy here in America, invest in renewable energy, create jobs and achieve energy independence. The ad will air in key states.

VIEW THE AD HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3DxDBH9nn4

Script For “FAMILY” (TV :30)

ANNCR: Is the biggest celebrity in the world ready to help your family?

The real Obama promises higher taxes, more government spending. So, fewer jobs.

Renewable energy to transform our economy, create jobs and energy independence, that’s John McCain.

JOHN MCCAIN: I’m John McCain and I approved this message.

AD FACTS: Script For “FAMILY” (TV :30)

ANNCR: Is the biggest celebrity in the world ready to help your family? The real Obama promises higher taxes, more government spending. So, fewer jobs.

· Barack Obama Has Called For Higher Income Taxes, Social Security Taxes, Capital Gains And Dividend Taxes, And Corporate Taxes, As Well As “Massive New Domestic Spending.” “Obama’s transformation, if you go by his campaign so far, would mean higher income taxes, higher Social Security taxes, higher investment taxes, higher corporate taxes, massive new domestic spending, and a healthcare plan that perhaps could be the next step to a full-scale, single-payer system. Is that what most Americans want, someone who will fulfill a Democratic policy wish list?” (James Pethokoukis, “Barack Hussein Reagan? Ronald Wilson Obama?” U.S. News & World Report’s “Capital Commerce” Blog, www.usnews.com, 2/12/08)

· Barack Obama Would Raise Social Security (Payroll) Taxes. “Obama’s proposal … would impose social security taxes on income above $250,000 per year. He would continue to exempt income between $102,000 and $250,000 from social security taxes.” (Teddy Davis, Sunlen Miller, and Gregory Wallace, “Obama Kisses Billions Goodbye,” ABC News’ “Political Radar” Blog, blogs.abcnews.com, 6/18/08)

· Barack Obama Would Raise Income Taxes. Obama: “[I] would roll back the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000.” (Sen. Barack Obama, CNN Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Manchester, NH, 6/3/07)

· Barack Obama Would Raise Capital Gains And Dividend Taxes. “Sen. Obama wants to raise the long-term capital-gains rate for families making more than $250,000 to around 20 percent or somewhat higher but not above the 28 percent level it reached during the Reagan presidency, an Obama economic adviser says. The same rate would apply to most dividend income for these investors.” (Tom Herman, “Tax Report Your Tax Bill: How McCain, Obama Differ,” The Associated Press, 6/18/08)

· Barack Obama Called For Tax Hikes On “Dirty Energy” Such As Coal And Natural Gas. Obama: “What we ought to tax is dirty energy, like coal and, to a lesser extent, natural gas.” (”Q&A With Sen. Barack Obama,” San Antonio Express-News, 2/19/08)

· In June 2008, The National Taxpayers Union Foundation Calculated That Barack Obama Would Increase Annual Federal Spending By $343.9 Billion. “NTUF’s third round of ‘costing out’ the candidates’ platforms since January 29 found that Clinton would increase yearly federal spending by $289.6 billion, compared to Sen. Obama’s (D-IL) $343.9 billion — both significantly higher totals from the last update on March 3.” (National Taxpayers Union Foundation, “As Presidential Campaign Pace Quickens, Candidates Race Ahead With Bigger Federal Budget Promises, Updated Study Shows,” Press Release, 6/3/08)

· In April 2008, The Washington Post Calculated Obama’s New Annual Spending At Close To $333 Billion. “By our calculations, using figures supplied by the campaigns, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) has proposed new spending and tax breaks that would amount to almost $265 billion a year when fully implemented, while the initiatives proposed by Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) total nearly $333 billion.” (Editorial, “Who’ll Cover The Checks?” The Washington Post, 4/25/08)

· Barack Obama Not “Even Trying” To Balance The Budget And “Frankly Says He’s Not Sure He’d Bring It Down At All In Four Years.” “Barack Obama says John McCain’s plan to balance the budget doesn’t add up. Easy for him to say: It’s not a goal he’s even trying to reach. Not only does Obama say he won’t eliminate the deficit in his first term, as McCain aims to do, he frankly says he’s not sure he’d bring it down at all in four years, considering his own spending plans.” (Nedra Pickler, “Analysis: Obama Won’t Try For McCain’s Budget Goal,” The Associated Press, 7/8/08)

· The New York Times’ David Brooks Said For Barack Obama To Fund His Domestic Programs, He Will Have To Break His Pledge Not To Tax The Middle Class. “Both [Obama and Clinton] promised to not raise taxes on those making less than $200,000 or $250,000 a year. They both just emasculated their domestic programs. Returning the rich to their Clinton-era tax rates will yield, at best, $40 billion a year in revenue. It’s impossible to fund a health care plan, let alone anything else, with that kind of money. The consequences are clear: if elected they will have to break their pledge, and thus destroy their credibility, or run a minimalist administration.” (David Brooks, Op-Ed, “No Whining About The Media,” The New York Times, 4/16/08)

ANNCR: Renewable energy to transform our economy, create jobs and energy independence, that’s John McCain. JOHN MCCAIN: I’m John McCain and I approved this message.

· John McCain Has Proposed A Comprehensive “All Of The Above” Energy Plan — The Lexington Project — To Achieve Energy Independence By 2025: http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm

· John McCain Believes That The U.S. Must Become A Leader In A New International Green Economy. “Green jobs and green technology will be vital to our economic future. There is no reason that the U.S. should not be a leader in developing and deploying these new technologies.” (John McCain 2008, “John McCain’s Lexington Project,” Press Release, 6/25/08)

· John McCain Will Commit $2 Billion Annually To Advancing Clean Coal Technologies. “Coal produces the majority of our electricity today. Some believe that marketing viable clean coal technologies could be over 15 years away. John McCain believes that this is too long to wait, and we need to commit significant federal resources to the science, research and development that advance this critical technology. Once commercialized, the U.S. can then export these technologies to countries like China that are committed to using their coal — creating new American jobs and allowing the U.S. to play a greater role in the international green economy.” (John McCain 2008, “John McCain’s Lexington Project,” Press Release, 6/25/08)

· John McCain Will Put America On Track To Construct 45 New Nuclear Power Plants By 2030 With The Ultimate Goal Of Eventually Constructing 100 New Plants. “Nuclear power is a proven, zero-emission source of energy, and it is time we recommit to advancing our use of nuclear power. Currently, nuclear power produces 20% of our power, but the U.S. has not started construction on a new nuclear power plant in over 30 years. China, India and Russia have goals of building a combined total of over 100 new plants and we should be able to do the same. It is also critical that the U.S. be able to build the components for these plants and reactors within our country so that we are not dependent on foreign suppliers with long wait times to move forward with our nuclear plans.” (John McCain 2008, “John McCain’s Lexington Project,” Press Release, 6/25/08)

· John McCain Will Establish A Permanent Tax Credit Equal To 10 Percent Of Wages Spent On R&D. “This reform will simplify the tax code, reward activity in the U.S., and make us more competitive with other countries. A permanent credit will provide an incentive to innovate and remove uncertainty. At a time when our companies need to be more competitive, we need to provide a permanent incentive to innovate, and remove the uncertainty now hanging over businesses as they make R&D investment decisions.” (John McCain 2008, “John McCain’s Lexington Project,” Press Release, 6/25/08)

· John McCain Will Support Alternative, Low Carbon Fuels Such As Wind, Hydro And Solar Power. “According to the Department of Energy, wind could provide as much as one-fifth of electricity by 2030. The U.S. solar energy industry continued its double-digit annual growth rate in 2006. To develop these and other sources of renewable energy will require that we rationalize the current patchwork of temporary tax credits that provide commercial feasibility. John McCain believes in an even-handed system of tax credits that will remain in place until the market transforms sufficiently to the point where renewable energy no longer merits the taxpayers’ dollars.” (John McCain 2008, “John McCain’s Lexington Project,” Press Release, 6/25/08)

· USA Today: McCain’s Prize For A Better Battery Is “Smarter Than More Bureaucratic Approaches.” “$300 million battery prize. Obama derides this as a gimmick, but McCain’s idea for developing a radically better battery for powering a new generation of cars strikes us as smarter than more bureaucratic approaches. Like the X-Prize that helped propel the first civilian aircraft into space, a reward can leverage huge private investment. The idea would be better, though, if it focused on building radically more fuel-efficient cars regardless of the technology.” (Editorial, “Mccain + Obama = A Valid Energy Plan,” USA Today, 7/3/08)

The Oil Piggy Bank - Time to get a Hammer?

2008-08-06T22:52:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/06/the-oil-piggy-bank-time-to-get-a-hammer/

By LisaB

Last month, Barack Obama rejected the idea of tapping into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as a way to hopefully offset high gas prices for consumers.

What a difference a month makes. Right on the heels of Obama’s dead fish flop on drilling off the coast of FL (even Jeb didn’t want to do this) comes an Obama proposal to sell 70 million barrels of oil from the stockpile.

The WaPo reported Tuesday that during a speech in MI:

Sen. Barack Obama called Monday for using oil from the nation’s strategic reserves to lower gasoline prices, the second time in less than a week that he has modified a position on energy issues, as he and Sen. John McCain seek to find solutions to a topic that is increasingly dominating the presidential race.

——————————

The Obama campaign did not predict how much releasing reserves would lower gas prices. But it said prices at the pump went down more than 19 percent within two weeks when President Bill Clinton made such a move in 2000.

His proposal comes a month after Obama said he would consider using oil from the reserves only in a “genuine emergency,” such as “terrorist acts.” Aides said the plan is not a reversal because he would replace light crude oil in the reserves with less-expensive heavy crude. They also noted that the senator from Illinois last week described the country’s economic conditions as an “emergency.”

On July 24th, USAToday reported that democrats wanted to open the reserves for just this reason.

WASHINGTON — House Republicans on Thursday scuttled a bill that Democrats hoped would help lower gasoline prices by forcing the Energy Department to release 70 million barrels of oil — about a three-day supply — from the national stockpile.
———————–

Democrats said the release from the oil reserve could provide relief at the pump within two weeks, though they would not say how much it would help $4-per-gallon gas. Earlier releases, such as a 34 million barrel drawdown in 1991 during the Persian Gulf War, caused prices to fall.

Interestingly enough, Republicans opposed the sale because Democrats opposed offshore drilling.

Also curious is another story from USAToday on July 23rd about the airline industry supporting selling reserves.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) — The U.S. government should tap the national petroleum reserve to relieve ailing airlines that have been stung by soaring oil prices, the industry’s leading trade group told lawmakers on Wednesday.

“History shows us that even a temporary increase in supply will immediately lower oil prices,” James May, president and chief executive of the Air Transport Association, told the House of Representatives Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.

Three major U.S. airlines reported second-quarter losses on Tuesday of more than $3.3 billion, blaming skyrocketing fuel costs.

May testified as the House is expected to vote Thursday on legislation to release millions of barrels of light sweet crude from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) and swap it with heavy sour crude in an effort to calm the market.

The Strategic Petroleum Reserves has a website with information on current inventory here.

About the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (Wikipedia)

Access to the reserve is determined by the conditions written into the 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), primarily to counter a severe supply interruption. The maximum removal rate, by physical constraints, is 4.4 million barrels per day (700,000 m³/d). Oil could begin entering the marketplace 13 days after a Presidential order. The Dept. of Energy says that it has about 59 days of import protection in the SPR. This, combined with private sector inventory protection, is estimated to equal 115 days of imports.

The SPR was created following the 1973 energy crisis. The EPCA of December 22, 1975, made it policy for the U.S. to establish a reserve up to one billion barrels (159 million m³) of petroleum. A number of existing storage sites were acquired in 1977. Construction of the first surface facilities began in June 1977. On July 21, 1977, the first oil—approximately 412,000 barrels (66,000 m³) of Saudi Arabian light crude—was delivered to the SPR. Fill was suspended in FY 1995 to devote budget resources to refurbishing the SPR equipment and extending the life of the complex. The current SPR sites are expected to be usable until around 2025. Fill was resumed in 1999.
—————–

On August 17, 2005, the SPR reached its goal of 700 million barrels (111,000,000 m³), or about 96% of its now-increased 727-million-barrel (1.156E+8 m³) capacity. Approximately 60% of the crude oil in the reserve is the less desirable sour (high sulfur content) variety. The oil delivered to the reserve is “royalty-in-kind” oil—royalties owed to the U.S. government by operators who acquire leases on the federally owned Outer Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico. These royalties were previously collected as cash, but in 1998 the government began testing the effectiveness of collecting royalties “in kind” - or in other words, acquiring the crude oil itself. This mechanism was adopted when refilling the SPR began, and once filling is completed, revenues from the sale of future royalties will be paid into the Federal treasury.

So, what are the threads here? Democrats and Republicans have been at loggerheads for some time over how to deal with climbing gas prices, with Republicans wanting to drill more and Democrats wanting to use the “oil piggy bank.” Now, it looks as if someone has achieved a “meeting of the minds” with Obama suddenly supporting drilling. Will Republicans suddenly support selling reserves?

We’ll have to see. Right now John McCain does not.

In addition, whether or not 70 million barrels will make a huge difference to the average consumer is a matter of debate. Although any savings is appreciated, such a sale isn’t likely to lower price all that much. Selling oil to make gas prices go down is a little like selling apple trees to lower the price of pie.

So, who benefits the most? Well, consumers who use LOTS of gas. Airlines come to mind. It might help that industry - but that’s not why the idea is being sold. It’s for the driving consumer, stupid.

Lastly, the sale would be of stockpiled “sweet crude.” Reports say this “sweet crude” would then be replaced by the “sour type” (are there crude tasters??). So, that’s not a one-for-one swap. Also, haven’t we been hearing for some time that refinery capacity is a problem and that adds to the price? Just because we could sell it, would we be able to quickly refine it?

We’d be selling the apple trees, putting twigs back in the ground, waiting on a backlogged pastry chef and hoping the pie gets cheaper.

And Obama was against it before he was for it.

So, what’s the calculation, Barack? What changed your mind? And while you talked about this in MI on the 4th, it doesn’t show up in the transcript of your speech in Ohio on the 5th.

Hillary, Iron My Shirts. Gone Fishin’. xo, Barack

2008-08-06T22:49:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/06/hillary-iron-my-shirts-gone-fishin-xo-barack/

By Ani

That queasy feeling is upon me. The reason why follows courtesy of CNN’s Political Ticker:

(CNN) – Hillary Clinton will campaign for Barack Obama on two dates in August, the Obama campaign announced Tuesday.

She will hold rallies and voter registration drives in the swing states of Nevada and Florida on August 8 and 21, respectively. Obama won’t attend Friday’s event since he is taking a planned vacation with his family — and it’s not yet clear whether he’ll be at the latter date, which falls just days before the Democratic convention in Denver.
Obama has said on several occasions that he hopes for both Bill and Hillary Clinton’s help campaigning to win in November.

“I am proud to call [Hillary] my friend, and I know that I desperately need her and Bill Clinton involved in this campaign,” Obama said in New York.

I think that is the first truth I have heard out of Senator Obama’s mouth in a while – he desperately needs Hill and Bill to campaign for him. Desperate is the correct word. Otherwise, I doubt we would hear anything of the kind from him.

I guess he saw his internal polling numbers and they don’t look so good.

Perhaps Barack shouldn’t have allowed his surrogates to dish the Clintons up a crap sandwich every day for six months, besmirching their character and smiling as his supporters booed her and called Senator Clinton and her voters every filthy name in the book. Something many of them still feel compelled to do. Unwise, n’est-ce pas?

And, by the way, Senator Obama still hasn’t bothered to call Bill to apologize for letting him be called a racist for six months either, has he?

Here’s my favorite blog comment to CNN’s article:

Obama takes a lot of vacations doesn’t he?

Hey, when the going gets tough, just take a vacation! President Bush likes those, too. Why, he’s chopped so many cedars in Texas, I’m surprised there are any left!

Doesn’t it strike you as odd that Senator Obama has time for another getaway? He and Senator McCain are in a dead heat in the polls. The DNC knows those are disastrous numbers for any Democrat at this time in the campaign. In this ‘no-lose’ year for the Democrats, shouldn’t he be twenty points ahead?

Why isn’t he? According to the oh-so-clever pundit class, it must be a bunch of us old, racist, bitter hags. But I thought there were only a few of us ‘deadenders’?

I mean the DNC felt fine about nominating the weaker candidate, thinking they could put Paris Hilton on the ticket and win in ’08! Oh, I forgot. That’s what they did!!

It’s so nice that Paris… I mean Barack, gets some time to put his feet up. But Hillary just can’t seem to catch a break. Wasn’t her trip cut short in June because she was needed back in the Senate for important votes? Something Barry can rarely be bothered with. He’s missed over 40% of them. See, the problem is – he can’t just vote “present” any more.

Perhaps Obama could come back a day early and squeeze in one of those town hall meetings with McCain he once said he’d be more than happy to do.

I am curious to know why Senator Clinton is supposed to campaign for him when he gets to take some more time off. She isn’t even the candidate. She still keeps a schedule that makes the man look pale. But like a dutiful mother cleaning up after an errant son home on college break, Hillary feels compelled to throw out the garbage, wash his shirts and vacuum his room.

I know it is the custom for the loser to campaign for the winner of the nomination. The problem is – Obama didn’t win. Since neither of them have enough pledged delegates to claim the nod, she was forced, with a figurative gun to her head, to concede in order to ‘protect the Party.’

And what a Party it is! The DNC stood idly by while Hillary was daily vilified in the press, simultaneously providing unprecedented political cover for a flip-flopping, dissembling novice. I have never seen any candidate receive the treatment and level of disrespect that Hillary did from a fellow candidate. Obama and his campaign manager, David Axelrod, used Rove-ian tactics, accusing her of the dirty tricks they themselves were playing.

And now Obama wants to seat all of the Florida and Michigan delegates — which would make them a hair’s breadth apart in pledged delegates. Possibly Senator Obama is doing this because he just noticed the latest numbers in Florida. Who is the presumptive nominee, again?

It is unconscionable that Senator Clinton should waste a moment of her time in this effort, although I understand her deep party loyalty. Perhaps she feels she needs to ‘go home with the guy what brung her.’ In this case, that guy left her naked by the side of the road to find her own way home.

Good Democrat that Hillary is, even if she asks me to vote for him, three things prevent me from obliging: Obama’s policies that shift with every new breeze, his gross inexperience and his condescending behavior.

I am reminded of the day he went out golfing when she was giving her concession/suspension speech. And he made sure everybody knew that’s what he was doing. I wonder if the ever-arrogant Il Duce is getting a perverse sense of satisfaction knowing that she is campaigning for him while he is off sipping a cold one.

Then again, maybe he really needs the time off. Maybe the schedule is too grueling and he can’t hack it. What the hell does he think he’s going to do if he gets to the White House? Oh yeah: Delegate.

First we had eight years of The Decider.

Now we have The Delegater.

Can’t wait.

Bob Herbert and Keith Olberman Don’t Know Dick

2008-08-06T22:45:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/06/bob-herbert-and-keith-olberman-dont-know-dick/

By Larry Johnson

Crude warning. This is too funny to resist. Thanks to the Daily Howler we get this precious Bob Herbert moment:

HERBERT (8/4/08): You guys have seen the ad a number of times, I am sure, and you have it here in-house. First thing you see are a couple of images of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, right? And we see an image of Barack Obama right after that, comes quickly at the beginning of the ad. You remember that, right? Do you remember any other startling images right there at the beginning? All right. There is an image right there in that very beginning of the Leaning Tower of Pisa, and there is an image of the Washington Monument. Look at the beginning of that ad again. And you tell me why those two phallic symbols are placed there—pow!—right at the very beginning of that ad. I really wish somebody would answer the question—I think it’s really important. Why are those two phallic symbols in this ad…

Here’s the video in question:

Word to Bob. That ain’t the Leaning Tower of Pisa nor the Washington Monument. Can you say, Siegesaule? That’s the crowd of adoring Berliners waiting for the second half of the concert to start. And all you see is a penis like structure?

But wait, there is more.

Howler also astutely points out:

Keith Olbermann: Herbert’s presentation occurred on Monday morning. Twelve hours later, our own Mr. O was still recycling his howlers:

OLBERMANN (8/4/08): It seems like the celebrity ad continues to echo and Bob Herbert of the New York Times was on this network pointing out something—I don`t know that anybody noticed before—this morning: That not only in that McCain ad were there two underdressed blondes mixed with the black guy in the ad, but there are also images of the Leaning Tower of Pisa, the Washington Monument, and the Victory Column in Berlin, as Bob Herbert put it, “phallic symbols”—three phallic symbols, two blondes and Barack Obama.

He’d had twelve hours to check his facts—but he still was repeating these world-class blunders. For the record, no one had “noticed” those famous structures because they aren’t there in the ad.

Man, what a couple of dicks.

Obama versus the Press

2008-08-06T22:43:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/06/obama-versus-the-press/

By Larry Johnson

Since when did Barack Obama become the Red Queen from Alice in Wonderland? When it comes to dealing with pesky reporters asking tough questions we see an emerging pattern–No Questioner Goes Unpunished. Barack might as well be screaming, “off with their heads.”

Notice anything missing in the list of moderators chosen for the upcoming presidential debates? Each campaign had a veto. And they agreed on three debates and three moderators: Jim Lehrer of PBC, Tom Brokaw of NBC and Bob Schieffer of CBS.

Who’s not here? You guessed correctly if you said: ABC. McCain has no motive to exclude ABC. What about Obama? What would his motive be? Is there a pattern of Obama shutting out news organizations and correspondents who have raised inconvenient questions or reported facts he wishes were not dug up?

On Obama’s foreign trip, his campaign excluded The New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza, unable to find him a seat, after he wrote a lengthy factual account of Obama’s story in Chicago that depicted a young man in a hurry, willing to ride roughshod over even those helping him up the ladder, ambitious to a fault, never staying in a job long enough to accomplish anything.

Then, Keith Olbermann, host of “Countdown” on MSNBC, the chief Obama cheerleading section, in effect fired Dana Milbank from his show. Milbank, a columnist for the Washington Post, and a regular on Olbermann’s program for four years, had committed the unpardonable sin of criticizing Obama as “presumptuous” and citing some of his arrogant statements. For suddenly breaking with the pack, Milbank was removed.

About Milbank’s purge, questions hang in the air. Did Olbermann act entirely on his own in firing him? Or did he discuss the move beforehand with members of the Obama campaign?

Now, ABC finds itself excluded. The reason why isn’t hard to figure out. Just go back to the debate in Pennsylvania between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton moderated by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson. Stephanopolous asked Obama a question he never wanted raised.

STEPHANOPOULOS: A gentleman named William Ayers. He was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol, and other buildings. He’s never apologized for that. And, in fact, on 9/11, he was quoted in the New York Times saying, “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” An early organizing meeting for your State Senate campaign was held at his house and your campaign has said you are “friendly.” Can you explain that relationship for the voters and explain to Democrats why it won’t be a problem?

OBAMA: George, but this is an example of what I’m talking about. This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who’s a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn’t make much sense, George.

Obama’s reply, as Steve Diamond has made clear in a series of articles in No Quarter, was a series of falsehoods and distortions. Ayers, the domestic terrorist, had been more than a political funder of Obama’s ambition. He had served with him for years on a private foundation, the Woods Fund, giving money to mutual political allies, like the radical Palestinian group created by close Obama friend, Rashid Khalidi.

And Ayers had been instrumental as co-founder of the Annenberg Challenge in Chicago, a private fund intended to reform public education in the city, in having Obama named as its head.

This was Obama’s first big break, his first big responsibility, at which, by the way, he failed miserably. And it’s something he never likes to mention or to draw attention to Ayers as one of his early mentors. Obama also knows very well that Ayers is a professor of education, not English, having praised his book on reducing sentences for violent youth criminals in a review in the Chicago Tribune. Obama was not then eight years old.

Now we begin to see a pattern of Obama’s thin-skinned responses to media criticism. Obama will cut out any news group or reporter for being so impertinent as to raise factual questions about his past or current record. Anything less than cultish worship will be treat as an enemy attack. Obama’s enemies list will undoubtedly grow. For now it’s Lizza, Milbank and Stephanopoulos from The New Yorker, The Washington Post and ABC. Who’s next?

Obama as JFK? With his enemies list, he’s more like Nixon.

No Crisis Is Immune From Exploitation Under Bush

2008-08-06T22:32:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB121798030763715107.html

By HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON

Tucked away on the Cayman Islands sits Ugland House, an unassuming, nondescript building of modest scale and size. However, according to a recent report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), this five-story office building is home to more than 18,000 corporate entities, nearly half of which have U.S. ties.

In the past few years, the number of corporations flocking to places like the Cayman Islands to evade U.S. taxes has exploded. One of these companies, former Halliburton subsidiary KBR, has used offshore tax havens to avoid paying hundreds of millions of dollars in federal taxes. To no one's surprise, instead of cracking down on KBR, the Bush administration has rewarded the company in April of this year with a 10-year, $150 billion contract in Iraq.

There appears to be no crisis, tragedy or disaster immune from exploitation under the Bush administration. The examples of the waste, fraud and abuse are legion -- from KBR performing shoddy electrical work in Iraq that has resulted in the electrocution of our military personnel according to Pentagon and Congressional investigators, to the firing of an Army official who dared to refuse a $1 billion payout for questionable charges to the same company. In another scam, the Pentagon awarded a $300 million contract to AEY, Inc., a company run by a 22-year-old who fulfilled an ammunition deal in Afghanistan by supplying rotting Chinese-made munitions to our allies.

But the fraud and waste are not limited to the war. In the weeks after Hurricane Katrina, for example, FEMA awarded a contract worth more than $500 million for trailers to serve as temporary housing. The contractor, Gulf Stream, collected all of its money even though they knew at the time that its trailers were contaminated with formaldehyde.

While touting fiscal responsibility, President Bush and his administration have lined the pockets of political cronies like Halliburton and Blackwater. While calling for earmark reform, the president has allowed no-bid and questionable contracting throughout the federal government to dwarf earmark spending by a 10-to-1 ratio.

If we're going to get serious about putting our nation's fiscal house in order, let's talk about putting an end to billions in no-bid contract awards to unaccountable contractors. Let's talk about the number of lucrative contracts and bonuses being paid for duties never performed, promises never fulfilled, and contracts falsely described as complete. And let's talk about reforming the federal contracting system so that we can take on the real waste, fraud and abuse in our federal government.

I've proposed a comprehensive overhaul to root out corruption in no-bid contracts and other shady deals. Reforms must include the following:

- Instead of rewarding companies that exploit tax shelters and incorporate in tax havens, let's ban the federal government from contracting with companies that hide profits offshore.

- We should put in place safeguards so that contracts are awarded to responsible companies that abide by the law and complete the work they're hired to do.

- Let's put a stop to the disgraceful practice of giving bonuses to contractors for work never performed, which has been allowed to happen in Iraq and throughout the federal government according to the GAO and inspectors general.

- We need to increase transparency and competition in the contracting system, and to stop the ideological privatization of critical governmental functions.

In 1941, as the U.S. mobilized and entered World War II, then Sen. Harry Truman proposed and chaired the Senate Special Committee to investigate the National Defense Program. Over the course of three years, Truman set about investigating a president of his own party in order to discover and eliminate wasteful and fraudulent spending. By some estimates, the "Truman Committee" saved the American people some $15 billion -- more than $165 billion in today's dollars.

Truman took on the war profiteers because he understood that when the lives of Americans hang in the balance, we cannot afford to misuse even a single dollar. In the Democratic Congress, we've proposed a new Truman Committee to address the waste, fraud and abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan that has already taken place, a proposal stymied by the president and his allies. And my proposal would prevent waste, fraud and abuse in future contracting.

Of course, we need far more than a Truman Committee. We need the Truman spirit in the White House, where the buck finally stops.

Nearly half hearing too much about Obama

2008-08-06T21:59:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/08/06/politics/p074439D67.DTL

Barack Obama may be the fresh face in this year's presidential election, but nearly half say they're already tired of hearing about him, a poll says.

With Election Day still three months away, 48 percent said they're hearing too much about the Democratic candidate, according to a poll released Wednesday by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center. Just 26 percent said the same about his Republican rival, John McCain.

Obama, the 47-year-old Illinois senator who would become the first black president, has dominated political news coverage much of the year. According to an ongoing Pew study, Obama has appeared in more news stories this year and more people say they have heard more about him than McCain, the longtime Arizona senator who also ran for president in 2000.

Two-thirds of Republicans and about half of independents said they've heard too much about Obama, as did a third of Democrats, a significant number.

At the same time, nearly four in 10 said they've been hearing too little about McCain — about four times the number who said so about Obama. About half of Republicans, four in 10 independents and even a quarter of Democrats said they've not heard enough about the GOP candidate.

The poll was conducted from Aug. 1-4 and involved telephone interviews with 1,004 adults. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

Holding Sen. Obama to Your Standards

2008-08-06T21:57:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.803/pub_detail.asp

By Nicholas Guariglia

How would someone fare if they were to apply for work at the Department of Homeland Security, Central Intelligence Agency, or State Department on the heels of a multimillion dollar shady real estate deal with convicted felon Tony Rezko? Would these federal agencies appoint this individual to a position of any responsibility if they knew the elongated list of skeletons in the potential employee's closet?

How long would a potential employee last during an interview at the Department of Defense if it were known this individual was friends with - and served on the same committees as - the infamous domestic terrorist William Ayers? Would the Pentagon hire this person if he or she remained openly unapologetic about associating with someone who bombed the Pentagon (amongst other things) in the 1970s, and today remains unrepentant, bragging he wish he had bombed more and could do it again?

For weeks now, acquaintances and I have discussed the unprecedented nature of Barack Obama's candidacy. Even if he were to somehow lose the election in November, his unsuspecting triumph over the favorite Hillary Clinton, and his unique racial ancestry - which he consistently reminds us about - have already made his surprising bid for the White House historic. No matter what happens from here on out, Mr. Obama will always be the first African-American nominee for the American presidency, a feat for which he should be proud.

But his nomination is historic in other ways, too. Sen. Obama, newcomer that he is, is arguably the least experienced individual ever nominated by an American party. And philosophically, he seems to be the most Leftist ever nominated. Such unprecedented inexperience, combined with such unprecedented Leftism, are phenomena I have touched on in previous articles, pondering if these twin pillars would be enough to make Sen. Obama unelectable in a general election.

I venture they might, but this year, in the aftermath of Bush, with the political climate so toxic for Republicans, and with the attitude of the country so dead-set on change, I suspect perhaps not. It is, and will remain, Obama's election to lose. This might be the only year where a well-known, well-liked commodity like John McCain - with decades of solid public service, broad bipartisan appeal, and a heroic movie-like biography - could lose, and where an unknown upstart from Chicago's Hyde Park is considered insurmountable.

It is interesting, to say the least, isn't it? What constitutes as so interesting, however, is not merely Sen. Obama's petite curriculum vitae - which, at least metaphorically, remains shorter than Danny DeVito - or his borderline Friedrich Engels political ideology.

No, suppose Sen. Obama was not halfway through his first Senate term; suppose he did not run for Congress after a short-stint as a Chicago legislator-social worker; suppose he did not vote along party lines 97% of the time; suppose he did not run for the presidency after 143 days serving in the Senate (I keep leftovers in my refrigerator longer than this).

Suppose, rather, that Obama was instead a bipartisan, seasoned public servant with many legislative accomplishments, or at least one (which would be one more than he has now).

Suppose all this and more. Wouldn't the company that Mr. Obama has kept (and keeps) render him unelectable anyway? If this were any other year, and if Mr. Obama were any other candidate, would not his laundry list of associations tarnish his ability to win - making him unlikely to pass the litmus test for the country's highest office?

I have tried to find an answer to these questions, asking them several times to those who support Obama, and it has failed each time. But I finally might have discovered why, reaching a subtle conclusion - a hypothesis that I believe, if tested, might ring true - which rests on the foundations of perception and reality, abstractness and concreteness, ethics and forthrightness, manhood and responsibility, and standards and expectations.

All one must really do is apply the same standard to Barack Obama, possibly our next president, that one would apply to oneself. If you are unclear as to what this means, use his relationship with Rev. Wright and Trinity United Church as a template.

Bear with me, now.

Imagine, for a moment, that you were a Caucasian male seeking to make a career in local politics. You might consider, as any aspiring politician would, which new religious establishment to attend within your district. If there was one such establishment, whose community support without it would be difficult to get elected, you might opt to join that establishment.

Imagine, now, upon entering this church, pamphlets were handed out, on which listed a "white values system," championing "white separatism," promoting a "white-centric" theology of "white liberation."

Ask yourself if this alone would raise any red flags within your own mind. Would this alone cause some hesitation? Would this alone make you immediately uneasy?

What if the tenets of this white liberation theology, written by its founder, required the destruction of the "black enemy," and declared that if God was not "for us and against black people," then God should be killed? "The task of white theology is to kill gods who do not belong to the white community," and if God should have a favorable opinion of blacks, "then he is a murderer, and (whites) had better kill him," the dogma read.

How would you react if you discovered these were the primary precepts of your church's doctrine?

What if this church granted lifetime achievement awards to the likes of David Duke, Klan members, and other well-known racists? What if this church's principal pastor mocked African-Americans for their facial features and talking habits? What if this pastor screamed Hurricane Katrina was simply "chickens coming home to roost" for the black community of New Orleans? Or that blacks "invented syphilis" to destroy whites, or created AIDS to intentionally kill off the white race?

What if all of this was said not rarely, but often; not privately, but angrily, in church, televised, and to large congregations?

Would you leave that church? Would you stand up and walk out? Would you warn friends throughout the neighborhood to beware of this place of such crackpot racism?

Or would you sit there for two decades, befriend the pastor, frequently have him over your home, creepily pray with him alone "in your basement" - whatever that means - have him preach to and baptize your daughters, have him marry you and your wife, publicly consider him your "spiritual advisor," donate tens of thousands of dollars to his church, and title your autobiography after his hateful sermons?

Which course of action would you take?

Before reading on, take the time to think about that for a moment.

Now, suppose you made the latter decision and stayed embedded in the church. And let's say your political career somehow began to blossom and this pastor started telling his raving audiences that you, a friend of his and a rising political rock star, "Knew what it was like to be a white man living in a country ruled by black people." How would that make you feel?

Suppose this pastor, during his diatribes against blacks, started screaming "God d*** America" every so often. Suppose every time he said things like this, the hundreds of parishioners in the pews stood up, applauding, high-fiving, knee-smacking, and so forth.

Would you stay there? Would you exit? Would you partake in the back-slapping jubilation? Would you sit there, displeased and stone-faced, next to your toddler daughters? Would you at least cover their ears? Would Daddy have to explain to them later on why everyone was so angry during Sunday worship? Would you be the only person sitting there and the only person not to stand and cheer? Would afterwards bacon-and-eggs brunches with fellow parishioners be light-hearted? Or would they be tense?

Suppose you made the former decision, and yet again, stayed entrenched to the church. Then, after law school, and a short undistinguished career as a city street organizer and state legislator - where you vote "present" more than any of your colleagues - you decide to run for Congress. Your eloquence at anti-war rallies in 2002 spurred a speech at John Kerry's Democratic Convention in 2004, and to your surprise and excitement, you start to become something of a media sensation.

You run for the Senate virtually unopposed, which results in your overwhelming election. After a little more than one-sixth of the way through your first Senate term, you discount your previous assertion that you might be too inexperienced to run for national office so soon. So you decide to roll the dice. After a little more than a year in Congress, you're feeling a little lucky, a little ambitious, and decide to make a run for the most powerful position in the world.

The public, understandably, starts to look at your history and credentials; invariably the issue of your church is brought up. Initially, you admit that, if nominated, you will have to distance yourself from the notorious pastor. But then, after a string of electoral successes, and subsequently greater scrutiny of your church's views, you huffily get defensive and suggest your church is "not particularly controversial."

After news outlets release long video footage of your spiritual mentor going on tirades about black people to a screaming congregation of white people, you concede that some controversial things might have been said. But you guarantee the public that you don't agree with it all.

So you first deny having ever been present during any of these racist, anti-black invectives. You deny ever hearing these sermons. You deny knowing that this is what was said for two decades, during your occasional Sunday absences.

Then you come clean and admit you were there and heard it all.

And your excuse?

Your pastor is simply like an "old uncle" who you don't always agree with. You deplore his comments, but implore us to understand that his contemporary contempt for blacks is rooted in historical injustice against whites. After all, there are some blacks that hate whites, too. Therefore, you can "no more disown" him than you can disown the entire white community.

After losing important election primaries, you start to slowly distance yourself from your pastor. This seemingly enrages him, and as the egomaniac that he is, he holds a national press conference and ensures us all that whatever distancing you seem to be doing from him is purely for your own political expediency. You really do dig what he has to say, he swears, but you just can't say it aloud for political purposes.

This insults your integrity, and, coincidentally, hurts your campaign - "I don't think he showed that much concern for me" you complain - so you decide enough is enough. You distance yourself from the pastor entirely and resign from the church - also coincidentally, once you've finally locked up the nomination of your party and the general election begins to heat up.

Ask yourself, would that have been the thing that would have ruffled your feathers? An insult to you, about you? Would it have been your pastor impugning your own personal sincerity that pushed you over the edge, compelling you to leave the church? Or would it have been the two decades of hatred of blacks and race-baiting? Where would your priorities have rested?

Before fainting at one of his next rallies, all clear-minded and proud people ought to ask themselves these questions, and hold Sen. Obama to their own standard of what constitutes as ethical and forthright. Go through this anatomy of circumstance; put yourself in his shoes.

What would a confidant man, a man confident in himself, have done? What would a man of political will and political courage have done? Now, what would an ambitious man of expedience have done? How would you have behaved over the duration of these 20 years?

Would such triangulation, on this one issue of character alone - on which we haven't even scratched the surface - say anything about one's judgment as a person, and in this case, as a man, or as a father? How would this country have treated a white candidate who attended a racket like this?

This is all but a minute critique. Tony Rezko, William Ayers, and Rev. Wright are just three prominent examples - but the list of radical friends, corrupt business partners, and sleazy Chicago political associates is far, far longer (as we will soon see). The general election is just starting and millions of citizens are just beginning to learn a thing or two about the man-who-would-be-president.

Sen. Obama seems like a nice guy, and I'm sure he is. But once you peel back the onion a little, you might start crying. Never have we had someone arise to prominence this quickly, unchallenged by the media and press over what seems like a never-ending kaleidoscope of buddies, donors, and backers who proudly loathe the United States.

So it is ironic, we must admit, that Barack Obama - short and unimpressive record aside - probably wouldn't last three minutes in a vetting process if he applied for lowly employment at any government agency. He wouldn't be hired as a pencil-pushing bureaucrat - he wouldn't be hired to get coffee for the guy who gets coffee - and yet, in all likelihood, in less than a year's time he will be appointing the heads of these government agencies, overseeing the whole conundrum from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

It's true what mothers tell their children. In this country, anyone can become president.

Obama stalls in public polling

2008-08-06T21:40:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12334.html

By DAVID PAUL KUHN

Obama remains ahead, depending on the national poll, by low to high single digits.

In the two months since Barack Obama captured the Democratic nomination, he has hit a ceiling in public opinion polling, proving unable to make significant gains with any segment of the national electorate.

While Obama still leads in most matchups with John McCain, the Illinois senator’s apparent stall in the polls is a sobering reminder to Democrats intoxicated with his campaign’s promises to expand the electoral map beyond the boundaries that have constrained other recent party nominees.

That gap between expectations and reality comes as Democrats enjoy the most favorable political winds since at least 1976. At least eight in ten Americans believe the nation is on the wrong track. The Republican president is historically unpopular. From stunning Democratic gains in party registration to the high levels of economic anxiety, Obama should have a healthy lead by almost every measure. Yet, in poll after poll, Obama conspicuously fails to cross the 50 percent threshold.

ABC News Polling Director Gary Langer asked, “If everything is so good for Barack Obama, why isn’t everything so good for Barack Obama?”

Obama remains ahead, depending on the national poll, by low to high single digits. The Gallup Poll Daily tracking survey, which randomly interviews at least 1,000 voters each day, has recently found that Obama leads by 3 to 4 percentage points.

In the first full week of the general election, June 9-15, Obama led by between 2 and 7 percentage points. Just short of two months later, registered voters have not significantly shifted their views, as Gallup finds public opinion still fluctuating between roughly the same margins.

“What’s remarkable this summer is the stability of this race,” Gallup’s director Frank Newport said. “In a broad sense, it is similar to previous elections.”

In Gallup’s last national poll prior to the 2004 party conventions, for example, John F. Kerry led President Bush 47 percent to 43 percent. In 2000, also in Gallup’s last national poll prior to the party conventions, Bush led former Vice President Al Gore 46 percent to 41 percent.

Three demographic groups have generally kept Obama ahead in the past two months: African-Americans, youth and Hispanics. But a lead based on those groups is a tenuous one. The youth vote, notorious for not meeting expectations, must turn out in significantly higher numbers than in past elections. Obama must continue to win the black vote nearly unanimously and still turn out new African-American voters. McCain must continue to underperform with Hispanics by about 10 percentage points compared to Bush in the summer of 2004.

McCain might also be said to have hit a ceiling himself. At best, he has statistically tied Obama for fleeting periods this summer.

Yet in this Democratic year, the subject that dominates chatter among pollsters is Obama’s stubbornly slim lead.

If there is a primary explanation as to why the race has remained close this summer, it is that Obama has failed to make gains overall with white voters, who still cast about three in four ballots on Election Day.

As Gore did in 2000, Obama nearly splits white women and loses white men by a large margin, according to an aggregate of polling in June and July 2008 and polling in 2000 by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.

Depending upon the week in June or July, by Gallup’s measure, Obama has roughly fluctuated between splitting or, at worst, trailing by about 5 percentage points with white women. In that same period, Obama has won only between 34 percent and 37 percent of white men.

In general — and with men in particular — Pew's data shows that Obama's gains with young whites compared to Gore in 2000 are offset by a weakness with older whites.

Obama also seems to have hit a ceiling with Hispanics. Latino support fluctuates between 57 percent, by the latest weekly measure, to 68 percent the week before — roughly the margin of Hispanic support that has marked the entire summer, by Gallup's measure.

What all this suggests is a general election that is much tighter than many analysts predicted and defined by far more stubborn levels of support.

As it stands, on Aug. 3 the RealClearPolitics average of national polling had 46.6 percent of the public supporting Obama, putting him narrowly ahead of McCain. Exactly two months earlier, on June 3, that same average had Obama at the exact same level of support — 46.6 percent.

McCain Opens Modest Lead in Ohio

2008-08-06T20:08:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/ohio/election_2008_ohio_presidential_election

John McCain has opened a modest lead over Barack Obama in the key swing state of Ohio. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the Buckeye State shows McCain attracting 46% of the vote while Obama earns 40%. Last month and the month before McCain held a insignificant one-point lead over Obama.

Seven percent (7%) of voters say they’d prefer a third party candidate over either McCain or Obama and another 7% remain undecided.

When “leaners” are included in the totals, McCain leads Obama 52% to 42%.

McCain is now viewed favorably by 57%, little changed from a month ago. Obama gets favorable marks from 50% of the state’s voters, down three points from June but up three points since May.

Nationally, the candidates are very competitive in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.

McCain is supported by 88% of Republicans and Obama earns the vote from 74% of Democrats. Both candidates gain three points from within their own party when leaners are included. However, McCain’s lead among unaffiliated voters jumps from a nine-point advantage without leaners to twenty-three points with leaners.

Among white Democrats in Ohio, Obama leads 71% to 21% (with leaners).

Fifty-one percent (51%) of Ohio voters believe most reporters are trying to help Obama win the election. Just 13% believe they are trying to help McCain and 21% think the journalists are attempting to present unbiased coverage. These figures are similar to the results of a national survey released yesterday.

Economic issues are most important to 49% of Ohio voters while national security concerns are the top priority for 24%. Obama has an eighteen point advantage among those most concerned with economic issues while McCain leads 79% to 21% among those who focus primarily on national security issues.

Sixty-four percent (64%) support offshore oil drilling while 22% are opposed. These figures are close to the national average. Fifty-four percent (54%) say reducing the price of gas and oil is more important than protecting the environment. Just 28% disagree and say protecting the environment is more important. A recent national survey showed that Al Gore’s proposals for clean energy are viewed by voters as unrealistic and costly.

Fifty-five percent (55%) believe the U.S. and its allies are winning the War on Terror while 23% believe the terrorists are winning. Those figures are a bit more optimistic than the national average. However, across the nation, confidence in the War on Terror is near the highest levels of the past four years. Forty-two percent (42%) of voters say that Afghanistan is the central front in the War on Terror while 28% believe that front is in Iraq. These figures, too, mirror the national findings.

Ohio was key to President Bush’s reelection in 2004, going narrowly for him over John Kerry. Bush also carried the state in 2000, but Ohio is a classic swing state that also voted for Democrat Bill Clinton twice in the 1990s.

Rasmussen Markets data shows that Democrats are currently given a 62.0% chance of carrying Ohio this November. With release of this poll, Ohio shifts from “Leans Democrat” to “Toss-Up” in the Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator. NOTE: Factors other than the latest Rasmussen Reports poll impact the Balance of Power ratings. The current status is indicated on the table in the upper righthand corner of this article.

Nearly half of Ohio voters (46%) say President Bush is doing a poor job, while 34% give him good or excellent marks. That latter figure is down a point since last month.

Approval ratings for Gov. Ted Strickland, a Democrat, dropped slightly with 44% rating his job performance good or excellent. A month ago that figure was 47%. Seventeen percent (17%) now say he is doing a poor job.

The Mother Of Us All: A Play In One Condescending Act.

2008-08-05T23:13:00.001-07:00

Original Link: http://oohnuance.blogspot.com/2008/07/mother-of-us-all-play-in-one.html

by madamab

THE SCENE: NANCY PELOSI’s office. Like her home, it is tastefully furnished in pastels. Comfy chairs are placed strategically around her desk. PELOSI is sitting behind it, looking at her computer screen and humming slightly.

[A knock is heard at the door.]

PELOSI: Come in!

[HOWARD DEAN, HARRY REID and DONNA BRAZILE enter.]

PELOSI [smiling]: Hi, everyone! How’s everything going? Is all well with Obama for America?

DEAN: Oh, absolutely, Nancy! That trip to Europe and the Middle East has the media creaming its collective pants.

BRAZILE: Oh, HELL yeah. Man, you should see the photo-ops our future President has been getting!

REID [muttering]: Yeah - too bad we can’t tape his mouth shut.

PELOSI [sweetly]: What was that, Harry dear?

REID [sighing]: Nothing, Nancy. Anyway, the reason we’re here -

PELOSI: Let me guess - PUMA?

[ALL FOUR SIGH SIMULTANEOUSLY. REID, DEAN AND BRAZILE sit down dispiritedly.]

DEAN: Nancy, we just don’t know what to do.

BRAZILE: We’ve tried telling them we don’t need them and to get over it -

REID: We’ve tried ignoring them -

DEAN: Nothing is working! They STILL say they won’t vote for President Obama!

PELOSI [soothingly]: Now, now, everyone calm down. All they’re looking for is a little reassurance that we respect and honor them. [rising] No offense, but I think what you need is a more motherly approach.

BRAZILE: I KNEW we came to the right place! Harry, I can’t believe you didn’t want to ask her.

REID [exasperated]: Jesus, Donna! The important thing is, we’re here now. So, Nancy, what do you suggest?

PELOSI [sitting back down behind her desk]: Come back in 15 minutes. I promise you won’t be disappointed. [PELOSI, BRAZILE AND REID file out of the office.]

[FIFTEEN MINUTES PASS. Another knock at the door.]

PELOSI: Come in, everyone!

[BRAZILE, DEAN AND REID come in and sit down expectantly.]

DEAN: Well, Nancy, what have you got for us?

PELOSI: Check it out! [rising, clearing her throat, pacing while reading]

“Dearest PUMAs,

Please do not worry about a thing. All your concerns will be addressed once President Obama has taken office. You should emulate that paragon of patriotism, Britney Spears, and just trust us with the future of your country. After all, we have done such a great job with our majority since 2006!

As for the Vice Presidentship, that is President Obama’s decision, not yours. I hate to be stern with you, because we really value your unquestioning support, but you realize that we are in charge and not you, don’t you? I mean, it’s not like it would really matter anyway. Hillary is yesterday’s news. We are moving forward into a new, post-partisan, unicorn-filled future with our young, handsome, charming rockstar candidate!

So why don’t you all just give up and let us do whatever we want? Resistance is futile, and you will be assimilated.

Love and kisses,

Grandma Pelosi”

[PELOSI stops, and waits expectantly. DEAN, BRAZILE and REID sit in stunned silence. Then, happy, relieved smiles break over their faces.]

BRAZILE: Damn, Nancy, that was fantastic!

DEAN: Wow. Great, great job, Madame Speaker. The iron fist in the velvet glove.

REID: Yeah - even I’ve gotta admit, that was a stellar performance. Brava!

PELOSI [preening]: Well, this oughta fix their wagon. Nothing can stop Obama now!

[ALL FOUR LAUGH. The Princess phone on PELOSI's desk rings.]

PELOSI: Hello? Oh, Hillary, is that you? [EVERYONE stops laughing.] Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-HUH. Well…um…of course that’s your decision…uh…yes, yes, of course. I understand. [PELOSI hangs up the phone, shell-shocked.]

[brief pause while EVERYONE looks at PELOSI.]

REID [who can't take the tension any more]: Damnit, Nancy! What happened!

PELOSI: Well, um…it appears that Hillary has been getting an earful from her supporters. She has decided to place her name in nomination at the Convention, so that means…she could actually win instead of Barack.

[EVERYONE is mute with consternation.]

BRAZILE [breaking the silence]: Well, well, well. Looks like it’s gonna be a very interesting summer.

[LIGHTS OUT]

American people see through the blatant Obama propaganda machine

2008-08-05T23:09:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/this-is-just-embarrassing/

by garychapelhill

I mentioned in my post yesterday that the American people see through the blatant Obama propaganda machine that is the US mainstream media (and also the “progressive” blogosphere). I was proven right almost immediately by the NY Times and their refusal to print McCain’s response to Obama’s plan for Iraq because it didn’t meet their “guidelines”, whatever that means. I can’t believe that a newspaper would turn down a presumptive presidential nominee after giving space to his rival. That just seems un-American, and just a little bit unethical from a newspaper that crammed said war down our throats with lie and innuendo. Anybody remember this gem from Judith Miller?

The C.I.A. is investigating an informant’s accusation that Iraq obtained a particularly virulent strain of smallpox from a Russian scientist who worked in a smallpox lab in Moscow during Soviet times, senior American officials and foreign scientists say.

The officials said several American scientists were told in August that Iraq might have obtained the mysterious strain from Nelja N. Maltseva, a virologist who worked for more than 30 years at the Research Institute for Viral Preparations in Moscow before her death two years ago.

For them to now lecture ANYBODY on Iraq is just plain laughable. The AP, however, takes the cake with it’s cringeworthy adulation of their King-in -waiting, Barack Obama. This article about his European tour is just too embarrassing for words:

Obama will find himself stepping into perhaps another iconic moment Thursday as his superstar charisma meets German adoration live in shadows of the Reichstag and the Brandenburg Gate. He then travels to Paris and London where he can expect to be greeted with similar adulation.

Well if the Serbs like him he must be good, right?

Another iconic moment, because, after all, every moment for Obama is an iconic moment isn’t it? And I guess the AP didn’t get the word that THE ONE won’t be speaking in front of the Brandenburg Gate. Oh well, when did pesky things like facts ever get in the way before (see Judith Miller, above). But watever, lets talk about how dreamy Barack is some more:

It’s not only Obama’s youth, eloquence and energy that have stolen hearts across the Atlantic. For Europeans, there have always been two Americas: one of cynicism, big business and bullying aggression, another of freedom, fairness and nothing-is-impossible dynamism.

If President Bush has been seen as the embodiment of that first America, Obama has raised expectations of a chance for the nation to redeem itself in the role that - at various times through history - Europe has loved, respected and relied upon.

So Obama represents freedom, fairness and nothing-is-impossible dynamism (yes we can!). PUHLEEEESE, if Obama represents more of anything its lip-service and arrogance. But of course, the big plus for Obama is that he’s NOT Hillary Clinton, because the Europeans hate the nasty Clintons just as much as us Americans:

“He’s different from other politicians. He represents minorities and he’s down to earth and smart,” said Ioannidis. “He comes from nowhere. He wasn’t born into it, and it’s got nothing to do with what family he’s from.”

But there appears to be a deeper mechanism behind Europe’s palpable excitement over Obama than just a break from the acrimonious Bush years. After all, it’s difficult to imagine the continent being swept by “Clinton-mania” or “Edwards-mania” had one of Obama’s main rivals for the Democratic nomination prevailed.

Yeah, its difficult to imagine because neither Clinton nor Edwards would have been presumptuous enough to make such an egotistical, self-adulating, coronation tour before they had even been nominated by their party, much less elected to the office of the presidency. After all, this election IS all about Europe isn’t it? Obama even has a web page for them on his website. I’m glad they’re playing such a large role in helping select OUR president.

It’s a vicarious thrill,” said Reginald Dale, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Europe Program. “After they’ve switched off their TV screens they’re not going to go out and find a black candidate to put forward to lead their own country.”

Above all, Europeans seem to sense that America is on the brink of a fundamental change - and see the protagonist of that transformation in Obama.

Such is the sense of the importance of the upcoming American election that France has given birth to a “Comite Francais de Soutien a Barack Obama,” or French Committee to Support Barack Obama.

It includes famous figures such as Paris Mayor Bertrand Delanoe, fashion designer Sonia Rykiel and philosopher Bernard Henri-Levy. Other politicians, artists and academics, as well as ordinary French citizens, are among its ranks.

“These elections have repercussions on the whole world,” said committee president Samuel Slovit. “What happens in the United States will affect us here. It’s the result of political globalization.”

Well as far as I’m concerned they can have him. If he’s so transformational, let the French take the risk of electing a man who has never held a full time job and who has done a 180 on every issue he has even bothered to take a stand on. Where was mister inspiration/transformation when Bush was trying to strip women’s reproductive rights to the bone? Oh yeah, he was busy telling Terry Moran what his job is will be as President. And just so you know, I don’t believe half the crap in this article. I lived in Europe for 3 years and know for a fact that the hype over there is just as media-created as it is over here. Especially when it comes to the Clintons. Many Obamaphiles buy into the stereotype of Europeans as elitist snobs who find American culture tres droll. Probably because it reflects their own superiority complex when it comes to most other Americans. In reallity, however, this is closer to European’s real feelings about the Clintons:

Europeans who chafe at Bush respond to Clinton’s “inclusive, soft-toned way of communicating with the world, and especially with Europeans,” said Arnout Brouwers, a prominent Dutch editor who has studied American politics in Washington with the German Marshall Fund. “His personal history, his charms, even his personal failings, helped people identify with him as ‘one of us.’ “

Former German chancellor Helmut Kohl, a friend of Clinton’s, agreed. “The reason Bill Clinton is popular in Europe is very simple: He just is. He is a man of great charisma,” Kohl said in a brief interview after a meeting with Bush in Washington.

I’m guessing many of Obama’s fans are too young to remember how much Europeans (as well as much of the rest of the world) loved Bill. Maybe that’s because he did so much FOR them. I would hate to see act two wherein Obama breaks Europes heart. But I’m more concerned about what he’ll do to us.

Majority of Americans see through press bias

2008-08-05T22:53:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/07/21/majority-of-americans-see-through-press-bias/

by garychapelhill

You’ve got to hand it to American voters. They REALLY don’t trust the press. They also know that our mainstream media is totally in the tank for Obama. From Rasmussen:

The belief that reporters are trying to help Barack Obama win the fall campaign has grown by five percentage points over the past month. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey found that 49% of voters believe most reporters will try to help Obama with their coverage, up from 44% a month ago.

Not only that, but very few seem to think the press is trying to promote a McCain candidacy. And only about a quarter of voters think there is no bias at all:

Just 14% believe most reporters will try to help John McCain win, little changed from 13% a month ago. Just one voter in four (24%) believes that most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage.

These numbers only get worse for Obama when you break them down along party lines. As might be expected an overwhelming number of Republicans see biased media coverage. They’ve been singing that tune for years. What is bad for Obama is that large numbers of Independents also feel like the media is in the tank for Obama. Even Democrats who think the press coverage of Obama is biased outnumber those who think they are biased towards McCain.

Twenty-seven percent (27%) (of Democrats) believe most reporters are trying to help Obama and 21% in Obama’s party think reporters are trying to help McCain. …As for unaffiliated voters, 50% see a pro-Obama bias and 21% see unbiased coverage. Just 12% of those not affiliated with either major party believe the reporters are trying to help McCain. (emphasis mine)

Slightly less than half (45%) believe that reporters would actually lie to protect a candidate they support, and 50% say that they are trying to make the economy seem worse than it really is (which woud presumably help an Obama candidacy).

There are other disturbing trends for the Obamaphiles (although you wouldn’t know it from the glowing press coverage–guess the people surveyed above aren’t as “low information” as the elitist OFB would have us beleive). Obama continues to slip in the daily presidential tracking poll. In fact he is at his lowest since Hillary dropped out. I guess without her to kick around anymore, people are actually forced to take a closer look at him. Obots have been telling us that Obama’s latest slide to the right is just his way of pandering to a broader electorate–he’s just a politician after all–but the polls indicate that’s not working out so well for him.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows Barack Obama attracting 42% of the vote while John McCain earns 41%. That’s the lowest level of support measured for Obama since he clinched the Democratic Presidential nomination on June 3.

Obama has never polled above 50%. Not only that, people find Obama less likeable the more they get to know him. His favorables have been dropping steadily, while McCains remain about the same. Even more troubling is his favorable rating among Democrats:

McCain is currently supported by 86% of Republicans and holds a modest–four percentage point—lead among unaffiliated voters. Obama earns the vote from 77% of Democrats

Could that 23% be disaffected PUMAs? It tends to match earlier polling suggesting about that number of Democrats will not support the presumptuous nominee. That Obama is behind among independent voters should be a wake up call to SD’s that actually want to win the white house. Not gonna happen without them. It also shows that what Riverdaughter has said before, that “Republicans fall in line”, is essentially true. Even though they are not completely satisfied with McCain, and given the alternative to vote for Bob Barr, close to 90% have fallen into place behind their candidate. Obama also trails McCain on just about every issue, including the economy, Iraq and national security.

The strategy of turning red states blue is also looking like a high risk gamble. I think it would have been safer to try to win big prize states like Ohio and Florida, which Obama has essentially written off. He thinks he’ll replace them with VA, NC, NM, and NV. In all of these states he is either behind or virtually tied—and given their historical tendencies I would certainly give the tie to McCain at this point in the race.

Finally, Obama would have us red-staters believe that he’s as American as apple pie, born, raised, er, um his grandparents were from Kansas. I guess Kansans don’t take much stock in that, and I don’t think that even Sebelius can change his dismal poll numbers there:

:Republican presidential candidate John McCain leads Obama 52% to 32% in the latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Kansas voters.

But Obama won the Kansas caucuses, didn’t he? I’m so glad that they had such an influential role in our primary….

Oh and superdelegates, if you want proof that Clinton would be the better candidate, look no further than right here:

McCain fares better against Obama than he does against two other prominent Democrats. New York Senator Hillary Clinton leads McCain by eight points, 50% to 42%. Former Vice President Al Gore, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2000, leads McCain 50% to 43%.

Electorally she has a much better outlook than Obama as well. She would easily take Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. And even as he touts his “50 state strategy” I recall that in the last NC poll that included Hillary, she actually came closer to beating McCain than he did. So c’mon Super D’s, stop listening to the media (they’re liars) and start listening to the American people–we’re the ones who’s votes you need.

***UPDATE*** The New York Times proves Americans are right about media bias: from Fox News:

The New York Times last week blocked an opinion piece submitted by John McCain to the newspaper shortly after it printed a piece by his Democratic rival, Barack Obama, McCain campaign officials confirmed to FOX News on Monday.

Obama’s piece detailed his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan. While McCain’s proposed piece also discussed Iraq, The Times told McCain’s advisers that it would not accept the op-ed in its current form because it did not offer new information. Obama’s speech previewed a series of speeches leading up to a highly publicized trip to war zones in the Middle East.

What a pathetic joke our press is. First they were complicit in taking this country to war with Iraq, now they think they’re going to decide this election for us. FAT CHANCE!!!! I say Boycott the NYTimes!!!

Anti-Obama books are best-sellers

2008-08-05T22:34:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2008-08-05-obamabooks_N.htm

By Hillel Italie, Associated Press

NEW YORK — Going negative against Democrat Barack Obama isn't just a campaign strategy for Republican John McCain. It's also a good formula for selling books.
Three anti-Obama releases were in the top 20 of Amazon.com's best-seller list on Tuesday, despite little critical attention or mainstream media coverage.

"There's a pent-up demand from people on the right side of the aisle who feel that the mainstream media is effusively covering Barack Obama and not critically covering him," says Marji Ross, president and publisher of the conservative Regnery Publishing, Inc., which just released David Fredosso's The Case Against Barack Obama.

Until recently, the most widely read narrative of Obama's life was written by Obama, in the million-selling Dreams From My Father and The Audacity of Hope. The new releases, like McCain's campaign ads, attempt a counter-narrative.

The subtitles are the giveaway: Jerome Corsi's The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality, Fredosso's The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate and Dick Morris' Fleeced: How Barack Obama, Media Mockery of Terrorist Threats, Liberals Who Want to Kill Talk Radio, the Do-Nothing Congress, Companies That Help Iran, and Washington Lobbyists for Foreign Governments Are Scamming Us ... and What to Do About It.

FIND MORE STORIES IN: George W Bush President Clinton Chicago Sen. John Kerry Fox News Amazon.com Republican John McCain Democrat Barack Obama Michael Moore HarperCollins Audacity of Hope Sean Hannity Dark Side Random House Inc Dreams From My Father Dick Morris National Review Online Crown Publishing Group Unfit for Command PublicAffairs Stupid White Men Peter Osnos Do About It Regnery Publishing What Happened
The authors allege that Obama is not a benign spokesman for hope and unity, but an ideologue with close ties to 1960s radicals and the Chicago political machine. Corsi is already known as a co-author of Unfit for Command, the influential attack against the war record of Sen. John Kerry, the Democrats' presidential candidate in 2004. Fredosso is a reporter for National Review Online, while Morris is a former aide to President Clinton who has since made a career of bashing Democrats.

"With book like these, the minute some people know they're out there, they must have them," says Cal Morgan, a vice president and executive editor at HarperCollins who worked on Morris' book and, at the other end of the spectrum, Michael Moore's Stupid White Men.

Steve Ross, president and publisher of the Collins division of HarperCollins, released Obama's books when Ross was head of the Crown Publishing Group at Random House Inc. He thinks that the audience for anti-Obama books will grow through the fall, but doubts that sales will reach the levels of the senator's own books.

"The anti-Obama readership is largely one that has already made up its mind and is looking for validation, while the Obama readership comprises both those who have already made up their minds and those who are curious about him," Ross says.

Fredosso's book, which officially came out Tuesday, has nearly 300,000 copies in print. The Corsi book, released late last week, is already in its third printing, with a total of 375,000 copies in print so far. Fleeced, released in June and now in its eighth printing, has 210,000 copies. Books taking on the Bush administration, including Jane Mayer's The Dark Side, are selling well, but no anti-McCain works are currently attracting attention.

"Obama is a fresh subject — it's all new ground," says Peter Osnos, founder of PublicAffairs, which released Scott McLellan's What Happened, a best-selling criticism of Bush by the president's former press secretary. "McCain doesn't have the same kind of resonance, it's nothing in comparison, because you can still shape people's view of Obama, but it's way too late to shape their view of McCain."

The anti-Obama books share not just a point of view, but a path to success that has worked for both liberals and conservatives_ online word of mouth and appearances with sympathetic interviewers, such as Fox News' Sean Hannity, who has had Corsi, Fredosso and Morris on his show. Ross says that Hannity is not just an interviewer, but an "enthusiast for books" who "gets people excited about the idea of reading a book."

"Books from both the left and the right often work this way," Morgan says, noting that Moore's book was also a best seller, even though it was ignored by reviewers.

"They begin at the grass roots. They begin with a direct channel between the author and the consumer. They're not mitigated by rumors or secondary comments. They're a kind of vote the consumers cast for the author's point of view."

Those Meddling Kids

2008-08-05T21:43:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/07/24/thursday-those-meddling-kids/

by riverdaughter

Way to go, Janis! Your ad catapulted The Denver Group into the NYTimes. (BTW, Heidi Li has a very nice post this morning that elegantly lays out why the convention must be open and transparent.) In Clinton Supporters Try One More Tack, Heidi Li and Mark Rubin’s advocacy group is prominently featured and what’s more, the Times actually seems to get the point of the FDR ad. Whoa! They *can* be taught.

Update: edgeoforever found another reference to us and The Denver Group at a local affiliate of ABC News. We are described as “militant”. Damn, camouflage makes me look washed out and clashes with my hair. The comments seem to be very supportive at the ABC site. It’s like, “Well, an open convention *does* seem rather reasonable when you think about it.”

Add that to the list of media outlets that have featured PUMAs or made reference to us as humorless troublemakers. You know, I have no problem with the troublemaker part. It’s only trouble for the people who think we are ruining their beautiful plans. But humorless? That just frosts my crockies, Conflucians.

All this media attention is heady stuff but it does have a down side. We’ve seen some evidence of this in the spam filter. BTW, Francine, you really need to take a break and cut back on the Kool-Ade. The Obamaphiles are none too pleased right now. We are about to ruin everything. The media is dipping its toe into the water because, hey, the summer is slow for news, even with, or *because* of Obama’s Grand European and Middle East Best President Evah Tour. A little conflict keeps the news junkies strung out. Give them a little tease now and then, show a little bit of Diane’s shapely gams on Fox and watch the revenue pour in.

Now, I like the publicity, but the DNC is going to want to squash us like a bug. You know it’s coming, though, what can they throw at us at this point? They’ve already called us every nasty name in the book including racists, though I draw the line at Republican. So far, we have been immune to guilt trips, the sweet enlightenment of reason and ridicule, That leaves only a few options. The most powerful is to divide us from within. I’m not being paranoid. Obama is the presumptuous nominee because the Dems were divided from within. C’mon, John Edwards would have been a perfectly suitable candidate but he was ignored by the media. Barack Obama was a much more potent adversary for Hillary Clinton because he pitted two vital constituencies of the Democratic base against each other. Oh sure, the DNC loved him as well but they stupidly fell right into the trap the GOP laid for them. The DNC pissed off its biggest voting bloc for the smaller one that has no chanve of expanding outslde of the party. But nevermind.

My point is, they have done a lot already to get us to shut up, sit down and go away but we seem to be holding out. So, they will have to send in the SWAT team to take a wrecking ball and split us into factions.

Hmmm, how do we get around that one? Think, think, think. I know! Let’s first keep the mission simple. If there is no mission creep, there won’t be a lot to argue about. So, as our goal, let’s get Hillary;s name nominated at the convention in Denver. Let’s not look beyond Denver for the time being. Simple goal, And let’s try to keep our egos in check. We are all in this together. We all have a role to play. Some of us are writers, some of us are organizers, some of us are media persons. None of us can succeed without the others and none of us are better than the others. We only get to be famous if we succeed. Otherwise, we’re merely pains in the ass.

Now, Conflucians, the $%&@’s about to hit the fan. Find a buddy, hold hands, stay together and look both ways before crossing the street. We will be ok if we stick together.

Of further interest: Terry Gross on Fresh Air recently interviewed Ryan Lizza. Lizza wrote about Obama and his Chicago ties in the New Yorker. It’s pretty clearr to me that Terry is in the tank for Obama. Her voice almost sparkles when she talks about his book “Dreams of My Father”. Earlier in the primary season, she interviewed political watchers and the fawning over Obama as better than sliced bread really grated on me so I’ve had to avoid some of her podcasts. It made me think less of her as an interviewer and generally, she’s unmatched. I’m not surprised though that she went for the affluent liberal schtick. But Lizza seems a bit more grounded, especially when he says, ” Obama is incredibly lucky to have always been at the right place at the right time”. Yes, indeedy. Don’t miss the section where they talk about Trinity Church. It sounds like Lizza was intially willing to cut Obama a break on his genuine religious conviction and later came to a more level-headed conclusion. Listen and critique: Obama and the Chicago Establishment.

How NBC finally got busted as the Faux News of the Obama Campaign

2008-08-05T21:38:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/07/24/disdain-part-deux-how-nbc-finally-got-busted-as-the-faux-news-of-the-obama-campaign/

by sm77

To add to Gary’s post about Obama’s disdain for free speech below, NBC lost whatever credibility they had left:

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama’s campaign has bought $5 million worth of advertising time from NBC Universal to run TV spots during the Olympic Games, a source familiar with the deal said on Wednesday.

The package, believed to be an unprecedented political media buy for the Olympics, includes commercials that will run on the NBC network and cable channels such as USA, MSNBC and CNBC during the August broadcast of the Summer Games, the source said.
Both NBC and Obama’s campaign declined to comment.

That payoff was sure sweet, especially for the fellatio work on MSNBC. I wonder how much were the bonuses Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann got for getting on their knees without kneepads for 6 months?

But wait, there’s more! The “former media darling” John McCain noticed something in the milk wasn’t clean with all this Obama love. (Note: I do not endorse or will endorse John McCain as president, I just think this video is TOO AWESOMELY “good to be true”):

Is this how the NBC/Obama/GE love marathon went down? : You scratch my back a little by saying I am the second coming of JFK & MLK, Jr., and I scratch you $5 million dollars for your Olympics. Then you continue to scratch my “Obama is a God” message and I’ll scratch you some love by giving you full and unlimited permission to build nuclear plants EVERYWHERE once I become the Galactic Emperor. < /snark >

So, NBC/Universal = MSNBC = GE = Nuclear Plant Builders = Exceleon Energy = David Axelrod = Obama.

It’s no surprise that backroom dealing was de riguer in the NBC/GE boardrooms, that 99.9% of NBC news personalities (and notice I did not call them “anchors or journalists”) were just overly and unobjectively FAWNING over the Precious. With this $5 million dollar ad buy, this is further proof Obama has bought the campaign and has ZERO interest in keeping the tenets of ”free press” and “Democracy.”

There is an “ism” word that begins with an F that describes this very thing. Mussolini would be proud.

Pick Your Poison

2008-08-05T21:35:00.001-07:00

Original Link: http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/friday-pick-your-poison/

by riverdaughter

Ahhh, I *knew* there was a catch to potentially seeing the presumtuous nominee give his victory speech at Invesco Field. According to the Caucus at the NYTimes, you have to sign up for the Obama package:

Updated Want to score one of the tickets to Senator Barack Obama’s speech next month accepting the Democratic nomination in Denver? You won’t have to pay, but you may have to work for it, according to the Obama campaign.

In an interview with The Denver Post, the deputy campaign manager Steve Hildebrand indicated that the price of admission to the speech would be a pledge to volunteer and recruit new voters on behalf of Mr. Obama.

“We’re going to ask those 80,000 people in that stadium to march out of there and go with very specific instructions and goals to register millions of new voters,” Mr. Hildebrand told the newspaper.

It’s like a subscription you just want to try out but you find that you have to fork over your credit card number and sign up for 4 years. You can retract at any time in the next 4 months but I’m guessing they are very persistent in badgering you. What is it they hold over your head? Well, to score the ticket, a “community credential”, you have to ask for one through your local DNC office. Gotcha! Now, not only do they have a promise from you to work for The Precious but they will be badgering you, sending out Jehovah’s Witness types to bang on your door with tracts. “Brother, we are worried about your eternal soul. You PROMISED to be an activist for Obama and you haven’t put in your time. When can get you to fulfill your PROMISE?” This sounds pretty bad to me. You lose your anonymity locally and we’ve already seen that some Obamaphiles are nasty pieces of work, kicking over tripods and generally harrassing women. I don’t like it.

Superdelegates, you are responsible for what happens at this convention. The longer you allow for the DNC-Obama holy marriage to go on, the harder it is going to be for those of us who reject him to vote for him. We are now up to over 40% of Democrats in the latest CNN polls. Rasmussen gives a generic Democrat a double digit lead over McCain but Obama comes in at a statistical dead head while Hillary and Gore trounce McCain. The media is fawning all over Obama, now, but it hardly matters. The public isn’t buying it. And if we are subjected to ads during the Olympics, we’re going to blame Obama for ruining it.

It’s beginning to feel like you can’t get away from the guy. He’s on every channel, every radio station, every web page. It’s like visiting a country run by a dictator and finding the guy’s picture on every street corner. We don’t want that. It doesn’t make us want to vote for him. The aura of inevitability will not work this year because no matter how repugnant Republicans are, John McCain is about the mildest of the bunch. I’m not voting for him but if he ends up being the lesser of two evils…

As I see it, you need to pick your poison. You can let this farce go on and alienate half your base or you can take the Obama campaign aside and tell them to knock it off. If we go into the convention that is bought and paid for by Obama when the delegate count is this close, if is going to make us dig our heels in even more. The numbers are so close, the states he has won so indignificant next to hers and the differences in their qualifications so striking that to completely shut out the half of the Democratic voters from enfranchisement in the nomination process is going to spell electoral disaster for you in November.

I don’t want to buy a product. I want to elect a president. In 2000, we saw that it’s not enough to say there are no differences between the candidates. Who the president is *does* count. Neither one of these men is as fit to lead as the woman who was shut out. But if one of them should reach the White House and leaves her voters behind with nothing, then it will be on YOUR heads for leaving the rest of your party but with no choice but a big fat sack of “NO!”

What is Wrong with Barack Obama?

2008-08-05T20:43:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/07/26/what-is-wrong-with-barack-obama/

by bostonboomer

Well, in the first place he is incredibly arrogant, haughty, full-of-himself, and entitled. He appears to have almost no empathy for other people and he is very good at using them as long as he wants something from them and then throwing them under the bus when he no longer needs them. For starters, just ask Rev. Wright, Rev., Pfleger, the members of Trinity United Church of Christ, “former” advisors Samantha Power and Austen Goolsbee, Jim Johnson (former VP committe member), whoever created the “Great Possum Seal,” the “progressive” bloggers who supported him unstintingly for months, and his own grandmother. In fact Obama has added a new cliche to the American vernacular, “He (or she) wasn’t the person I once knew.”

A number of Conflucians have noted in comments that Obama is highly narcissistic. I’d say that’s an understatement. In fact, I would argue that he suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). Personality disorders are enduring patterns in the way a someone perceives the world, relates to other people, and reacts to events. These behaviors are dysfunctional and affect a person’s functioning in many aspects of life.

NOTE: Approximately 75% of people diagnosed with NPD are men. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, I will refer to the narcissist as “he” and the narcissist’s partner as “she.”

Although people with NPD act haughty and entitled, on an unconscious level, they may actually have doubts about their own abilities, competence, and loveability. Because of this unconscious lack of self-esteem, they constantly need to see their own uniqueness and greatness reflected in the eyes of other people. They expect the people in their lives to provide them with what Sam Vankin calls “narcissistic supply,” meaning unstinting attention, admiration, and praise. People with NPD are often highly sensitive to criticism and they hate to lose. They may become enraged when they don’t get the admiration they expect or when they fail to live up to the high opinion they have of themselves. Because they envy people who are more successful than they are, they frequently believe that people are just as envious of them.

People with NPD can be superficially charming, and they seem to have a special radar that attracts people who are needy and dysfunctional and will gladly provide “narcissistic supply” in return for basking in the narcissist’s reflected glory. For most people, the veneer of the narcissist soon grows thin, and his arrogant, entitled behavior soon becomes annoying and drives them away. And if the narcissist’s significant other begins taking an interest in her own well being instead of focusing on meeting the narcissist’s needs for attention and approval, the narcissist will dump her with no compunctions or regrets.

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM IV-TR), NPD is characterized by

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)

2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

3. believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)

4. requires excessive admiration

5. has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations

6. is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends

7. lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others

8. is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him

9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

Honestly, couldn’t a psychiatrist examining Barack Obama check off every item on the list? Let’s look at just a few examples.

1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)

To check off this item, a shrink would only have to look at the fact that Obama chose to run for POTUS with almost no relevevant qualifications or experience and with such a thin resume that he has barely ever held a full-time job (h/t Katiebird). He has based his presidential campaign on the fact that he was a “community organizer” in the 1980s (even though he had no tangible accomplishments), was president of the Harvard Law Review in the 1990s (although he wrote no articles for publication), his undistinguished tenure as a state senator in IL, and an anti-war speech in 1992 that wasn’t even audio- or video-taped and didn’t rate even a mention in the local papers. Oh, and he wrote two autobiographical books by his mid-40s. He claims to have been a “civil rights attorney” (although he has argued no cases in court) and a consitutional law professor” (although he was really a part-time adjunct instructor who never published a single peer reviewed article).

2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

From a press release from Hillary Clinton’s campaign, 12/2/07:

“Iis Darmawan, 63, Senator Obama’s kindergarten teacher, remembers him as an exceptionally tall and curly haired child who quickly picked up the local language and had sharp math skills. He wrote an essay titled, ‘I Want To Become President,’ the teacher said.” [AP, 1/25/07 ]

His third grade teacher: Fermina Katarina Sinaga “asked her class to write an essay titled ‘My dream: What I want to be in the future.’ Senator Obama wrote ‘I want to be a President,’ she said.” [The Los Angeles Times, 3/15/07]

In addition, Obama told his brother

‘I think I’d like to teach at some point in time, and maybe run for public office,’ recalls Robinson, who assumed Senator Obama meant he’d like to run for city alderman. “He said no — at some point he’d like to run for the U.S. Senate. And then he said, ‘Possibly even run for President at some point.’ And I was like, ‘Okay, but don’t say that to my Aunt Gracie.’ I was protecting him from saying something that might embarrass him.”

His Harvard law classmates also report that Obama frequently talked about becoming President.

3. believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)

For this one the shink need look no further than Obama’s denigration of working class people as “bitter,” gun-toting religious nuts who are too stupid to see his wonderfulness. And of course he made these remarks in front of group of wealthy elitist snobs in San Franciso’s most hoity-toity neighborhood.

4. requires excessive admiration

Obama’s appearances before huge audiences, his desire to speak in front of the Brandenburg Gate in Germany like Ronald Reagan did as President, his encouragement of a rabid, cult-like following all demonstrate this need in Obama.

5. has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations

This one is easy. Obama acted like he had won the nomination after his win in the Iowa caucuses; after he lost in the New Hampshire primary, he still encouraged his followers to call on Hillary Clinton to drop out of the race. After Super Tuesday, he assumed that the nomination was his and urged his followers and the compliant media to demand that that Clinton must quit because she was hurting his chances in November. Meanwhile, Hillary won Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Puerto Rico, and South Dakota, while Obama was on a downhill slide. Now that Obama is the “presumptive nominee,” he is acting as if he is already President and expecting to be treated as such by foreign leaders and the media.

6. is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends

See above references to numerous people who were supportive of Obama for many years and then were thrown under the bus without a second thought.

7. lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others

Evidence for this one: Obama’s treatment of the voters of Florida and Michigan as well as his dismissal of working class voters in Pennsylvana, Ohio, West Virginia, and Kentucky.

8. is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him

This one is harder to support with clear evidence, but in my opinion, Obama is very envious of the Clintons, because they are able to outshine him. One example of this was Obama’s angry resentment after Hillary crushed him in the Pennsylvania debate. He just couldn’t resist denigrating her, brushing her off his shoulders and shoes, and giving her the finger. Because he envies the Clintons, Obama imagines that they are equally resentful of his success. He just can’t imagine that Bill and Hillary might be unselfishly working for the good of their party and their country, despite Hillary’s “loss” in the primaries.

Obama is now treating John McCain like he treated the Clintons, denigrating him, accusing him of racism and pushing false and unfair smears against Obama. For example, in his announcement in Minneapolis that he was the nominee of the Democratic Party, he complained:

I honor [John McCain's] service, and I respect his many accomplishments, even if he chooses to deny mine.

Huh? Exactly what accomplishments are those, Barack? And when did McCain “deny” them?

(9) shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

For this one, I would recommend that Obama’s shrink read this blog post on Obama’s body language and watch two videos recommended by the body language expert. These videos also demonstrate Obama’s narcissistic rage and resentment toward Hillary Clinton.

NOTE: The body language article and the videos were recently cited by Confluence commenter bmc. Thank you for identifying yourself in the comments. I tried searching the comments where I got the links, but just couldn’t find it.

I’m sure you brilliant Conflucians can think of plenty of other examples that demonstrate Barack Obama’s malignant narcissism. Please feel free to share them in the comments.

Who Kidnapped Digby?

2008-08-05T09:05:00.001-07:00

Original Link: http://myiq2xu.wordpress.com/2008/07/28/who-kidnapped-digby/

by myiq2xu

If there is a progressive blogger that is universally respected throughout Left Blogistan it is Digby. I was a regular reader of her work at Hullabaloo back when nobody online even knew her gender. That’s why I find it sad and disturbing to learn that she has officially drunk the Kool-aid:

Keep in mijnd that the GOP does not do this stuff for a knock out. They operate on the death of a thousand cuts. Little criticisms, relentlessly played, dribbled out over time designed to create a running theme. This one is obvious: elitist, aloof, and — presumptuous. That last carries quite an amazing amount of freight — presumptuous, uppity, doesn’t know his place. It applies neatly to any Democrat who deigns to lead Broderville but the historical, subliminal American memory that attaches to such a word when the person in question is black is particularly powerful.

Calling Barack Obama “presumptuous” is the same as calling him “uppity.” The missing word that is implied with “uppity” is “negro,” or even worse, “n*gg*r” The nuclear weapon of epithets in our country, worse even than “cunt”

So, according to the premier “A” lister among progressive bloggers, calling Barack Obama “presumptuous” is a racist epithet, delivered as a dogwhistle. This isn’t the only time she has made this argument. In response to this story:

ABC News’ Christianne Klein reports that at a breakfast with Republican insiders at the Capitol Hill Club this morning, former White House senior aide Karl Rove referred to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, as “coolly arrogant.”

“Even if you never met him, you know this guy,” Rove said, per Christianne Klein. “He’s the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by.”

Digby had this to say:

It’s very clever to add in the country club and martini imagery, even though it’s patently absurd. Gives it a nice sort of cover to what he’s saying. After all, conservatives can’t just come right out and call someone an Uppity Negro these days.

Personally, the image I would expect people to associate with “uppity negro” isn’t a smart-ass hipster enjoying cocktails at a country club.

I started referring to Obama as the “Presumptuous Nominee” when his campaign and supporters (both in and outside of the media) started referring to him as the “Presumptive Nominee” before he had attained enough pledged delegates and superdelegate commitments to make a plausible claim to the title, and when he was passing on the remaining primaries in order to begin his campaign against John McCain.

Wiki Dictionary defines presumptuous as “Full of presumption; presuming; overconfident or venturesome; audacious; rash; taking liberties unduly; arrogant; insolent; as, a presumptuous commander; presumptuous conduct” with the following synonyms:

overconfident; foolhardy; rash; presuming; forward; arrogant; insolent.
I don’t see “uppity” anywhere in either list.

One of the common criticisms of Senator Obama is that he is arrogant and exudes an elitist attitude. Bostonboomer, in answer to the question “What is Wrong With Barack Obama?” said:

Well, in the first place he is incredibly arrogant, haughty, full-of-himself, and entitled.

That about sums it up for me too. But what do we know, we’re just bitter racists.

I don’t know of any PUMA that thinks Obama is presumptuous because he is black. They point to his resume, which is far thinner than any Democratic nominee for President since before FDR. Even John F. Kennedy had completed a full Senate term (along with three terms in the House) before becoming President, and JFK was a war hero who was groomed for politics by his father since his childhood.

At first, only the serious deluded bought into the racism meme. When the Obama campaign started pushing the idea that Bill Clinton was making a racist putdown of Senator Obama when he called Obama’s story about consistently opposing the war a “fairy tale,” or when he referred to the 15 years-younger man as a “kid.” Anyone who wasn’t suffering from Clinton Derangement Syndrome found that idea laughable.

Some people found an earlier incident slightly more credible, when Billy Shaheen brought up Obama’s already admitted drug use by saying that he might be less electable because the press might wonder if Obama had sold drugs in college saying “”It’ll be, ‘When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?‘” But Shaheen never made any racial inferences, only mentioning the drug use. Nevertheless, Obama’s admitted cocaine use has been a taboo topic ever since.

We’ve heard it suggested that calling Obama “inexperienced” was racist. Comparing his win in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson’s was also racist, although Jackson was the last person to win that primary besides Bill Clinton who wasn’t still in the campaign. Actually, Clinton and Jackson were the last two-time winners in South Carolina. (for a thorough description of the false racism allegations made early in this campaign, see “Race Man” by Sean Wilentz)

Then there was the recent New Yorker cover controversy. Obviously meant as satire, Obamanation went ballistic because it allegedly was racist. This is the New Yorker fer gawd’s sake, a supposedly “progressive” publication! Of course, any caricature or Obama will almost always portray him as black, because (believe it or not) he is of half African descent.

So, according to Digby, “presumptuous” and “arrogant” are racial epithets when applied to Obama. So is pretty much any criticism or ridicule of The Precious according to the “Obama Rules.” We’ve seen the “Clinton Rules” in use for years (any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent) epitomized by the RFK assassination wankfest last May, but the Obama rules are completely different. They are the political equivalent of a “get out of jail free” card.

That’s because the Obama rules don’t apply to Obama, they apply to everyone else. Obama is free to make accusations of racism without any proof, even preemptively. He has already stated that the GOP will run a racist campaign against him. In fact, pointing out the racist nature of something he or his wife says is racist too.

And of course, he gets a complete pass on sexism and misogyny, because pointing it out is . . . well, you know.

Sweeping us under the rug

2008-08-05T08:52:00.001-07:00

Original Link: http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/07/29/sweeping-us-under-the-rug/

by katiebird

Chris Matthews’ pal, Gloria Boerger might have revealed the latest in the Obama and the DNC’s bizarre attempt at drawing in the Hillary Clinton voters.

View it here:

“Remember Hillary Clinton?” she chirps with a slight sneer when asked “for something I don’t know,” by Chris Matthews. And what does Chris not know? — That IF Hillary’s name is placed in nomination it will happen in the morning as far as possible from prime time and the bulk of American television viewers.

In a throwback to that famous fight between Donna Brazile & Paul Begala when Donna came as close as possible to throwing virtually the entire party under the bus, it seems that Obama and his lackeys want to pretend that he won the Democratic Nomination through unanimous acclimation. Hillary Clinton to be relegated to a spot opposite the Price is Right?

18 million Democrats spit on that idea!

Howard Dean claims that the responsibility for uniting the party after this hard-fought primary is totally on the shoulders of the loser. But, I don’t see how you can have unity unless both of the parties are moving toward each other. Hillary and her close advisers consistently support Obama’s campaign — they haven’t fumbled the Unity Message since Hillary suspended her campaign in early June. They’re certainly doing their bit.

Unity pretty much by definition has to be a joint effort but, the DNC and the Obama campaign are coy. Although no delegate-winning candidate in a contested primary season has ever been shut out of the convention before somehow this year — Hillary’s Year (our year) — it’s an agonizing decision requiring delicate negotiations. And it’s been impossible to get a straight answer to the question.

While P.U.M.A. asks that we have an Open Convention including:

Restore the Florida and Michigan delegations to full strength
Return the Uncommitted Delegation of Michigan
Restore Hillary’s four stolen Michigan delegates to her delegation
Hillary’s name entered in nomination at the Convention with her delegate votes counting with full weight
Obama’s campaign? (SNORT) this is their idea of an open convention:

Gloria, I don’t know how many times it has to be explained that P.U.M.A. isn’t All About Hillary. It’s about respecting the place that her voters have in the Democratic Party. Sure, we’d love it if she won the nomination at the Open Convention that we envision. But the Democratic Party is making a huge mistake if what you told Chris Matthews today is true. And an equally horrible mistake if the rumors about Obama picking Virginia Governor Tim Kaine for the Vice Presidential slot.

The DNC as led by Barack Obama and Howard Dean can try to sweep us under the rug. They can hide the winner of more Democratic votes and more Congressional Districts behind a phony roll-call vote scheduled against The Price is Right. But, they’re not going to fool Hillary’s 18 million voters.

Gloria and Chris — sneer all you want. We want our votes counted at the convention.

Bill Clinton has said that improving health services is the main challenge to fighting HIV/Aids in Africa

2008-08-05T07:50:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7542890.stm

In a BBC interview, Mr Clinton said his foundation had therefore been focusing more and more on cost-effective ways to improve national health systems.

He also said encouraging monogamy should be an important part of the fight against HIV/Aids.

Mr Clinton made the comments in Senegal at the end of a recent tour of Africa.

'Mobilising systems'

He said universal treatment could be provided on the continent, but only if health services were improved.

"That's increasingly in the last few years what our foundation has been focused on - what is the most cost-effective way to mobilise a national health system," Mr Clinton said.

"You can get the universal treatment - the money's there now, if we spend it most effectively."

"But we don't have the health care systems to reach out to people, get them tested and diagnosed in a timely fashion, get them on treatment and do the regular follow-ups."

Mr Clinton also said male circumcision had proved an effective way of lowering HIV infections, and that it was "very important" to change peoples' attitudes in favour of more monogamy - though he noted that this was not just a problem in Africa.

"To pretend we can ever get a hold of this without dealing with that, the idea of unprotected sexual relations with unlimited numbers of partners, I think would be naive," he said.

Following his trip to Africa Mr Clinton has been attending a world health conference in Mexico, where he called for a 50% increase in funding to keep pace with expanding HIV drug programmes.

Delegates at the conference are not expecting any breakthrough announcement concerning new drugs or the search for a preventative vaccine.

But details of trials for a vaccine that could reduce the need for full-time treatment for HIV/Aids patients have been announced.

Dr Barry Peters told the BBC it was hoped the vaccine could boost the immune system and allow patients several years off anti-retroviral drugs - which can cause side-effects.

"If the results go as we want then maybe within three years we'll have a new form of treatment," he said.

Clinton: 'I never made a racist comment'

2008-08-05T07:46:00.001-07:00

Original Link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/08/04/politics/p060307D33.DTL

WASHINGTON, (AP) -- Former President Clinton acknowledges there are some things "I wish I hadn't said" during the Democratic presidential nomination fight, but denies he made racist statements about Barack Obama.

Clinton, who had traveled to Rwanda for his private foundation's work to fight AIDS, charged that news organizations applied "a different standard" to his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. But when asked about it an interview broadcast Monday on ABC's "Good Morning America," the former president said that spending time on such recriminations "interferes with the issue, which is who should be elected in November."

"I bragged on Sen. Obama hundreds of times," he said. "Now, I will be glad, as soon as this election is over in January, to have this conversation with you and everybody else. I have very strong feelings about it."

Clinton cut a controversial profile throughout the Democratic delegate-selection process, championing his wife's cause and vehemently defending her on the campaign trail. But he also at times seemed an angry surrogate and he was harshly criticized for apparently disparaging Obama's early-season victory over his wife in the South Carolina primary. Clinton noted at the time that Jesse Jackson had won there 20 years earlier.

Asked in the interview whether he blames himself for his wife's loss, Clinton replied, "I've heard it from the press and I will not comment on it. ... There are things I wished I said. Things I wished I hadn't said, but I am not a racist. I never made a racist comment and I didn't attack him personally."

Nevertheless, Clinton did say he thought news organizations covered his wife more harshly than Obama. "A different standard was applied to the finest candidate I ever supported," he said. Clinton declined to comment on whether he thought Obama should put his wife on the ticket and he said he admires how she handled the loss. "She went right back to work," he said.

For example, he charged that news organizations were more likely to accuse Hillary than Obama of going negative.

"He hit her hard a couple times. And they hit us a few weeks before she ever responded in kind," he said. "The only thing I ever got mad about, people in your line of work pretending that she had started negative stuff. It's contact sport."

Sen. Clinton conceded to Obama in early June after the primary season concluded and he'd locked up sufficient Democratic National Convention delegates to become the party's standard-bearer against presumed Republican nominee Sen. John McCain this fall.

"I never was mad at Sen. Obama," the former president said. "I think everybody's got a right to run for president who qualifies under the Constitution. And I'd be the last person to begrudge anybody their ambition."

(This version CORRECTS SUBS 2nd graf to correct Clinton has traveled to Rwanda)

Top 10 Reasons to Nominate Hillary at the Convention

2008-08-04T23:32:00.001-07:00

Original Link: http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/08/01/friday-top-10-reasons-to-nominate-hillary-at-the-convention/

by riverdaughter

10.) Now that she’s not going to be VP, it will keep the wimmin folk happy.

9.) She did kinda earn more votes than he did.

8,) NJ has hired Tony Soprano and his men to pay the RBC Committe members a social call and break Howard Dean’s knees for making the state pay millions on a primary that didn’t count.

7.) CA, NY, MA, FL, MI, PA, OH, TX, AZ, WV and KY are paying Tony’s travel expenses.

6.) She can speak sentences that have a begining, middle and an end.

5.) Those sentences make her sound more qualified than him.

4.) No fried foods in Denver?!?! (Someone tell Bill)

3.) It’s the principle of the thing.

2.) To show once and for all that Obama is not a chickenshit coward who is afraid he might lose to a girl.

1.) If the convention isn’t fair, open and transparent with an authentic nomination for Hillary and arguments for her, and yes, maybe even some disunity before the final vote, then the nominee will not be seen as legitimate — and we WALK!

The Double Agent: A Play in One Twisted Act.

2008-08-04T23:29:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/08/01/the-double-agent-a-play-in-one-twisted-act/

by madamab

THE SCENE: Two offices, one belonging to KKKARL ROVE and the other belonging to DONNA BRAZILE. Each office takes up half of the stage, with ROVE’s office stage right, and BRAZILE’s, stage left.

ROVE’s office is furnished in traditional Republican style, with dark wood, leather chairs, stuffed animal heads on the walls, and a fireplace with Nixon’s portrait over the mantle. The desk, which sits against the backstage wall, is large and covered with papers, a multi-line phone, and a small laptop. A framed poster of the movie “1984″ hangs over it, behind ROVE’s head. The man himself sits hunched at the desk, working furiously on many things at once.

BRAZILE’s office is full of bright colors and abstract art. Her taste is more Danish modern than Rove’s, with a focus on light woods and steel accents. She’s also sitting behind a desk against the backstage wall, but unlike Bush’s Brain, she is busy taking turns staring off into space, and staring at the phone. Clearly, she is waiting for a call that just isn’t coming.

Finally, BRAZILE makes a decision. She picks up the phone and hits a Speed Dial button.

BRAZILE (into the phone): Hello? Helga, is that you? (smiling) Hi there darlin’, it’s Donna. (Her smile disappears after hearing what Helga has to say.) Now don’t you play that little game with me, Helga. I know he’s screening. I’ve been trying to get him for a week. You just go ahead and put me on with him, or I’ll just keep calling every three minutes until you do. (slight pause while Helga gives in) That’s what I thought. I’ll hold, but not for long!

(In ROVE’s office, the phone buzzes.)

ROVE (hitting the speaker setting on the phone): Yes, Helga?

HELGA: Karl, it’s that Donna Brazile again. She says she’s going to call every three minutes until you talk to her!

ROVE (frustrated): That woman just cannot take a hint! (sighs forebearingly) Okay, Helga, I might as well get this over with. Put her through. (A fake joviality enters his manner.) Hello, Donna!

BRAZILE (hitting the speaker setting on her phone): Well, FINALLY. Why have you been avoiding my calls, Karl? This had better be good. Things are starting to go really badly for President Obama. His bump in the polls from that trip he took last week has totally disappeared, and the media is starting to turn against him. They’re calling him the “presumptuous” nominee now, just like those PUMAs have been doing for the last few months! What are we going to do?

(ROVE is gleefully silent.)

BRAZILE: Hello? Are you there? Dammit, you helped me get the ball rolling with President Obama. Without your money and connections, he never would have gotten this far. But now our plan seems to be falling apart. You’ve gotta help me, Karl!

ROVE (allowing his full evil to show through): Well, Donna, I must say, you’re a lot stupider than I thought you were. You still haven’t figured it out? Good lord, woman, why don’t you buy a clue?

BRAZILE (shocked): What the hell are you talking about, Karl?

ROVE (with malicious satisfaction): Oh, Donna, Donna, Donna. Didn’t you ever wonder why I was so willing to be your friend? Why I was so happy to fund Obama’s campaign in the start-up phase? Why I was so thrilled to send all those Republicans to the caucuses to help him get the delegates he needed to win the nomination? You’re a gay black Democratic woman, and I’m Bush’s Brain. Did you really think you and I were a natural fit?

BRAZILE (faintly): I thought it was because you wanted to be on the winning side. I thought you hated John McCain.

ROVE (leaning back in the chair, hands behind head): Oh, I did, Donna, I did. But that was before I realized that the winning side…is John McCain’s side. With your help, John and I were able to knock out the strongest Democratic candidate and replace her with the weakest Democratic candidate. In a year where we thought all was lost, we Republicans are now poised and ready to take over the White House once again. Can you say, President McCain? I’m getting quite used to the sound of that myself.

BRAZILE: But Karl, you said Barack could win by expanding the electoral map. You said we didn’t need the Democratic base, that we could win the West and South, and forget about those bitter hillbillies in Appalachia. You said -

ROVE (scornfully): And you believed me, didn’t you? Good God, no wonder you’ve lost so many elections, Donna. What kind of an idiotic strategy is that? You’ve let your most reliable voters become completely disenchanted with their Party. That’s something we Republicans would never do. We’re smart enough to disrespect our voters behind their backs, so they won’t find out how much we despise them! Election 101, Donna. When will you liberal elitists ever learn?

BRAZILE (dazed): I, uh, don’t know what to say.

ROVE: How about “good-bye?” Because I hope this is the last time I have to talk to you. You make me sick to my stomach!

(BRAZILE and ROVE both disconnect from their speaker phones at the same time. ROVE, satisfied, sits back down at his desk and goes back to work. The lights slowly fade on his side of the stage.)

BRAZILE (standing up and pacing): Oh my God. Oh my God. I’m toast! I never told Barack where all that money was coming from. He thought he was getting Republican votes because they wanted to knock out Hillary, not him! What if he finds out that I was working with Karl? What if Howard Dean finds out? What am I going to do?!

(BRAZILE’s phone rings.)

BRAZILE (hitting the speaker): H-h-h-hello?

HOWARD DEAN (menacingly): Hello, Donna.

BRAZILE (rallying a bit): Oh! Howard! How are you? What’s new?

DEAN: Glad you asked. I want you to join me on my bus tour of the South. We think you can really help us reach out to African-American voters in the area. Plus, maybe you can scare some of the PUMAs away from me. They seem to show up everywhere I go, and I’m tired of answering their questions alone.

BRAZILE (relieved): Why, Howard, I’d be thrilled to come with you.

DEAN: Great, great! Your ride is just outside. Go ahead and pack. I’ll see you soon!

(They both hang up.)

BRAZILE: Whew! I guess everything’s all right then. I’d better make sure all my tracks are covered before I get on that bus. (BRAZILE exits through a side door.)

(The lights come up in ROVE’s office. Standing next to the desk is HOWARD DEAN.)

DEAN: Hey, Karl, thanks for the tip about Donna being a double agent. I can’t believe she’s been trying to sabotage Barack this whole time!

ROVE (secretly amused): Yes, it is hard to believe.

DEAN: I wonder how long it will take her to realize that she’s not going on the bus, but under it?

(ROVE and DEAN share a manly laugh at BRAZILE’s folly.)

ROVE (reaches into a desk drawer, pulls out a humidor): May I offer you a cigar, Howard?

DEAN: Why, thank you, Karl. (ROVE does so.) I’m so looking forward to working with you. Now, what’s the next step for President Obama?

ROVE: Have you ever heard of Diebold, Howard?

(LIGHTS OUT.)

Riverdaughter to the Media

2008-08-04T23:26:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/08/02/saturday-riverdaughter-to-the-media/

Dear Media,

It’s been awhile. I don’t watch you guys anymore and I’ve advised many of my readers to abstain as well, although, I am aware of more than a few backsliders (Pat Johnson, I’m talking to you). We know what you’re up to and we’re not paying any attention to you anymore. We are listening to our consciences. And our consciences have a message for you: This nomination process is bigger than one person.

Hillary Clinton is our champion because she is the strongest ally of the American people. We 18,000,000 who voted for her represent a diverse population of both old and young, working class and professional, college educated and educated by life, black, white, latino, gay and straight. We are everyman. We voted for her in decisive numbers in virtually every big D state and swing state and with our votes, she whupped Obama’s @$$ in West Virginia and Kentucky long after you called the race for her opponent. Now, after you slavishly reported his every bowel movement during his European Grand Tour, we see that he is sinking in the polls.

Buy a clue, media, we don’t want Obama. After two months of fawning attention, he is slipping behind because time is his enemy. It gives the American people an opportunity to see him as nothing more than a posturing empty suit, a schmoozer of the nth degree and an opportunist who will turn his back on the people who got him this far. Witness the pathetic letter in The Nation written by the latest group he has screwed over– affluent and pretentious liberals. Hey, they had it coming to them. We tried to warn them but they purged us from their blogs when we started harshing their Obama mellow earlier this year.

But enough about the Kool-Aid drinkers who want their virginity back. I’m talking to the media here and there are some things you guys ought to know:

We know that the media is not our friend. You gave us the Iraq War and two terms of Bush. Frankly, nothing you say has any credibility anymore.
We are grateful that McCain is coming down on Obama’s @$$ over the race card. This is not “nasty” or “negative” politics. None of us wanted to be called racists, especially when our decisions were not motivated by race. It is a personal insult. I’m going to continue to use words like arrogant, cocky, snippy and schmoozer because they describe Obama perfectly. No one is going to get me to shut up and run over me because they choose to use race as a weapon. Believe me when I tell you that if Obama continues to go this route and he is nominated in spite of our best efforts, he will suffer a landslide defeat in November. Voters will get even in the voting booth. No one can insult us like that and get away with it.
About that nomination, you probably don’t pay attention to such things but the states that will win the Democrat the White House in November, specifically, MI, FL, NY, NJ, CA, MA, AZ, TX, PA, OH, and several others, spent mega- millions of dollars holding primaries that you in the media scoffed at after the RBC Hearing result in May. We believe that the vote was rigged and that Fl and MI were withheld in order to deprive our states of the critical mass of delegates that Hillary needed to win. We believe that Obama stole votes from her in MI and as a result, STOLE the primary. It has been clear to some of us since the day after Feb. 5, that the DNC has used all of its efforts to prevent Hillary from winning. And if that is true, then the party has committed fraud on its voters and their state treasuries by conducting sham primaries it knew would never count. Under these circumstances, the party can never be united.
Now, you can continue to push Obama down our throats 24/7 and you can continue to publish and propagate falsehoods about whether Hillary wants her name in nomination. But it makes no difference to US what you say. This convention and nomination is about OUR right to be heard. It is our right to settle the score with the DNC, who thought we would just fall into line while they try to make us irrelevent. Well, we’re not going to do that.

It doesn’t matter what you say or broadcast or publish or spin. There are 18 million of us out here who don’t have to listen to that anymore. We can just ay NO DEAL. You can castigate us and call us names (like, what’s left in the arsenal? Pedophiles? Vampires?) or put us on mute in the news. We will still say NO DEAL. David Axelrod can make us the hot new paraiahs and make us the target of insults and violence. But we don’t need to even identify ourselves. 18 million voters blend into the general population remarkably well. All we need to do is say NO DEAL.

The DNC knows we’re out here. They’re starting to get nervous. They’re starting to use you to plant misinformation and demoralize us. But we see right through this and not only are we not demoralized, we are actually kinda psyched about it. They are getting worried. Good.

Our movement is viral and growing. We ask for one thing: That Hillary’s name be submitted for nomination at the convention in order to honor all of the voters, the hard working American men and women, the states that paid for the primaries and the Democratic process. We intend to continue to hold the DNC’s feet to the fire until we get her name in nomination in a fair, open and authentic process in Denver.

In the whole scheme of things, the media is just getting in the way.

Sincerely,

Riverdaughter

Rasmussen Reports– Fewer Democrats?!

2008-08-04T22:04:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/08/02/chain-of-fools/

Oh, dear! This is alarming. According to Rasmussen Reports, the number of Democrats declined in July for the first time since January:

During July, the number of Americans who consider themselves to be Democrats fell two percentage points to 39.2%. That’s the first time since January that the number of Democrats has fallen below 41% (see history from January 2004 to present).

While the number of Democrats declined, there was virtually no change in the number of Republicans. In July, 31.6% said they were Republicans, the fourth straight month that number has been below 31.4% and 31.6%.

The Democrats now have a 7.6 percentage point advantage over the Republicans, down from a 9.5 percentage point advantage in June and 10.1 percentage points in May.

Ooo, look what I got in the mail recently:

Riverdaughter Becomes another statistic

And here’s a message from me to all you Dean Democrats

Chain of Fools

2008-08-04T22:02:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/08/02/chain-of-fools/

Chain, chain, chain, chain, chain, chain
Chain, chain, chain, chain of fools
Five long years I thought you were my man
But I found out I’m just a link in your chain
You got me where you want me
I ain’t nothing but your fool
You treated me mean oh you treated me cruel
Chain, chain, chain, chain of fools

A couple of days ago, some of the smartest, most progressive members of the creative class got together and signed a letter begging Barack Obama to come back to the left. After repeatedly trashing their values and ideals, they still believed he was The One, but he had come to a fork in the road and had chosen the path to the right.

Dear Senator Obama,

We write to congratulate you on the tremendous achievements of your campaign for the presidency of the United States.

…You stand today at the head of a movement that believes deeply in the change you have claimed as the mantle of your campaign. The millions who attend your rallies, donate to your campaign and visit your website are a powerful testament to this new movement’s energy and passion.

…We urge you, then, to listen to the voices of the people who can lift you to the presidency and beyond.

Since your historic victory in the primary, there have been troubling signs that you are moving away from the core commitments shared by many who have supported your campaign, toward a more cautious and centrist stance–including, most notably, your vote for the FISA legislation granting telecom companies immunity from prosecution for illegal wiretapping, which angered and dismayed so many of your supporters.

We recognize that compromise is necessary in any democracy. We understand that the pressures brought to bear on those seeking the highest office are intense. But retreating from the stands that have been the signature of your campaign will weaken the movement whose vigorous backing you need in order to win and then deliver the change you have promised.

He chose to eviscerate the 4th ammendment when he voted for the FISA bill which allows the US government to continue to spy on its citizens without warrant. It also provides immunity to the telecom companies for their past indiscretion, and provides cover to our criminal president against future prosecution.

He also chose to abandon a woman’s right to choose what is in her best interest when it comes to her reproductive health. He said that states should be allowed to restrict a woman’s access to late term abortions. He chose to use the right-wing term “partial birth abortion” which is not a medical term, but a purely Orwellian newspeak invention of the radical christianists to demonize women. He even had the nerve to add that women should not be allowed to have an abortion just because they are “feeling blue”, seriously diminishing the importance of women’s mental health issues. He chose to sink to the lowest common denominator of anti-choice zealots who see women as nothing more than blubbering bags of emotion who can barely manage their feelings, much less their reproductive choices.

Obama also has shown his disdain for our most cherished of rights, our freedom of speech. I know this from first hand experience. In Unity, NH we were told to go to “free speech zones” (although the police had the good sense not to enforce it). I recently wrote about Denver, and the fact that the Democratic Party wants to put its members who disagree in a cage almost a quarter mile from the convention center. Obama is mobilizing his thug base to terrorize people who want nothing more than to exercise their constitutional right to protest the hostile takeover of their political party.–And before anyone starts with the finger pointing and shouts of “Racist!”, by “thug base” I’m referring to the hooligan frat boys who like nothing more than to bully their opponents, especially women.

Yesterday, several African American men had the courage to stand up and point out that Obama’s message of Hope had bypassed a majority of their community. Obama’s response? They just didn’t get him. It was their fault for not wanting to believe that change and hope will fix everything.

Just relax? Sit down? Ya’ll will have a chance later? If I were black, I’d find that kind of language a little offensive. Especially in a room of white people pumping their fists and yelling “yes we can!”. It is not on the video, but later the sign was yanked from the men’s hands to the cheers of the crowd.

So, now we see Obama’s latest FU to the progressive community, his flip-flop on offshore drilling. For months Obama has been towing the line of the progressive community that has argued that this is just an election year gimmick, and that it will be disastrous for the environment and discourage the use of alternative fuels. The Obamaphiles at Move On even put out the following ad:

This is what Obama had to say about offshore drilling yesterday,

My interest is in making sure we’ve got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices,” Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post.

“If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage — I don’t want to be so rigid that we can’t get something done.”

to paraphrase some of the know-it-all snarkers from the “progressosphere”–Shorter Barack Obama: I was against drilling before I was for it.

–or–

Barack Obama: Change you can’t keep up with!!!

“Those who wish to appear wise among fools, among the wise seem foolish.”– Quintilian, De Institutione Oratoria X, 7, 21

PUMA Summer Blockbuster!

2008-08-04T21:54:00.000-07:00

Original Link: http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/08/02/the-scratching-post-saturday-night-puma-summer-blockbuster/

The summer blockbuster sleeper hit is finally here!

Run! Run for your lives!! PUMAs are everywhere and the Obama favored polls sense the PUMA ATTACK! Gallup has very sobering numbers to report:

Those pesky PUMAs are at it again!

The results, based on a three-day rolling average of interviews conducted July 30-Aug. 1, show Obama and McCain each receiving 44% of the vote among registered voters. The candidates were also tied in Friday’s update. Obama received a brief increase in support near the conclusion of his overseas trip last week, gaining a nine percentage point advantage in July 24-26 polling. But that bounce disappeared almost quickly as it emerged.

44% tie for the 44th Presidency? Oooh, kismic! The highest bounce Obama’s had since Hillary Clinton suspended her campaign has been an average of 6%, which has dwindled at the rise of “undecided voters.” Could they be pre-PUMAs? The Obama camp hoped his “OMFG EUROPE LOOOOVES HIM” tour would give his declining poll ratings a little “ooph,” yet it’s more like a “splat.”

Yet instead of showcasing his marvelousness to people who’ll be actually voting this coming election season against “Old Man” McCain, Obama ducks out AGAIN from a Lincoln-Douglas debate! Even Obama Media Fan Club Associated Press couldn’t help reporting it like this:

Obama backs away from McCain’s debate challenge

By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Democratic candidate Barack Obama on Saturday backed away from rival John McCain’s challenge for a series of joint appearances, agreeing only to the standard three debates in the fall.

In May, when a McCain adviser proposed a series of pre-convention appearances at town hall meetings, Obama said, “I think that’s a great idea.” In summer stumping on the campaign trail, McCain has often noted that Obama had not followed through and joined him in any events.

Obama’s reversal on town hall debates is part of a play-it-safe strategy he’s adopted since claiming the nomination and grabbing a lead in national polls. Advisers to the Illinois senator, speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss strategy, say Obama is reluctant to take chances or give McCain a high-profile stage now that Obama’s the front-runner.

Wait up, so Obama’s excuse is that he doesn’t want to give McCain “a high profile stage?” Pah-leeeze!

When I was in the 7th grade, there was a girl named Janet that teased me relentlessly. After making fun of my friend, I got the nerve to challenge her to a fight afterschool at the nearby park. The entire 7th grade showed up at the park. I’m already there ready to kick azz and Janet never showed up. In fact, I found out that she suddenly got sick and was picked up by her mom before school was out. Rushed with adrenaline and rage, I walked to her house (and the entire 7th grade following me) and started to shout for her to come out and fight. After an hour of waiting, I went home. She didn’t show up to school for more than a week, claiming she had the flu.

So in my mind, Obama is just like Janet - the smarmy teaser who runs away when his target fights back. What a wuss! Now the flip side could be that the DNC’s recommending Obama not engage in any debates until his coronation (because there’s a slight chance that he may not be the Democratic nominee after all.) But whatever the case may be, Obama looks like a big fat chicken.

In honor of the “Attack of the PUMAs!” movie premiere, Rico is wearing his Rambo costume (minus Cross your Heart bra) which show off his biceps as he serves Pink PUMAS and Mountain Lion Martinis. Flo’s got her Xena costume which makes catching trolls and naughty words a breeze. If you have some extra loot left over for the week, would you mind buying Hillary a lunch by clicking on the brown bag above?

Continuing with our Summer Blockbuster theme tonight is a great finale that everyone loves. If the Rebel Alliance can take down the Galactic Empire, so can we. Just Say No Deal!