David Corn

DC

"McCain better hope the economic news is better in the months ahead."

Even an economic boom can save him. I think it will become obvious very soon, maybe too soon. If everybody thinks Barack has it in the tank they might not bother to show up and vote.

Election fatigue is the biggest problem now - five months is a long time and a bunch of M$M blather.

Thanks for all you do

President Obama and the Coming Stock Market Crash

How destructive to the U.S. economy would a Barack Obama presidency be?

Beneath Obama's flowery rhetoric lies a dangerous economic plan that will wreak havoc on the American economy.

Obama plans to return to the failed policies of high taxation coupled with an expansion of government spending.

Worse, Obama says he is absolutely committed to almost doubling the capital gains rate — something he will easily accomplish with a Democrat Congress.

In the coming months — when investors realize that Obama will raise the cap gains rate — there could be a stampede of asset sales as investors rush to take their profits now to avoid Obama's doubling of the tax rates next year.

All of these issues and more are explored in Newsmax magazine's special report "Obamanomics — the Coming Tax-and-Spend Nightmare," by Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund.

Indeed, Obama makes no bones about his plans to go on a tax rampage. Not only would he increase the capital-gains tax rate from 15 percent to as much as 28 percent, he wants to allow the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010, which effectively raises taxes on Americans by tens of billions of dollars.

He also wants to do away with the $102,000 FICA payroll tax cap, which means anyone making over $102,000 would pay an additional 7 percent in taxes on earned income.

And the loan dividend tax rate George Bush implemented? Under President Obama it will be DOA!

If you are concerned about your wealth and family's financial well-being — and that the American economy remains strong — you must read this special report and share it with friends and family.

This wide-ranging Newsmax report explores:

How Obama's policies could cost more than $850 billion over four years

The dire repercussions of Obama's minimum wage proposal for small businesses and retail outlets

Obama aides' private and very revealing admission about the candidate's economic savvy

The surprising revelation when Barack's own tax returns were reviewed by an expert

The "proof" that Obama will kowtow to organized labor
Obama's Social Security plan: a giant income-redistribution scheme

How Obama's policies could boost some tax rates to 60 percent

Leading economist Arthur Laffer's warning on Obamanomics

Obama's policies point by point on energy, healthcare, regulation, and the housing crisis

Who would lose under Obama's tax proposals — and who would win

How Barack "flunked" an easy question on capital gains

The Democrat's contradictory statements on tax increases

Why Obama's campaign against special interests would backfire

Obama's plan to double America's foreign aid
How Obama's trade policies would damage U.S. multinationals

Obama's embarrassing denial regarding NAFTA
The National Taxpayers Union's Obama rating: just 5 percent

Obama's misguided views on technology's future
How the Democrat would undermine private sector healthcare

Obama's tactics — old left-wing populist ploys

Obama is the perfect candidate for Democrats, and a nightmare for McCain. Obama, who by every metric is a brilliant strategist, thinker and speaker, is going to run circles around McCain. McCain, who is not a very good speaker even on his best day, will appear slow, befuddled and confused; he will make gaffes. Obama will be charismatic, smart, thoughtful, high-minded, alert and substantive. It will be no contest. And adding to Obama's natural advantages, McCain has just enough integrity to try to match up with Obama on issues. In that debate on substance, Obama's overwhelming intellectual superiority and mental alertness will become obvious. There will be the believers, who have jumped aboard the Obama campaign and will continue to multiply, but there also is going to be another type of vote that is going to swing heavily to Obama: the default vote. Voters are going to default to Obama because it will become obvious that McCain simply is not up to the task of being president.

This is going to be the first not-close presidential election since 1988. You heard it here first.

(alternet)

Obama Misspeaks on Jerusalem...Forced to Backpeddle

Right Up Front ^ | 06/06/2008 | R Hargraves

One day into his "presumptive nominee" status, and Barack Obama is already showing how incredibly relevant and dangerous his inexperience will be should he be elected. Trying to outdo John McCain during an AIPAC speech, Barack said that Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital of Israel. American foreign policy on this matter has long been that the two parties should settle the dispute themselves. Ed Morrisey at Hot Air explains: The US has no official position on the status of Jerusalem other than to insist that the two parties work it out between themselves. It is considered one of the most sensitive points in negotiations between the PA and Israel, and most diplomats avoid mentioning it at all to avoid unnecessary provocations while trying to get the two parties to talk. Obama apparently doesn’t know that — because he hasn’t any experience at it. True dat, Ed. So incredibly dubious and uneducated was Barack's statement that it sparked outrage from Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, forcing Obambi to once again "clarify his remarks" saying that "Well, obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues."

So which is it Barry? Should Jerusalem remain the undevided capital of our ally Israel, or should the two parties involved just hash it out between themselves? Should the United States back Israel's position or the Palestinians'? Or is the whole mess just too confusing for an inexperienced, unprepared and altogether wimp of a man like yourself to tackle?

Congratualtions, Democrats, you've managed to nominate the most unqualified person in history to be leader of the free world...

~~~~

The Obummer Kool Aid won't last forever!

Why Does the Michelle Obama Tape Rumor Match a 2006 Novel?

Sometimes, this rumor of this alleged tape of Michelle Obama denouncing “whitey” sounds like something out of a clichéd political thriller novel.

Actually, it sounds exactly like something out of a clichéd political thriller novel. Specifically, Stephen Frey’s The Power Broker, published in 2006 by Ballantine Books.

A major plot line of the novel is the presidential campaign of Democrat Jesse Wood, aiming to be the country’s first African American president — “Wood was handsome, smart, charismatic, and being mentioned increasingly often in the press as someone who could unite a twenty-first century America growing more, not less, racially and economically divided.” (p.35)

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/

*******

Some people will believe anything if it serves their personal delusions.

Larry Johnson is as credible as Larry Siclair now.

The New York Times reports today on how John McCain has flipped his position on warrantless wiretapping to look very similar to George Bush's. Below are a couple paragraphs from the article that reflect how John McCain has flip-flopped toward Bush:

A top adviser to Senator John McCain says Mr. McCain believes that President Bush's program of wiretapping without warrants was lawful, a position that appears to bring him into closer alignment with the sweeping theories of executive authority pushed by the Bush administration legal team.

In a letter posted online by National Review this week, the adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, said Mr. McCain believed that the Constitution gave Mr. Bush the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor Americans' international phone calls and e-mail without warrants, despite a 1978 federal statute that required court oversight of surveillance...

...But Mr. McCain had previously stopped short of endorsing the view that Mr. Bush's program of surveillance without warrants was lawful all along because a president's wartime powers can trump statutory limits.

Andrew C. McCarthy, a National Review columnist who has defended the administration's legal theories, wrote that Mr. Holtz-Eakin's statement "implicitly shows Senator McCain's thinking has changed as time has gone on and he has educated himself on this issue."

And Glenn Greenwald, a Salon columnist and critic of the Bush administration's legal claims, wrote that the statement was a "complete reversal" by Mr. McCain, accusing the candidate of seeking "to shore up the support of right-wing extremists."

(huffpo)

Barack Obama is trying hard to win evangelical voters. Does that effort stand a chance?

If one third of white evangelicals voted for Bill Clinton the second time, at the height of Monica Lewinsky mess—that’s a statistic I didn’t believe at first but I double and triple checked it—I would not be surprised if that many or more voted for Barack Obama in this election. You’re seeing some movement among evangelicals as the term [evangelical] has become more pejorative. There’s a reaction among some evangelicals to swing out to the left in an effort to prove that evangelicals are really not that right wing. There’s some concern that maybe Republicans haven’t done that well. And there’s this fascination with Barack Obama. So I will not be surprised if he gets one third of the evangelical vote. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was 40-percent.

(beliefnet)

CHICAGO, IL — Today, Sen. Barack Obama released the following statement on the Climate Change Bill:

“As this week’s debate on climate change has unfolded, the American people and those watching us around the world had every reason to hope that we would act. Every credible scientist and expert believes action is necessary. This is critical and long overdue legislation that represents a good first step in addressing one of the most serious problems facing our generation.

Like many of my Senate colleagues, I believe the legislation could have been made even better. Had there been a substantive Senate debate about some of the concerns with this bill, I believe the outcome could have generated broad support. It certainly would have received my support.

Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in the Senate has chosen to block progress, rather than work in a good faith manner to address this challenge. This is a failure of our politics and a failure of leadership – a President who for years denied the problem, and a Republican nominee, John McCain, who claims leadership on the issue but opposes this bipartisan bill.

(via Time)

*****

McSame can't break from Bush and he can't stay with Bush? The bfailure of the GOP to get anything done hurts them, then the become obstructionist? They are not making very smart moves.

McSame is stuck between Iraq and a hard place. . .

lol

W.Va. Sen. Robert Byrd Released From Hospital

Thursday, June 5, 2008 12:00 PM

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- West Virginia Sen. Robert C. Byrd has been released from the hospital after being treated for a mild infection.

The 90-year-old Democrat was admitted Monday night after feeling ill at home. He had cast a vote on the Senate floor that day.

Byrd spokesman Jesse Jacobs says the longest serving senator is expected to return to work once he receives the approval from his doctors. Byrd was released Thursday.

This is the third time Byrd has been hospitalized this year.

Byrd was hospitalized March 5 for tests after a reaction to antibiotics. A week earlier he was hospitalized at Walter Reed Army Medical Center after a fall at home.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Talk about "DEAD MAN WALKING"

You Democrats are a freak of nature!

Obama defends Jerusalem remarks

CORRECTED: Palestinians slam Obama on Jerusalem remark

Iran lashes out at Obama's Tehran remarks

Democratic White House candidate Barack Obama on Thursday defended his remarks that Jerusalem should not be divided under any Israeli-Palestinian peace pact, saying a divided city would be "very difficult to execute."
A day after sparking outrage among Palestinians when he told a Jewish group that Jerusalem must remain the "undivided" capital of Israel, Obama told CNN that the issue is still up to the two sides.

"Obviously it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations."

However, he said, "My belief is that as a practical matter it would be very difficult to execute.

"And I think that it is smart for us to work through a system in which everybody has access to the extraordinary religious sites in old Jerusalem."

But, he added, "Israel has a legitimate claim on that city."

On Wednesday Obama pledged to a meeting of the powerful Washington lobby American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) his "unshakeable commitment to Israel's security" if he is elected president in November, and insisted that Jerusalem should stay an undivided Israeli city.

Leading Palestinians including president Mahmud Abbas condemned the remarks.

"Jerusalem is one of the files under negotiation. The entire world knows perfectly well that we will never accept a state without (east) Jerusalem (as its capital). That should be clear," Abbas said.

Obama, the Democrats' presumed nominee to contest the November presidential election, insisted that he also said things in his speech "that probably some Israelis aren't happy with," such as pointing out that the Jewish state's settlement policy "not been helpful to peace as well."

"We have to have a contiguous and cohesive Palestinian state that functions effectively," he told CNN, emphasizing the need for compromise.

He meanwhile took a jab at President George W. Bush for not actively pursuing an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal until this year, the final year in Bush's presidency.

"The Middle East peace process is so important that we can't reserve it to the end of a presidency.

"We've got to start soon and I'm going to be absolutely committed to making that happen" if elected president, Obama said.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oh my! Obummers Arab buddies didn't like his Jew pandering and put the screws to his thin skin.

McCain Not A Real Man, Says Limbaugh

One of the best indicators of John McCain's weakness in the general election is the questioning of his manhood by right-wing pundits.

Rush Limbaugh -- who likes to dress up as a general and command his listener's to foment political violence -- took time out this week to besmirch McCain's maleness, wondering aloud during if the Republican candidate could really count as "a man" in the wake of his speech in New Orleans (link).

http://tinyurl.com/3trfm4

*****

This one cracked me up!

"...Then came the offensive punch line. Cheney explained that during the course of researching his family lineage for Lynne's memoir "Blue Skies, No Fences" last year, he learned there were Cheneys on both his father's and his mother's side of the family. There was a Richard Cheney on his mother's side, the vice president said.

"So I had Cheneys on both sides of the family and we don't even live in West Virginia," Cheney quipped."

Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia was not amused:

"That a man who has ascended to the seat of Vice President of the United States would openly display such contempt and astounding ignorance toward his own countrymen is an insult to all Americans. Now that he or the Administration he represents no longer needs their vote, Mr. Cheney apparently feels that he is now free to mock and belittle the people of West Virginia. With his trademark arrogance, the Vice President even added 'You can say those things when you're not running for re-election.'"

"This pitiful comment is not entirely surprising when you consider the source. Vice President Cheney's words reflect the attitude of an administration and a party that says what they must to get elected and then turns their backs on those they promised to represent."

__________________

At 90yrs old AND ill...

He's got more common sense and class...

And has been SPOT ON about what Bush/Cheney's forays would do to this Nation AND the Planet...

He's no doddering, slobbering Strom Thurmond, THAT's for sure!

And Cheney is five years YOUNGER than gramps and in better health.

Obama's ineptitude on Jerusalem is pretty stunning. EVERY politician in America has to pander to the all-powerful Israel lobby, that's certainly true, but some at least show a little more deftness than others.

Just another sign of his woeful lack of experience.

The only time I've ever found Obama coherent on foreign policy is when he's quoting Zbigniew Brzezinski word-for-word...

Obama denies a rumor and questions the question

Sen. Barack Obama on Thursday batted down rumors circulating on the Internet and mentioned on some cable news shows of the existence of a video of his wife using a derogatory term for white people, and criticized a reporter for asking him about the rumor, which has not a shred of evidence to support it.

“We have seen this before. There is dirt and lies that are circulated in e-mails and they pump them out long enough until finally you, a mainstream reporter, asks me about it,” Obama said to the McClatchy reporter during a press conference aboard his campaign plane. “That gives legs to the story. If somebody has evidence that myself or Michelle or anybody has said something inappropriate, let them do it.”

Asked whether he knew it not to be true, Obama said he had answered the question.

“Frankly, my hope is people don’t play this game,” Obama said. “It is a destructive aspect of our politics. Simply because something appears in an e-mail, that should lend it no more credence than if you heard it on the corner. Presumably the job of the press is to not to go around and spread scurrilous rumors like this until there is actually anything, an iota, of substance or evidence that would substantiate it.”

http://tinyurl.com/5lttrl

*****

No serious person would believe such crud. It is a matter of itellectual honesty.

"Obama, by every metric is a brilliant strategist, thinker and speaker..."

(Real objective commentator here I guess...)

**

"Obama's overwhelming intellectual superiority and mental alertness will become obvious..."

Actually, I thought Gore and Kerry's "overwhelming intellectual superiority and mental alertness" were pretty clear over GWB also...

...but it didn't make a damn bit of difference.

"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." (P. T. Barnum)

Obama is a very appealing candidate to a certain segment of the American intellectual and liberal elite. There's no doubt about that...

But he has yet to show any significant appeal beyond that.

Obama on Jerusalem: Why the Fuss?

Barack Obama's speech to AIPAC on Wednesday was a hit. Contrary to predictions that the AIPAC crowd would receive Obama coldly, he was met with enthusiasm. A friend who was in the room said, "Obama was a huge hit. The college kids in particular went crazy. But all the people I saw seemed to want to be part of Obama's historic journey."

John McCain also scored with the AIPAC members. That is less newsworthy because McCain has not been the target of a vicious and libelous smear e-mail campaign within the Jewish community.

http://tinyurl.com/6df5vu

******

Smears and character insults just have no mileage.

I hope the Reich-wingnuttia keeps it up!

No one was questioning whether he did a good job of pleasing the Israel lobby. That's been quite obvious for weeks.

The question is whether he can keep from getting his crib sheets mixed up...

He obviously switched up "Long-standing US policy toward Jerusalem" with "How to pander to the Israel lobby."

Large sections of the city of Jerusalem (center-east, the "old" city) are substantially non-Jewish and populated by families that have not only been there for many generations, but still consider themselves "occupied" and don't want to be part of Israel or a "Jewish" state. Jerusalem either absolutely needs to be divided, or else incorporated into a modern democratic state that does not base citizenship or basic human rights on what religion you are.

Hillary would never have made the mistake Obama, and the particular policy Barack enunciated is, in fact, precisely wrong.

"Jerusalem is one of the files under negotiation. The entire world knows perfectly well that we will never accept a state without (east) Jerusalem (as its capital). That should be clear," Abbas said.

Group Pushing Obama-Hillary Ticket Will Announce Over 25,000 Signatures Of Support

Adam Parkhomenko, the head of the Obama-Hillary-ticket-supporting group VoteBoth, tells me that on Monday, he'll announce via press release that his group has collected over 25,000 signatures in support of the idea.

He'll also announce that VoteBoth's petition has been signed by supporters in every one of all 50 states, and that it's picked up 15,000 new signatures in the last three days.

"Every day, we're getting thousands of these signatures," he says. "Maybe when we get to 100,000 we'll present it. We're building it every day."

http://tinyurl.com/6m4g7d

*****

Even if 100,000 sign that'd be about 17,900,000 shy of HRC's claims of her supporters?

Where are all these "followers?" Maybe most of the reasonable and thoughtful democratc have already moved on.

25,000? I bet Ron Paul could get 10 times that many, should we give him the VP based on signatures?

This shows the lack of political maturity on the part of HRC's fringe supporters, they haven't a clue how politics actuall works they just have a tantrum if they don't get their way.

Far more in common with Bush than Obama, no small wonder they become Obama-bashers.

And Abbas is the most moderate and pro-US Arab we know!

Maybe Obama is just tired...

....or else "Middle East conflict" is one of the Cliff Notes booklets he just hasn't got to yet.

"How politics actually works."

That'll be something for capt to think about when Obama does actually put Hillary on the ticket.

Obama has to subject her to a certain humbling interval, in which Hillary will have to demonstrate publicly her commitment to "unity." (Rally tomorrow).

...while he "considers his choice...."

He can't appear to be forced...

Then he'll put her on the ticket.

Attention Jewish Voters: You're Getting Played by an Anti-Semite

Addressing AIPAC the other day, Barack Obama began with a joke about the emails have circulated, particularly in Jewish social circles that claim Obama is some kind of secret Muslim.

Before I begin, I want to say that I know some provocative emails have been circulating throughout Jewish communities across the country. A few of you may have gotten them. They're filled with tall tales and dire warnings about a certain candidate for President. And all I want to say is - let me know if you see this guy named Barack Obama, because he sounds pretty frightening.

But what Obama didn't note and what has gone largely unremarked is the incredible irony that the source of the rumors being used to spook Jewish voters is an avowed and well-known anti-Semite. Last year I wrote a piece about these emails that sought to trace them to their root. Here's what I found:

http://tinyurl.com/65hv63

*****

People usually don't like being played for a fool.

I hope they can open their eyes.

Sidney Blumenthal Uses Former Right-Wing Foes To Attack Obama

[...]

When Blumenthal worked in the White House, a big thorn in Bill Clinton's side was the Weekly Standard, the right-wing magazine edited by William Kristol and owned by Rupert Murdoch. But in mid-February, Blumenthal's email attack featured an article, "Republicans Root for Obama," written by Weekly Standard executive editor and Fox News talking head Fred Barnes. That same month, Blumenthal also offered up a piece by Scott McConnell, titled "Untested Savior," that appeared in The American Conservative (a magazine founded by Pat Buchanan) claiming that Obama "would probably lead them [Democrats] to disaster in November."

When Blumenthal isn't relying directly on anti-Obama smears from the extreme right, he's pumping up more traditionally sourced material, from the Washington Post, New Republic, and other publications, to question and damage Obama's character and electability. On several occasions, Blumenthal has circulated articles from the Chicago Sun Times and the Chicago Tribune about Obama's ties to developer Tony Rezko, a relationship Obama has said he regrets. In one email, Blumenthal wrote: "The record on Obama's fabled 'judgement'? So how would he conduct himself in those promised summits without preconditions with Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il, Chavez, Castro, and Assad? Let's look at how he did with Tony Rezko."

http://tinyurl.com/4j2puw

******

HRC played her supporters for fools and now they continue to repeat Reich-wingnuttia talking points.

This is why she lost and why she will not be VP. She might not even be able to get re-elected in 2010.

She lost, fair and square. To peddle anything else on Saturday will only hurt her.

Purloined copy of the lesson Obama missed out on:

"Israel has a legitimate claim on that city." (Obama)

Wrong, in fact. The "Old City" of Jerusalem has only had a tiny minority of Jews (many so orthodox they don't even recognize the modern "Jewish State" themselves) for more than a thousand years. The majority Muslim old city has been calling itself "Al Quds" for centuries and centuries.

Since the Zionist movement, a huge Jewish settlement grew up adjacent ("West Jerusalem"). Obviously, the "Jewish" state has a claim on that part.

In the years since Begin snookered Carter at Camp David, ignoring all parts of the treaty that pertained to Palestinian rights, Israel's irredentist settler movement has systematically ringed the "old city" with tens of thousands of new suburban settlers... Locking the "old city" in an impossible ring. Armed, walled and inexorable... part of Sharon's "facts on the ground" strategy.

When Bush in a seminal speech in 2004 certified that that ring (all built, of course, on illegally occupied land) would never be given back to the Arabs, he codified as fait-accompli a long-standing ambition of the most fervent right-wing settler fanatics in Israel. It was a sharp break from the long-standing policies of the last SIX US Presidents.

Apparently Obama's now endorsed the Bush policy as well.

Why Didn't More Women Vote for Hillary?

[...]

One of the Democratic campaign's great misperceptions has been that Clinton held an overwhelming advantage among women voters. But that isn't the case. As expected, Clinton captured the over-65 vote, and Obama won over younger women. But women in the middle split almost evenly between the two. And while both Senators boasted historic candidacies, Obama's seemed to resonate more deeply, translating into 70%, 80% and even 90% of the black vote in primary contests. No one expected Clinton to sweep 90% of Democratic women voters, but 60% wouldn't have been an unreasonable accomplishment for the first woman to have a serious chance of winning the presidency. Instead, Clinton won just over a majority of women's votes.

So what does that mean? Clinton and her supporters have charged that sexism is responsible for her loss of the nomination. But it seems more likely that women themselves cost her the nod. The reasons more women haven't voted for Clinton tell us something about the evolution of feminism and what the future may hold for female politicians.

Clinton's run has exposed a divide between what could be termed optimist and pessimist feminists. It's a split between those who see Clinton's candidacy as groundbreaking--as the first of many serious runs by strong women--and those who count backward to Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 and conclude that this kind of opportunity comes along only once in a generation. For this latter group, Clinton's candidacy took on a pressing urgency: If not now, when? If not her, who?

http://tinyurl.com/4vc3ms

*****

Like she is the only female politician?

That seems like her campaign was disrespecting all of the other very capable, smart, accomplished women currently in politics and certainly disrespects all of the women aspiring to be politicians whne they get old enough.

Winning at any cost can cost more than any calculation.

"Let me be clear. Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is nonnegotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper," Obama said.

"But any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided," he said.

Israel calls the city its undivided and eternal capital, but this status has never been recognized internationally. Palestinians want East Jerusalem, captured by Israel in 1967, for a future capital.

(reuters)

FWIW

"How much easier it is to be critical than to be correct."

Benjamin Disraeli (1804 - 1881), Speech at the House of Commons, January 24, 1860

Dems to push Obama's goals with bills in Congress

WASHINGTON (AP) — Between now and Election Day, Democrats say they will use Congress to showcase the kinds of change promised by their presidential candidate, Barack Obama.

Some legislation they'll choose have good prospects of passage — policy blueprints for higher education and the military; a ban on lead in toys — and skip over debates on spending plans and some taxes until a new president takes office.

Other bills they'll debate are doomed. But on those, the point isn't passage this year. It's about making the case that the Democrats' plan for children's health care, for example, won't become law without one of their own in the White House.

Whatever legislation Democrats offer, it will have been vetted for the benefit of the Obama campaign as is traditional between the congressional majority and its presidential candidate.

http://tinyurl.com/5hd5ry

*****

That is called leadership!

I already like Barack, head of the party only a few days and he stopped lobbying money from going into the DNC, took Joe Loseeman to the woodshed, submitted the transparency bill and now full coordination with the rest of the party.

This is the beginning of some effective management, not old guard cronyism.

What's Up Hillary's Sleeve?

Friday, June 06, 2008

By Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

Why won’t Hillary just concede that she has lost and pull out of the race? Why does she persist in keeping her delegates in line for her and not releasing them to Obama? Why does she feign party unity while, in fact, undermining it?

The Clintons never do anything without a lot of thinking and planning. There is no benign explanation for her maneuvers. They have several options that they are deliberately keeping open by their increasingly awkward positioning. Here’s what they’re up to:

1. The Obama Stumbles Option

As Hillary says, June is “early” in politics when the convention is not to be held until the end of August, unusually late for a Democratic conclave. And, as Tip O’Neill says “a week is a long time in politics.” So is three months.

Rumors abound about incriminating material on Obama, the potential for misstep is amplified now that he adjusts to a new task of taking on McCain, who knows how many other preachers there are in the closet? Hillary’s skilled force of private detectives, who we once called the secret police, are doubtless diving into garbage dumpsters all over America to come up with whatever they can.

RelatedColumn Archive
What's Up Hillary's Sleeve?Earth to Hillary: No Prize for Second PlaceObama: Wrong on IranWhy Hillary Won't Get OutO’Reilly-Clinton Interview Shows Dem FlawFull-page Dick Morris & Eileen McGann Archive
Hillary wants to be there to exploit any mistakes. She will be watching and waiting. Suppose Obama flubs a line on the campaign trail or damaging material emerges from the Rezko prosecution? Hillary will indicate her continued availability as an alternative. Remember that superdelegates can change their minds anytime they want to. Now they are leaving Hillary to back Obama, the winner, but they could easily go the other way. By not releasing her pledged delegates, she remains within striking distance of the nomination if an Obama faux pas leads to an exodus of superdelegates from his camp.

2. Hillary for VP

By remaining a force at the convention, Hillary might be in a position to bail out a faltering Obama campaign by going on the ticket. There is no love lost between the two candidates. Hillary knows that Obama will not choose her voluntarily as his running mate. But if Obama falters, he might just need the shot in the arm Hillary would represent. By remaining in the shadows as a potential threat to wrest away the nomination, she might leverage her position to make Obama put her on the ticket.

She wants to be VP in case Obama loses so she can be positioned for 2012 and in case he wins so she can shoot for the stars in 2016. And, she doesn’t want anyone else to have the job so as not to create a potential rival.

3. The I Told You So Option

By remaining viable and keeping her delegates, Hillary stays in play through the convention. Her aides and associates can be counted on to dump on Obama subtly and, often, anonymously, as he moves forward. If Obama loses the election, and did not take her on his ticket, she can run as the “I told you so” candidate in 2012, much as Ronald Reagan capitalized on Gerald Ford’s defeat in 1976, after Reagan had unsuccessfully sought the nomination, to bolster his credentials in 1980.

4. Paying Off Her Debts

By staying, at least partially, in the game, Hillary can continue to raise money and pay off her debts. And she can hold out a bargaining position to force Obama to do more and more to help her to raise money. Debts to her vendors are one thing. She can always raise funds to pay them off in the future. But the election law makes it illegal for her to pay herself back any sum above $250,000 after the Democratic Convention. Since she has lent her campaign at least $11 million, she wants to get as much of it back as possible before the convention deadline.

Hillary may set her candidacy aside for the moment. But her fortunes will continue to rise and fall inversely with Obama’s. Should he hit a rough patch, Hillary’s numbers are bound to improve, strengthening her bargaining position for funds or for the VP slot or, possibly giving her enough momentum to reopen the contest.

That’s her game.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Just when you Cornnuts thought it was party time~

Obama-DNC deal may have little impact

POLITICO
By KENNETH P. VOGEL & VICTORIA MCGRANE |6/6/08 12:31 PM



Barack Obama scored a public relations victory when he announced Thursday that, under his leadership, the Democratic National Committee would cease accepting contributions from lobbyists or political action committees.

But a look at the numbers shows the move may have more impact in the spin wars than the money chase.

That’s because Obama’s almost limitless fundraising capacity could render the DNC cash nearly irrelevant. And the DNC — along with the Republican National Committee, for that matter — hasn’t traditionally reaped much of its cash from PACs and lobbyists.

They tend to target their contributions strategically to members of Congress — and congressional campaign committees — whose good graces can help pass or kill legislation.

Still, Obama’s announcement — which he said was intended to ensure the influence of special interests “will not drown out the voices of the American people when I’m president of the United States” — dominated the water-cooler talk on K Street.

Reactions ranged from disappointment that lobbyists were again being targeted for political gain to questions about whether Obama might try to limit the role of lobbyists and PACs at the Democratic National Convention. Some merely shrugged over a move unlikely to affect the D.C. money game.

Yet the move allows Obama, an Illinois senator who has made reducing the power of special interests a cornerstone of his presidential campaign, to pressure his Republican opponent, Arizona Sen. John McCain, to have the RNC follow suit.

That seems unlikely, in part because McCain, a notoriously lackluster fundraiser who will participate in a public financing program that limits his spending, is going to need the RNC to help neutralize Obama’s considerable financial advantage.

From the beginning of the race through the end of April, Obama, who has refused lobbyists and PAC money for his campaign, had raised $266 million, compared with McCain’s $93 million.

In that span, the DNC raised $72 million in contributions. Only $2.2 million of that, or 3 percent, came from PACs and employees of lobbying firms or their spouses, according to a Politico analysis of data from the Federal Election Commission and the Center for Responsive Politics.

Politico’s analysis doesn’t include lobbyists who work directly for corporations, unions and industry organizations that lobby the federal government. Nor does it include state or local government lobbyists, whose contributions Obama has accepted.

The RNC’s haul was $135 million, of which $1.9 million, or just over 1 percent, came from PACs and employees of lobbying firms or their spouses.

History suggests that neither national party committee would collect a whole lot more from PACs and lobbyists, even if their respective presidential candidates wanted them to.

Consider the 2004 election cycle. The DNC took in $274 million in contributions in the run-up to the election, but only $8.2 million came from PACs and lobbyists. The RNC raised $309 million, only $3.8 million of which came from PACs and lobbyists.

The contribution limits to national party committees like the DNC, RNC and their congressional counterparts are higher than those to candidates. National party committees can accept $15,000 a year from a PAC and $28,500 a year from an individual, while candidates can accept $5,000 per election from a PAC and $2,300 per election from an individual.

But even maximum contributions to party committees are “just kind of a drop in the bucket” in a presidential race, said Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center.

She called contributions from PACs and lobbyists “pragmatic money. It’s going to have much more bang for its buck if it goes to the chair of [the] Energy and Commerce [Committee] or the ranking member” or the national congressional committees — the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee and their Senate counterparts.

One Democratic lobbyist who supports Obama was surprised by his announcement, but said, “I don’t think it’s going to have much of an impact” on the financial shape of the race. There are other ways for lobbyists to assist the campaign, she noted.

“The folks that have been on Team Obama who are registered lobbyists are doing what they do best — they’re lending, whether it be political advice or policy expertise.”

Obama’s ban on lobbyist and PAC money are “playing to the lack of sophistication and understanding of the American people of Washington," said another lobbyist. "It’s demagoguery at its worst.”

A third lobbyist, who supported Obama’s rival for the Democratic nomination, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, said it seems like lobbyists who have been active in politics are “being punished” in the wake of the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal.

“I’m a Democrat, I’ve worked on campaigns for years, and I really want to do my part to help my party,” she said. “I’m really sad that I’m being disqualified.”

McCain, in an effort to rebut criticism about his relationship with special interests, also recently diminished the role of lobbyists on his campaign.

But the Clinton-backing lobbyist pointed out that the DNC’s fundraising lags far behind the RNC’s.

“I really do think they need all the help they can get,” she said.

McCain, Obama Positions on Mideast Issues

Friday, June 6, 2008 4:30 PM

WASHINGTON -- Positions of the likely Republican and Democratic presidential candidates on some Mideast issues:

IRAN

Republican John McCain: Favors tougher sanctions, opposes direct high-level talks with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Says he hopes disputes with Iran can be resolved peacefully but says all options, including some kind of military strike, must be on the table.

Democrat Barack Obama: Initially said he would meet leaders of Iran and other rogue states without preconditions, now says he's not sure "Ahmadinejad is the right person to meet with right now." Says direct diplomacy with Iranian leaders would give U.S. more credibility to press for tougher international sanctions. Says there would be ample preparation for any presidential meeting.

IRAQ

McCain: Opposes scheduling a troop withdrawal, saying latest strategy is succeeding. Supported decision to go to war, but was early critic of the manner in which administration prosecuted it. Key proponent of the troop increase. Willing to have permanent U.S. peacekeeping forces in Iraq, similar to long-term military presence in South Korea and Japan.

Obama: Spoke against war at start, opposed troop increase. Now says his plan would complete withdrawal of combat troops by end of 2009, four months sooner than his previous commitment. Before that, had said a timetable for completing withdrawal would be irresponsible without knowing what facts he'd face in office.

ISRAEL and PALESTINIANS

McCain: Describes himself as strongly pro-Israel and says he would work to maintain Israel's "qualitative military edge" over Arab states and Iran. Supports President Bush's pledge for $30 billion in U.S. military aid over a decade. Said in March that he supports Jerusalem as "the capital of Israel," suggesting he would support current policy that the U.S. embassy should move from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Presidents Clinton and Bush have waived a requirement to move the embassy. Supports negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians to establish an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel.

Obama: Told a pro-Israel lobby group this week that he is a "true friend of Israel" and part of a bipartisan consensus with McCain that is committed to Israel's security. Would go forward with the $30 billion aid plan. Supports the two-state solution for Israeli-Palestinian peace and says he would get started on Mideast peace issues immediately, instead of late in his presidency. Says an "undivided" Jerusalem should be the capital of Israel, because other possible solutions are impracticable. Also says the status of the disputed holy city should be a matter for negotiation by both sides.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Obummer is all over the map, get a clue man your running for President not a community organizer!

McCain will eat little boy Obummer up in a real debate where tough questions are asked.

We already witnessed the melt down Obummer had Stephenopolis asked him a hard question. He was whining for weeks after that embarrassment~~

"How much easier it is to be critical than to be correct."

Posted by Capt

Hey Capt, is that why your so critical of Bush?

Ha ha ha ha!!!

People usually don't like being played for a fool.

I hope they can open their eyes.

Posted by Capt

Wow, are you going to be pissed off when the Kool Aid wears off and the eyes finally open~~~

At 90yrs old AND ill...

He's got more common sense and class...

Posted by Hajji

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At 90yrs old AND ill...

He's got more common sense and class...

Than a white _ igger ~

Isn't that what KKK Bird said on national TV at one time?

It figures that KKK Bird would be your role model~~

Freak show

Republicans thwart McCain 'greenwash'

John McCain rode an airboat across the fragile and imperilled Florida Everglades yesterday to underscore his credentials as a conservationist, albeit of a uniquely Republican variety.

In the manner of his heroes, the bear-hunting President Teddy Roosevelt and the adventurer-author Ernest Hemingway, the Republican candidate presents himself as a hunting, shooting, fishing-style environmentalist. He also believes in global warming and proclaims that unlike President George Bush, he is prepared to undertake urgent but realistic action to combat it.

The Democrats routinely claim Mr McCain is running for President Bush's third term. This is not true, he says. "You will hear every policy of the President described as the Bush-McCain policy. I have worked with the President to keep our nation safe. But he and I have not seen eye to eye on many issues." He pointed to the "disgraceful" recovery effort after Hurricane Katrina and global warming.

But the rebranding came unstuck yesterday as his Republican colleagues in the Senate blocked an ambitious global-warming Bill that would have forced massive reductions in America's greenhouse gases. Debate over climate change is already a core to the presidential fight, and now the most ambitious attempt to force change in the US will have to wait for a new congress and president. But Mr McCain's visit to Florida and his attempts to "greenwash" his credentials also ran into problems. He was forced to explain why he voted to oppose a major piece of legislation that promised $2bn for restoration of the Everglades. Why, he was asked, did he vote that way if he was such an environmentalist?

Florida, once home to Hemingway, is a key swing state in the forthcoming presidential election and the Everglades are a must-see for any candidate seeking to woo voters. The fate of the Everglades looms large in the minds of Florida's voters. The state depends on the Everglades for fresh water, and millions of voters see its degradation, from crass overdevelopment, as a symbol of many American's indifference to the fate of the environment.

The ecosystem is actually a shallow, slow-moving river 60 miles wide and 100 miles long that flows into Florida Bay at the sub-tropical southern tip. Teeming with fish and wildlife which includes the alligators that nest in its sawgrass marshes, the Everglades are slowly drying due to water extraction and drought.

"I am committed to saving the Everglades," Mr McCain said. "I will do whatever is necessary to do so and have made that clear."

http://tinyurl.com/4anmre

******

Barack is showing McSame is no leader of the GOP or McSame would have their support on his issues - he is also not able to run against Bush and the GOP because he doesn't control them. Whoop's loses either way.

Why can't McSame do as Barack does and get his party in order? Because he is running for president when he is no leader. Simple as that, eh?

From Wired magazine:

If elected president, Senator John McCain would reserve the right to run his own warrantless wiretapping program against Americans, based on the theory that the president's wartime powers trump federal criminal statutes and court oversight, according to a statement released by his campaign Monday.

McCain's new tack towards the Bush administration's theory of executive power comes some 10 days after a McCain surrogate stated, incorrectly it seems, that the senator wanted hearings into telecom companies' cooperation with President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program, before he'd support giving those companies retroactive legal immunity.

*****

Poor little Johnny, can't get a break.

lol

Why Won't the Press Call Bush a Liar?

Evidence that the President lied to the nation is irrefutable and growing.

Why is the press still reluctant to tell the truth about George W. Bush's run up to war -- that is a bald-faced liar who deliberately lied to the very Americans he's supposed to serve because he wanted to get into a war that he thought would give him a Great Legacy™ and fatten the pockets of himself and his cronies in the bargain?

Now that the report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has come out, this is no longer the exclusive province of bloggers and "kooks." It is absolute truth, that this president betrayed the trust of the American people in a way no other president has done in my lifetime -- not even Nixon. And yet, as he plays out the string of his ghastly, destructive, miserable presidency, the press still won't call him a liar.

http://tinyurl.com/5e4ufw

*****

Even David Corn the author of "The Lies of ..." seems to have lost the "L" word from his lexicon when speaking to the specifics of Dumya.

Seems curious indeed.

McCain's Lobbyist Friends

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGXIuNthJ7Q

A great ad, I liked the music better than the content but it is a convincing little clip.

Strictly, to be a liar means you know you are uttering an untruth, a falsehood.

I have serious doubts whether King George XLIII understands the distinction.

"Let's talk about the presidential Democratic primary. Over the weekend, I guess you know this, Hillary Clinton won the Puerto Rican primary. Yeah, and you know what that means? Now she is president of Puerto Rico."
--David Letterman

"Hillary now says that she is winning the popular vote. And Al Gore said yeah, well, a lot of good that does." --David Letterman

"In his new book, President Bush's former press secretary said that Bush has a lack of inquisitiveness. Yeah. When he heard this, Bush said, 'I don't know what he's saying, and I don't care.'"
--Conan O'Brien

"Speaking of President Bush, yesterday -- this is true -- during a speech, President Bush said that his economic stimulus package is working, because when people use extra money to buy a machine, that creates jobs at 'the machine-making place.' Yeah. Then Bush introduced his new speech writer, a 6-year-old boy named Timmy."
--Conan O'Brien

"Well, congratulations to Hillary Clinton, who won the Democratic primary in Puerto Rico. This is important because, as you know, Puerto Rico has absolutely no vote for president. Hello?! Yeah, great. I think she also won big in Guatemala."
--Jay Leno

"And over the weekend, Barack Obama left his church. And after, he said to Hillary, 'O.K., now it's your turn to quit something.'"
--Jay Leno

"And John McCain, as you know, has released all his medical records. All indications are McCain is in very good health. But of course, they're still waiting for that report from the coroner."
--Jay Leno

"No, they say McCain does take some medication, including Ambien to help him sleep. But they said he could eliminate the sleeping pills if he picks Mitt Romney as vice president."
--Jay Leno

"No, McCain's doctor said Senator McCain is decades younger than his age. But then, so is President Bush, who is, what, in his early 60s? But he has the mind of a 12-year-old."
--Jay Leno

David Letterman presents the Top Ten Revelations in the Scott McClellan Book. #4: "Each time McClellan lied about Iraq, Bush gave him a barrel of oil"

==+==

Hi, diff. Be back for ya' in a sec.

diff. diff. diff. Back for more? Good.

"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." (P. T. Barnum)
Posted by: Diff June 6, 2008 6:36 PM

==+==
Actually, that quote is by one of my favorite political writers of all time, Henry Louis Mencken. And trust me, nobody's underestimating your intelligence.

"Obama is a very appealing candidate to a certain segment of the American intellectual and liberal elite. There's no doubt about that... But he has yet to show any significant appeal beyond that."
Posted by: Diff June 6, 2008 6:36 PM

Really? Are you saying that a majority of Americans are members of "a certain segment of the American intellectual and liberal elite?" If not, your contention seems laughable, at best. Here are all the latest polls:
via RCP: http://tinyurl.com/2yke8u

RCP Average 6/05-- Obama 46.9/ McBush 44.1
CNN 06/05 Obama 49/ McBush 46
Gallup Tracking 06/05 Obama 46/ McBush 45
Rasmussen Tracking Obama 48/ McBush 43
CBS News 06/03 Obama 48/ McBush 42
USA Today/Gallup 06/01 Obama 47/ McBush 44
Cook/RT Strategies 05/31 Obama 44/ McBush 43
Pew Research 05/25 Obama 47/ McBush 44
Newsweek 05/22 Obama 46/ McBush 46

I know that your adoration of Gramps and your reflexive need to parrot DIngbat talking points won't allow you to say so; but Obama has wider support than you claim. Don't make me post the crosstabs on the latest polls to make you look like a(n even greater) fool.

Another one of my favorite quotes by Mencken:

Before a man speaks it is always safe to assume that he is a fool. After he speaks, it is seldom necessary to assume it.
H. L. Mencken

"The only time I've ever found Obama coherent on foreign policy is when he's quoting Zbigniew Brzezinski word-for-word..."
Posted by: Diff June 6, 2008 6:32 PM

"The question is whether he can keep from getting his crib sheets mixed up... He obviously switched up "Long-standing US policy toward Jerusalem" with "How to pander to the Israel lobby."
Posted by: Diff June 6, 2008 6:41 PM

"Hillary would never have made the mistake Obama, and the particular policy Barack enunciated is, in fact, precisely wrong."
Posted by: Diff June 6, 2008 6:44 PM

"or else 'Middle East conflict' is one of the Cliff Notes booklets he just hasn't got to yet."
Posted by: Diff Author Profile Page | June 6, 2008 6:46 PM

==+==
Funny how you echo LBH... word for word.

I found the "Hillary would never have made the mistake Obama...." line especially hilarious. Her never-ending stream of gaffes and tone-deaf pronouncements were the final nails in her political coffin. If she managed to halve her miscues in the primary election, she might not have gotten buried by a SuperDelegate landslide this month.

Be that as it may, the fact that you echo the Dingbat Zombie Chow that LBH spews is not much of a surprise to me. The fact that you are so painfully uninformed is cementing itself in my mind.

From the ABCnews blog:

"Asked for comment, the Obama campaign put a reporter in immediate contact with Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla. -- an Orthodox Jew, a strong supporter of Israel and Obama's point man on many of these issues -- who told ABC News, 'that is not backtracking.'"

"'His position has been the same for the past 16 months,' Wexler said. 'He believes Jerusalem should be an undivided city and must be the capital of a Jewish state of Israel. He has also said -- and it's the same position as President Bush, former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Prime Minister Ehud Ohlmert -- that Jerusalem is of course a 'final status' issue,' meaning it would be one of the key and final points of negotiation for a Palestinian state. 'And Sen. Obama as president would not dictate final status issues. He will permit the Palestinians and Israel to negotiate, and he would respect any conclusion they reach.'

"Wexler concluded, 'the articles are not picking up this position. They're not contradictions -- they're the same position.'"

"The record seems to back Wexler's argument that Obama has said both that Jerusalem should be Israel's undivided capital, and that its status is ultimately up to Israel. Obama's adviser for the Middle East, former Ambassador to Israel Daniel Kurtzer, recently said that 'It will be impossible to make progress on serious peace talks without putting the future of Jerusalem on the table.'"
ABC: http://tinyurl.com/4thkl9

==+==
You could regain your credibility here if you just admitted that you really aren't a Democrat. Failing that, you could just admit that you don't know what the hell Obama's stated (public) positions are and aren't much better than the braying jackass that posts under the name LBH.

"And, of course, I will certainly vote for Obama if he's the nominee. I'll even volunteer for him. I promise."
Posted by: Diff May 2, 2008 6:19 PM

No.

Just promise us that you'll stay the hell away from the Obama campaign. If this is your idea of helping the Democratic party, I'd hate to see what you'd accomplish as an Obama volunteer. The idea of you walking around badmouthing the Democratic nominee as a "volunteer" is such a funny image that I can't stop chuckling. If you aren't a certified Dingbat, you certainly meet the qualifications.

An extended quote from Riverdaughter [riverdaughter.wordpress.com]:

2008 was the year that the [Democratic] party abandoned its principles. It is no longer the party of FDR and shared responsibility. Now it is the party of wannabe rich libertarian Democrats. It is the party of the Ariana Huffingtons who, dissatisfied with her own party, have decided to steal someone else's. It isn't the party that nearly elected Bobby Kennedy. It is the party that is about to write off Appalachia. Good riddance, poor working people! You're on your own now. It isn't the party that made Social Security sacred. It is the party that might very well start tinkering with it because the young and well-off don't understand the concept of shared responsibility and insurance. And speaking of insurance, well, don't expect the health care crisis to get any better. That would have called for everyone to be covered and we won't be going there with Obama.

The problem with Obama and the new Democratic party is that it doesn't stand for real Democrats. It is yet another strange amalgamation of voters whose self-interest was pandered to. In many ways, it is no different from the Republican party of gilded capitalists, religious crazies, and neocons. This new Democratic party is made up of young people, libertarians, and pretentious, status-conscious liberals. There is a nasty streak of cynicism in it as well, as if it's just so outre to consider helping the poor or abiding by any core Democratic principles. The new Democratic party is just too cool for that. They can write some lengthy, detailed policy paper about it and pay some lip service, but really, the American demographic has evolved and those people on the brink of insolvency, well, they are the Neanderthals that didn't make the cut. Moving on.

[end of quote]

Riverdaughter pretty much speaks for me.

This ties into a suspicion I've been having. Since I don't believe the official story of a network of small, independent donors, I wonder where Senator Obama REALLY got the bulk of his campaign money, and the only answer that quickly occurs to me is Wall Street. But, what would Wall Street want in return?

In 2005, at the height of his power, with both houses of Congress belonging to his party, with the bulk of the judiciary belonging to his party, and the Corporate Holodeck Media fawning over him as usual, Chimperor Bush tried to privatize Social Security--and got his Chimperial arse handed to him. This, I suspect, told the Wall Street jackals that NO Elephascist president would be able to give them the keys to the Social Security money. Only a treacherous, nominally Democratic president would stand a chance of doing that. Maybe Obama is Wall St.'s Trojan Horse? He has talked about "reforming" SS at times, using right-wing talking points.

I suspect this election is, behind the scenes, a struggle between the old, business-class elite, mostly represented by the GOP, and a new, creative-class elite that has managed to capture the Democratic Party.

If this new elite wins out, I suspect it will still be a hard road for us working stiffs. Under their cultural liberalism, most of the new elitists don't think highly of us working stiffs who came of age before computers were common, and so have some trouble adapting to their brave new world, or for our aged parents and grandparents. I think most of our new "liberal", "creative class" elitists are, secretly, as Social Darwinist as the business class elite. BOTH groups view people like me as livestock if we're useful to them, and vermin if we aren't. To them, the majority of us working Americans are just "Neanderthals that didn't make the cut", and Social Security and other social insurance programs are just a waste of money on us evolutionary inferiors who should just shuffle off into the tar pit and die. I think the new pseudo-liberal elitists would cheerfully leave me to starve when I get old, assuming they didn't just set my weakened, helpless body on fire and post it on YouTube for laughs.

I look upon the creative class, and I begin to understand the fear that the ordinary humans of the Marvel Comics universe feel about mutant humans--"We've been replaced".

Only, instead of the "Children of the Atom", the CC folks are the "Children of the Chip" [silicon, that is].

And I find myself wanting the electoral equivalent of Sentinels, to make sure this cruel young "creative class" NEVER, EVER, gets its hands on political power.

So, I'm hoping now for President McCain vs. a strong Democratic Congress--so that neither the business class nor the pseudo-liberal creative class can gain total control, but that they'll fight each other to a bloody, horrible draw--that they'll cripple each other, so that neither can assume absolute power with its base alone, and they'll each need to take care of us working stiffs and our aged relatives in order to gain temporary edges over the other. That's why I want you to lose this time--so you'll decide you DO need our Neanderthal votes after all.

Looking at the Obamite hooligans who intimidated old folks in the Democratic caucuses, I think Plastic Jesus may well have as wide a dictatorial streak as any Elephascist.

I suspect I'm far from the only one who feels this way. Y'all have, however unwittingly, activated one of the earliest, strongest, most primal of human fears, one going back to earliest childhood--the fear of being abandoned.

First, the hard-line conservatives took over the GOP--the "Daddy" party--and turned it into the "Deadbeat Dad" party.

Now, you creative-class elitists want to take over the Democratic Party--our "Mommy" party--and turn it into the "Mommie Dearest" party.

We don't need two Elephascist parties.

We'll work to thwart you in November. If you fake-liberal Social Darwinists try to push us "Neanderthals" out of the lifeboat, we'll use our last strength to drag you down with us.

In recognition of the darkening of my mood of late, I have decided to return to a previous Webname on some blogs, including this one. Exit Ivory Bill Woodpecker, re-enter the---

Monster from the Id

"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens you can bet it was planned that way." FDR

FREE AMERICA

Direct Democracy

"Coincidence doesn't just happen"

~ Homer J Simpson

The Obama bashers have nothing to say and nothing better to do than post their misunderstandings and their fabrications of fake facts.

They want McSame in office? A box of hammers is smarter and has more political acumen.

Can't even source a H L Mencken quote? lol

You can lead a troll to the truth but you can't make them think. I think they are disgruntled Paulites.

I just use the JITA method.

This one is for the Hill shills

http://hcsfjm.com/

You can support McSame or stuff your support where the sun don't shine, makes no difference to me!

Did I mention Obama will be the next President of the USA?

Provided Barack isn't eaten by a bear.

lol

Anybody curious about the source of money for any candidate can look here:

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/index.php

(unless they are in on it)

lololololololo

NRO
McLaughlin: McCain Leads Obama Among Women, 49 Percent to 38 Percent A part of Robert Novak's column that is likely to be widely overlooked:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A women scorned? Obummer will feel the wrath!
Posted by: LBH June 5, 2008 3:25 PM

A women? Another unintentional funny.

Not as funny as quoting the McLaughlin group. Check out their website.
http://tinyurl.com/5kbsme

They were in the pocket of Frederick of Hollywood. Their polling was so far off track that I thought you'd get a giggle, too.

They say: "Fred Thompson has clearly become the conservative alternative to Rudy Giuliani, while John McCain remains mostly flat and Mitt Romney is flat or declining. We agree with this analysis."

Check out their polling info. It is too freekin' funny to be believed.
http://tinyurl.com/5pt7mc

The fact that you and BrainFart Novack would rely on McLaughlin's analysis explains a lot about why you guys have everything assbackwards.

Pande,

They are the hole a donut is built around?

lol

And check out their lineup of their winning candidates. It's a veritable who's who of DMW nobodies.
http://tinyurl.com/3u9q2u

County Freeholder James Lacy, Sheriff Jim Kralik? And you think these clowns can handle a national poll? Right.

Pew, CNN, Gallup (or Gallop, as you like to call them), rASSmussen, Survey USA, CBS, all show Obama leading Gramps among women. But hey, you go on with your bad self and those hilarious McLaughlin group polls. Go Fred in '08!

Obama leads in battle for Latino vote

The latest polls show he has a surprising advantage over McCain and is favored by up to 62% of voters.

http://tinyurl.com/69eskn

Talking points. The DMW are full of 'em. The facts, however, don't back them up (which makes diff seem more and more DMW every day).

Via Thinkprogress:
http://tinyurl.com/48bcs5
"the U.S. unemployment rate rose from 5.0 to 5.5 percent in May, which was higher than the expected 0.1 percent jobless rate increase. It was also the largest jump in unemployment since 1986. Labor Secretary Elaine Chao put out a statement today, attempting to explain the jump. Her answer? Blame America’s youth:"

" Today’s increase in the unemployment rate reflects the fact that unusually large numbers of students and graduates are entering the labor market."

This rhymes with what Mr. 20% said:
"Bush noted the 5.5 percent unemployment rate in May, which jumped an unexpected half a percentage point in the steepest monthly rise in more than two decades, was due in part to young, new workers entering the workforce."
via AFP: http://tinyurl.com/4uscxq

But if you go to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, you know, the guys who actually keep track of the numbers, there has not been a similar jump in unemployment going back to the 80s. Are Bush and Chao saying that this is the ONLY year that kids have graduated and moved into the workforce? Why didn't the numbers jump before?

Unemployment numbers from the BLS:
1998 April 4.3 May 4.4
1999 April 4.3 May 4.2
2000 April 3.8 May 4.0
2001 April 4.4 May 4.3
2002 April 5.9 May 5.8
2003 April 6.0 May 6.1
2004 April 5.6 May 5.6
2005 April 5.1 May 5.1
2006 April 4.7 May 4.7
2007 April 4.5 May 4.5
2008 April 5.0 May 5.5

The numbers only went up 4 times and never by half a point. The numbers actually fell 3 times in that same period. These people are the worst liars in the world. And check out the year to year change. April 2000, 3.8% unemployment. Big Dawg left him a good number to start with. Then just 3 years later, May 2003, 6.1 % unemployment. And they wonder why he's at 20% in approval and their party is swirling around the bowl.

Capt, the DMW are seemingly ALL hole and NO donut. Dead. Man. Walking.

Oops. Here's the linky to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics' numbers:
http://tinyurl.com/6rbva

Capt, I was just getting to that LA Times article. You beat me to it. I don't generally like to let Homeshool's stupidity stand uncontested.

Obama's Continuing Latino Problem
New American Media 3 June
Posted by: LBH June 5, 2008 3:27 PM

From Americablog:
"Wait, you mean losing a demographic of voters in the primary to your DEMOCRATIC opponent does not equate to losing that same demographic in the general election to your REPUBLICAN opponent? But the media kept telling us this was true. Funny, nobody could have predicted that there was no correlation. Oh wait, yes we did. LA Times:

" A new Gallup Poll summary of surveys taken in May shows Obama winning 62% of Latino registered voters nationwide, compared with just 29% for McCain. Others have found a wide gap as well. The pro-Democratic group Democracy Corps compiled surveys from March through May that showed Obama with a 19-point lead among Latinos. And a Times poll published last month showed Obama leading McCain among California Latinos by 14 points."

" Republicans say McCain's numbers among Latinos at the moment are disappointing..."

Yeah, you think?
==+==
What's funny is that the DMW thinks they can run their "shamnesty" candidate and appease Hispanics. Their bullshit is so transparent that nobody's buying it (except Homeschool, but he falls for all kinds of stupid shit).

Instead of bringing in more voters to the DMW side on this issue, it is having the opposite effect because Hispanics refuse to vote DMW; and the DMW Bigots don't want to see an appeaser like Gramps enact actual immigration reform. So disaffected DMW will just not vote for Gramps. BTW, Rush has Gramps pegged just about right.

Ah, crap forgot the linky again.
Americablog: http://tinyurl.com/6h8d5j

"Whites" are a minority here in NM. The majority have been cool about it, they never lord over us whites or lynch us, they don't make us use the back door and we can eat at the counter everywhere.

When in doubt, go with a red scare

For far-right Republicans, when nothing else is working in the midst of a political campaign, they always seem to go back to the same thing: the good ol’ red scare.

Take Tom DeLay, for example. The former House Majority Leader took time away from his criminal defense — DeLay is currently facing felony counts of money laundering and conspiracy in Texas — to appear on right-wing talk-show host Mike Gallagher’s radio show yesterday. When the subject turned to the presidential campaign, the former exterminator went after Barack Obama: “I have said publicly, and I will again, that unless he proves me wrong, he is a Marxist.” Gallagher agreed, saying, “[T]hat’s what he is.”

http://tinyurl.com/3g6naa

Judging from diff and the rest of the Hillbots, using divisive arguments against Obama is not a glitch or a bug, it's an actual built-in feature of the campaign:

"A Democratic superdelegate from New Jersey said he is worried that unifying the party behind Barack Obama may be difficult because the Clinton camp 'has engaged in some very divisive tactics and rhetoric it should not have.'"

"'There have been signals coming out of the Clinton campaign that have racial overtones that indeed disturb me,' Andrews said at his campaign headquarters in Cherry Hill Tuesday night after he lost his bid for the U.S. Senate nomination. 'Frankly, I had a private conversation with a high-ranking person in the campaign ... that used a racial line of argument that I found very disconcerting. It was extremely disconcerting given the rank of this person. It was very disturbing.'"
NJ.com: http://tinyurl.com/3myq3d

And the Clinton campaign response? Typical: shoot the messenger, call him a loser. When they treat their friends like this, their enemies don't need to worry. The Clinton campaign seems to delight in shooting itself in the ass with a blowdart. Just when you think they can't get any stoopider....

Oh, and diff, before you go running across the divide to campaign for Obama (ZOMGROTFLMAO), you need to help Mrs. Clinton clean up the freekin' disaster of a mess that she made:

Hillary Clinton expected to seek help from Barack Obama in reducing $30M campaign debt

BETH FOUHY
AP News
Jun 05, 2008 18:47 EST
In politics, money talks. And money is likely to be an important factor in discussions between Barack Obama's advisers and the debt-saddled Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign. Clinton will likely seek help from Obama in retiring her massive campaign debt, which has swollen to more than $30 million, including $11 million she lent the effort, advisers said Thursday.
==+==
She runs up the tab, all the while bad-mouthing him, screws him over to the end, and she expects him to clean up after her. That's quintessential DMW behavior.

Dude, pass the hat around, make copies of the "whitey" video and sell 'em on the internet, get Elton John to host another benefit concert (maybe he'll do the whole Candle in the Wind tribute to her, Diana who?). If you've got a hot hand or a gift for poker, you could try your luck in Vegas. Come 'on baby, Mark Penn needs a new pair of shoes! Or maybe you should just sell your bike. I hear that's real popular.

Sun ova Beach! I'm having so much fun, I'm forgetting all my linkies:
http://tinyurl.com/3rdeqh

Cracking me up!

McPandering to AIPAC

[...]

You'd think that a presidential campaign based on inspiring fear and hatred through a rhetorical logic that evokes an M.C. Escher print and that features a pliant buffoon at the top of the ticket with a supporting cast straight out of Springtime for Hitler wouldn't stand a chance.

But it worked the last two times.

Commander Jeff Huber, U.S. Navy (Retired)

http://tinyurl.com/5rc9tz

TPMtv: McCain Leaves Fox Speechless

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aMDJP4VxY4

Best 8 minutes of TV so far in the general election.

More unintentional humor from Homeschool:
Dude, if you really think the Obamatron doesn't work with lobbyist then your Barbie & Ken doll generation is hopeless.
Posted by: LBH | May 29, 2008 7:48 PM

That is so pathetic on so many levels that it makes one wonder just far up his arse Homeschool has to reach to scratch his brain. Homeschool, you need to start looking for facts and verifiable information. After the hundreds of posts that I've debunked, you have no credibility here.

This is what it's like to prove that someone "works with lobbyists."
Facts: http://tinyurl.com/6z8zms
FL Lobbyist Raising Money For McCain

"Even as John McCain has told his campaign staffers that they must not do any lobbying, his fundraising arm is maintaining ties to a lobbyist."

"McCain Victory '08, the joint fundraising effort of the Republican National Committee and the McCain campaign, has named well-known Florida lobbyist Brian Ballard to chair fundraising efforts in the battleground state. Ballard is a partner in the Tallahassee lobbying firm of Smith & Ballard, which billed $8 million in fees in 2007, according to the St. Petersburg Times. The firm represents the Tampa Bay Rays baseball team as well as cities, counties, hospitals, insurers, utilities, and drugmakers, according to the paper."
==+==
Facts aren't on your side, Homeschool, and everyone knows that.

When you find a list like this, you can stop pulling info out of you know where:

* Wayne Berman, national finance committee co-chairman and "senior adviser," according to a February 7 New York Times article. Berman is a lobbyist and the managing director of government relations at Ogilvy Government Relations. A January 25 Wall Street Journal article (subscription required) described Berman as a "longtime lobbyist for companies in the financial industry" whose clients include the "Carlyle Group and Citigroup."
* Former Rep. Thomas Loeffler (R-TX), campaign co-chairman and national finance committee co-chairman. Loeffler is a lobbyist and founder of The Loeffler Group. According to Shear and Birnbaum, he is "McCain's top fundraising official."

The Houston Chronicle reported on April 30, 2007, that Loeffler has "built a multimillion-dollar lobbying operation" with clients that have "included AT&T, the National Association of Broadcasters, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the Port of Houston, Southwest Airlines and Toyota Motor Co. Loeffler's firm also has represented the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on trade issues." The Chronicle added that Loeffler's "role as a lobbyist with influential clients such as drug manufacturers and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia may pose a political liability for McCain." A February 8 Politico article reported that Loeffler's "lobbying firm has made millions inserting earmarks into spending bills."

* Former Rep. James A. Courter (R-NJ), national finance committee co-chairman. Courter is the chief executive officer of the telecommunications firm IDT. He was previously a lobbyist for Verner, Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson and Hand from 1998 to 2001. His clients included Merrill Lynch, NBC, Lockheed Martin, Microsoft, Goldman Sachs, and SBC Communications.

Source: http://tinyurl.com/5xbpde

Again, when you find a list like that, get back to us. Till then, keep scratching yer brain.

And on Rezko. The common lie is:

"Antoin Rezko, convicted that day on federal corruption charges, sold Sen. Barack Obama a strip of land "for an amount that was substantially below its apparent market value." However, according to documents posted on the Obama campaign website, Obama paid $104,166 for the piece of property -- well above its appraised value of $40,500."

"As Media Matters for America has noted, the property -- which is adjacent to Obama's house -- was purchased by Rezko's wife in June 2005 for $625,000, and the Obamas subsequently purchased one-sixth of the property. Obama told the Chicago Tribune in a March 14 interview how the price was determined: "[T]he appraisal did note that the other parcel, Rezko's remaining parcel, would be fully developable if he sold this to me. And so rather than pay the appraised price, I paid one-sixth of the cost of his property. He agreed to sell that 10-foot strip."
Mediamatters: http://tinyurl.com/6exrd8

Saying that the Rezkos made 64K PROFIT on the deal is bogus because they just got back the same amount they put in. If they had put in ONLY 40K, then yes, the Rezkos would have made a profit.

The Rezko scandal goes nowhere because it has nowhere to go. And you guys fall for the bullshit every time.

This is what it's like for a criminal investigation to cut into a presidential Campaign:
NYTimes: http://tinyurl.com/6b6r7b
The Feds Close in on McCain Adviser's Co. UBS

" But now, as the federal authorities intensify an investigation into offshore bank accounts, the secrets of this rarefied world are being dragged into the open — and UBS’s privileged clients are running scared."

"Under pressure from the authorities, UBS is considering whether to divulge the names of up to 20,000 of its well-heeled American clients, according to people close to the inquiry, a step that would have once been unthinkable to Swiss bankers, whose traditions of secrecy date to the Middle Ages."

"Federal investigators believe some of the clients may have used offshore accounts at UBS to hide as much as $20 billion in assets from the Internal Revenue Service. Doing so may have enabled these people to dodge at least $300 million in federal taxes on income from those assets, according to a government official connected with the investigation."
==+==
How is Gramps connected to this scandal? He hired a Lobbyist (AGAIN?!) for UBS and made him his chief economic adviser.

Now THAT'S how you connect lobbyists AND a criminal investigation to a candidate. Keep scratching yer brain, Homeschool.

Bob Dylan says Barack Obama is 'changin' America

Dylan, 67, made the comments when being interviewed in Denmark, where he stopped over in a hotel during a tour of Scandinavia.

Asked about his views on American politics, he said: "Well, you know right now America is in a state of upheaval. Poverty is demoralising. You can't expect people to have the virtue of purity when they are poor.

"But we've got this guy out there now who is redefining the nature of politics from the ground up...Barack Obama.

"He's redefining what a politician is, so we'll have to see how things play out. Am I hopeful? Yes, I'm hopeful that things might change. Some things are going to have to."

He added: “You should always take the best from the past, leave the worst back there and go forward into the future."

http://tinyurl.com/5g656u

*****

Although I'm not a huge Dylan fan, his take is always interesting.

What about Foreclosure Phil and McBush's criminal enterprise?

An oldie but goodie:
John McCain's go-to economics adviser isn't holding up very well under close scrutiny.

Phil Gramm, the former Texas senator and economist, is taking a lot of heat after reports that up until April 18 he was a registered lobbyist for UBS, the Swiss bank that is the world's largest manager of private wealth.

A former economics professor at Texas A&M, Gramm has long advocated for tax cuts, supply-side economics and less government regulation. But as David Corn over at Mother Jones reports in "Foreclosure Phil?" Gramm also played an integral role in the financial scandal commonly known as the "subprime meltdown."

Gramm took to the Senate floor on Dec. 15, 2000 -- just two days after the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the Bush v. Gore decision -- and inserted a 262-page measure into a massive budget bill.

The act, he declared, would ensure that neither the [SEC] nor the Commodity Futures Trading Commission [CFTC] got into the business of regulating newfangled financial products called swaps--and woul