Ooooooops I forgot I notice no mention of Hillary saying Success in the vid just maybe she wasn't playing up for the cameras
Just food for thought Craig :-))
What I really want to know, I mean _really_ is what Senator Nelson is looking at when he keeps peering at the back of Sen Obama's cranium while Obama is speaking.
And, question number two, will all the caucus goers who swirled to the Obama Cause, get a chance to review their votes because of the shift from instant departure to a longing for success?
Recently it has been all over the cable and major news channels about Hillary and the Bosnian issue how the media was focused on it like a laser beam inexorably discussing it daily as silage for news shows.
Let us for a few moments of clarity abjure from all this cultish Obamamania, Senator Obama distorts facts as well, that, and with a co-conspiratorial media that aids and abets his distortions of the truth has lead to what I call false popularity, something similar to a false positive on a physical test.
One canard of his I’d like to focus on is the one about his mother which is rarely discussed here, at least in context to Hillary’s Bosnian debacle.
Senator Obama claims his mother was a Christian woman from Kansas and that his father from Kenya in a Muslim village but was not very religious and did not practice Islam. A classmate of Obama’s mother [Anne Dunham] remembers her as an atheist, this from Maxine Box a close High School friend. I would like to know why there has been no media investigation into this.
In a recent interview, Obama called his mother "the dominant figure in my formative years. . . . The values she taught me continue to be my touchstone when it comes to how I go about the world of politics." So who is telling the truth here? Ms. Box or Senator Obama and why is this not discussed routinely on cable news shows? My guess is that sexism rears its ugly head and it is far better to have a man in the presidency rather than a woman whose job it is to be devoted to her man, supportive of her man, heaven knows we cannot allow a matriarch, we must, at all costs keep it a patriarchal White House.
Obama says “My mother was a Christian from Kansas, and they married and then divorced. I was raised by my mother. So, I've always been a Christian.”
So Senator Obama can you please intelligently explain to America how a mother who was an atheist and was able to speak intelligently and passionately about it to at least one close friend in High School, yet you claim she is a Christian woman and raised you as a Christian.
Senator Obama in your childhood years in Kansas can you show us any physical proof…documents, church membership, Baptismal Certificate etc. that shows your mother and you as Christians while growing up in Kansas? We need more than your verbal repartee at stump speeches.
The news media took Hillary to task on Bosnia yet remains silent on Obama’s mother…is this what qualifies as egalitarian journalism in the media today?
If that is the case, then it is a mortal sin, not just on the profession of journalism but on our national democratic republic as well. When you consider that a free and independent press is the cornerstone of our American Democracy these will be sad days ahead if the journalistic standards for decency and integrity do not purge themselves of this flaw.
Since the MSM refuses to apply equal standards to Senator Obama and Senator Clinton then that baton must be passed on to independent bloggers that support Hillary’s campaign for the presidency.
I will continue to point out distortions involved with Senator Obama’s campaign, am I overmatched and out of my league by the MSM, yes I am, but even if I have to use bearskins and knives I will continue the good fight.
Flatus ... it's not nice to point out a shift in position so early in the morning. Depends on what the definition of precipitous withdrawal is I guess.
I thought it was interesting that what MSNBC highlighted from the hearings yesterday were a question by Clinton to Petraeus and statements by McCain and Obama to Petraeus. From what I heard, McCain said exactly nothing more or less than his choosing to lose is a failure of leadership stump speech. Petraeus' appearance was nothing more than his last one, and neither candidate seemed to ask any boneheaded questions or make any stupid statements from what I saw on the tube, limited though it was. I need to go to NYT or somewhere and read the transcripts, and if I find one of those offending statements, I'll be back to report it.
For Craig, You didn't mention whether or not Senator Clinton wants to be "succesful". I'll go back and review her statement, but is the lady not marching lock step again?
Second for Heather, Do you know who actually raised him. He has said "mother" and "grandparents". We know he returned to Hawaii at age 10. Did his mother and her second family come with him or was he just shipped back to her parents for several years?
Recently it has been all over the cable and major news channels about Hillary and the Bosnian issue how the media was focused on it like a laser beam inexorably discussing it daily as silage for news shows.
Let us for a few moments of clarity abjure from all this cultish Obamamania, Senator Obama distorts facts as well, that, and with a co-conspiratorial media that aids and abets his distortions of the truth has lead to what I call false popularity, something similar to a false positive on a physical test.
One canard of his I’d like to focus on is the one about his mother which is rarely discussed here, at least in context to Hillary’s Bosnian debacle.
Senator Obama claims his mother was a Christian woman from Kansas and that his father from Kenya in a Muslim village but was not very religious and did not practice Islam. A classmate of Obama’s mother [Anne Dunham] remembers her as an atheist, this from Maxine Box a close High School friend. I would like to know why there has been no media investigation into this.
In a recent interview, Obama called his mother "the dominant figure in my formative years. . . . The values she taught me continue to be my touchstone when it comes to how I go about the world of politics." So who is telling the truth here? Ms. Box or Senator Obama and why is this not discussed routinely on cable news shows? My guess is that sexism rears its ugly head and it is far better to have a man in the presidency rather than a woman whose job it is to be devoted to her man, supportive of her man, heaven knows we cannot allow a matriarch, we must, at all costs keep it a patriarchal White House. We must have a call to arms to break the final "Glass Ceiling" we must shatter it! Let the glass slivers obliterate from mountaintop to mountaintop...sea to shining sea! We as women, wives, mothers, professionals in every facet of of employment and entrepreneurship must demand the end to sexism and the empowerment that our Constitution guarantees us not as women but as citizens.
Obama says “My mother was a Christian from Kansas, and they married and then divorced. I was raised by my mother. So, I've always been a Christian.”
So Senator Obama can you please intelligently explain to America how a mother who was an atheist and was able to speak intelligently and passionately about it to at least one close friend in High School, yet you claim she is a Christian woman and raised you as a Christian.
Senator Obama in your childhood years in Kansas can you show us any physical proof…documents, church membership, Baptismal Certificate etc. that shows your mother and you as Christians while growing up in Kansas? We need more than your verbal repartee at stump speeches.
The news media took Hillary to task on Bosnia yet remains silent on Obama’s mother…is this what qualifies as egalitarian journalism in the media today?
If that is the case, then it is a mortal sin, not just on the profession of journalism but on our national democratic republic as well. When you consider that a free and independent press is the cornerstone of our American Democracy these will be sad days ahead if the journalistic standards for decency and integrity do not purge themselves of this flaw.
Since the MSM refuses to apply equal standards to Senator Obama and Senator Clinton then that baton must be passed on to independent bloggers that support Hillary’s campaign for the presidency.
I will continue to point out distortions involved with Senator Obama’s campaign, am I overmatched and out of my league by the MSM, yes I am, but even if I have to use bearskins and knives I will continue the good fight as I humbly urge all my sisters that support Hillary to do.
As I state in the header of my blog site..."My goal is to vanquish Neocons / Bush from this Land near and far. To make women wake up, get angry, protest and act! Aw come on, it shouldn't be that hard!"
Dear Jamie:
I don't know because Obama has not made it clear he has said a variety of things in different stump speeches that seemingly conflict with each other.
Lately I have been surfing and doing lexis nexis searches i'll keep trying.
And, it's not time to let Mr Obama off the hook about accepting public funding if he's in the general election. He needs to unequivocally address the issue prior to the close of the primary season.
"Every day that passes Obama gets cockier. His confidence grows at a rate directly inverse to the facts. The most recent whopper occurred during a fundraiser in San Francisco while answering a question concerning potential VP choices. Not believing in the conventional wisdom that he needs someone with strong foreign policy experience, Obama pooh poohed the obvious right away.
Ironically, this is an area–foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain.”
Experience in Washington is not knowledge of the world. This I know.
Cue the adoring, mindless fans… yelling and whooping it up.
I realize that facts are verboten in Obamaland, but the truth is he lived in Indonesia from the time he was 6 until he was 10 years old. Now I realize he is a bright lad, but a 10 year old child’s experiences aren’t exactly the deep life affirming and defining experiences that I typically look for in a Commander in Chief. If they were such deep life changing experiences just why is it that he decided to suddenly abandon his mother in Indonesia to join his “typical white person” grandmother in Hawaii? And since he has done so well in life, why is it that his family is impoverished and living in huts in small villages while he lives comfortably in a mansion in a large city? What does that say about the content of his character? His generosity? His morality?
I used to work for a military contractor and can say with absolute conviction that the military takes parsing and mincing and hair splitting of language to a level well beyond any other sect of American society. I spent the better part of a week once trying to figure out exactly why I was made to change all instances of the word "analysis" in a report with the word "assessment." The torturing and convoluting of semantics has the effect of neutering language and placing a wall of vagueness between those doing the reporting, in this case, the military, and those consuming the data, either the general public or private contractors.
Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro (November 29, 1942 – November 7, 1995), known as Ann Dunham, was the mother of United States Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama.
Ann Dunham was born in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas while her father was in the military. She was named after her father,who reportedly gave his daughter and only child his name because he had wanted a boy; however, she was referred to as "Ann".
Don't forget to ask John McCain were his Baptismal Certificate is. I read yesterday that someone had said they can find no certificate of him being baptized. I believe the story was on Raw Story.
Pogo -- Every time I read anything that Dowd writes I remember how she slobbered over Don Rumsfeld, calling him a rock star. The press first demonized Al Gore, cheerleaded us into BushWorld, then cheerleaded us into Iraq. In the case of some of these clowns, the messenger does need to be attacked.
Funny, anon - I don't recall McCain making his baptism an issue in his campaign. You are missing Heather's point in your unrelenting defense of your candidate.
Patsi - I completely agree - I quit reading Dowd beyond the caption of her columns about 2 months ago - this time her vemon is spewed at two appropriate targets.
Heather's point isn't bigoted - it's a complaint about press bigotry, Apparently "we" don't all understand it. And it's not the same as that ridiculous e-mail.
I must say that I greatly admire and respect your ability to take the personal attacks and comments leveled at you for your support of Obama.
The disdain leveled against Obama far surpasses the disdain leveled against the president or the republicans on this board and it makes me fear more for the Senator, his wife and family that some nut might attempt to harm them.
If all the boards are like this one than the Senators life may be in more danger than I thought.
I just LOVE to hear senators ask "questions." Each question is a mini-speech where they provide their own answer to the question, before they finally get around to asking it.
And they're so damn polite, to each other, and to the lying bastards sitting in front of them.
Patreus isn't a general. He's a parrot in a general suit.
Who gives a damn about those gutless idiots in Congress? They are still being pushed around by Bush/Cheney.
The most important thing happening today is the protest against the Chinese occupation of Tibet. People in the streets of San Francisco will be trying to knock the Olypic torch out of the hands of cynical sports-business people (who call themselves "athletes"). Hordes of SF police and a swarm of blue and white uniformed Chinese thugs will try to crush dissent here, just like they do in Tibet.
(This is very mild compared to what 527s would use against Obama. Too many Dems are politically tone deaf. It works on enough people to make a difference.)
A few months ago , I watched an old episode of "All in the Family". In this episode , Cleavon Little and Demond Wilson (LaMont Sanford) played 2 burglers who break into the Bunker's house. Cleavon Little and Archie Bunker have a conversation and Cleavon says "Look what we got here....a bigot!" Rob Reiner apologizes for Archie's comments and says that Archie doesn't understand the plight of the inner city blacks. Cleavon Little says "And you do?" Rob Reiner says "I read about it in my sociology textbook." Cleavon Little replies "And look what we have here , a liberal!"
"The disdain leveled against Obama far surpasses the disdain leveled against the president or the republicans on this board and it makes me fear more for the Senator, his wife and family that some nut might attempt to harm them.
If all the boards are like this one than the Senators life may be in more danger than I thought."
Funny anon.....I've been having those concerns about Obamatons and Hillary's safety.
"Patsi, either they moved california from the SW coastal corner of the US, or that diversion is faulty. lol."
Pogo-- the diversion does get some hinks...and it makes you crazy. Then the trick is that you have to do a fast "save." I think I've also figured out that sometimes you think you've grabbed one state and it's the one underneath it....
"Patreus isn't a general. He's a parrot in a general suit."
No surprise there. The only generals who can afford to be honest are the retired ones. This is a travesty. Where's Paul Wellstone when we need an honest man?
Hillary has already lost the nomination, but she and her followers still cling to the hope that somehow she can steal it back, by one sordid trick or another.
* Use racism to undermine the winner.
* Bribe/threaten the superdelagtes.
* Bribe/threaten the pledged delegates.
* Try to create a bunch of fake Hillary delegates from Florida & Michigan
*Threaten to withhold support in the general election.
*Threaten to support McCain in the general election
* McCain/Clinton ticket?
Hillary and all her followers should just admit that they are really Republicans and join the GOP.
When the Obama supporters start calling Hillary a secret Muslim out to destroy America or wants to enslave the White Race than I may consider what you posted worthy.
The hate and racial tones amongst the Clinton supporters against Obama far exceed anything I've seen on many sites. The Clinton supporters are more vile than any Obama supporters comments I've seen posted elsewhere as well.
After all it is the White Christians who preach against abortion and gays have had far more of their members commit acts of violence against others such as bombings and killings than anyone else.
Eric Rudolph, Paul Hill are just two examples. So I really wouldn't be concerned about Hillary's safety unless the Religious Right starts condemning her.
Nash -- You are so full of it. You're the one who makes me think "BUSH voter!" Yousupport a candidate who thinks Ronnie Raygun was wonderfully transformative. What does that say about you? You must have LOVED the way Obama's mentor Raygun "transformed" America.
Your tactics: Don't allow two major states to vote. Send thugs to state caucuses. Use sexist comments to undermine a candidate. Cry racism at every turn. Play the victim. ANYTHING to keep the object of your irrational hatred out of the White House.
"The hate and racial tones amongst the Clinton supporters against Obama far exceed anything I've seen on many sites. "
The only place you have seen this on this list is some of Gordo's posts and everybody has told him to stop it. Just because a candidate is supported by a group you know to be ignorant doesn't mean that ALL the supporters of that candidate believe the same thing.
Some of the Clinton haters are totally off the deep end into conspiracy theories. That doesn't mean that everyone supporting Obama is checking the Tarmac in Mena, Arkansas.
I see all the Obama's Hillary haters are out using their Nazi gestapo tactics accusing me and anyone that supports Hillary. I hope people will wake up and see these horrible extremist
move on.org mental cases support Obama and how these extremist trolls will cause democrats another presidential defeat in Nov.
Idiots like these are not representative of the Democratic party! They are angry malicious people that want to censor anyone that disagrees with their support of Obama
I am deeply hurt and offended being labeled racist and bigot and told I am a republican because I am not a whacked out extremist left winger. You are the tiny big mouthed MINORITY of our party I suggest you get out of MY Democratic party and join the green or communist party you would be more at home there since you love censoring those that disagree with you!
It is tragic I any anyone supporting Hillary are no longer allowed liberty and freedom of speech without harassment threats and insults I hope you are proud of yourselves. I suggest you take a lesson on civility, democracy and good manners.
I know its useless asking an apology for being accused of something I am not!
For all of you raging racists out there, tonight's American Masters on PBS is devoted to Zora Neale Hurston, one of the most varied, intelligent, and thought provoking black female authors. Here is the NY Times review.
I've looked at other sites to see what is going on between the Hillary supporters and the Obama supporters.
There is more hate against Obama than against Hillary on the majority of them.
I stand by what I say. In fact after spending many hours seeing and reading many other sites, including this one I will no longer vote for Hillary if she is the nominee.
You see all of you Clinton supporters have lost another vote for her if she is the nominee.
I would rather give my vote to Nader, Bob Barr if he runs or McCain now than give it to Hillary.
Your support of Hillary and denigration of Obama with the personal attacks against anyone who supports him will in the long run destroy the Democratic Party as those who would have voted for Hillary if she became the nominee will not be forgotten like many of you think here.
And if you won't vote for Obama if he is the nominee or will vote to keep McCain out while not fully supporting Obama will not bridge the gap you have all created.
"Some have suggested that any Clinton supporters who continue to raise this issue are "playing the race card" or taking the "low" road.
Attacking the motives of those who feel this discomfort about Senator Obama's response or nonresponse to Reverend Wright's comments is not just unfair and wrong. It also misses the important electoral point about winning the general election in November: This issue is not going away. If many loyal, progressive Democrats remain troubled by this issue, then there must be even more unease among key swing voters – soft "Reagan Democrats," independents and moderate Republicans – who will decide the 2008 election."
All I am saying is that you cannot group people together. I am more than willing to admit that there is a lot of anti-muslim, racist nonsense out there against Obama and because it is on the internet, it is noisier and more obvious. Quite frankly it is the extremes on both sides making all the noise.
To accuse us of those same attitudes would be like me accusing you to believing that Hillary murdered Vince Foster who was her secret lover when she wasn't having lesbian affairs ... Total and complete nonsense.
As far as I can tell from the majority of people here, the Obama supporters believe he would be the best President and the Clinton supporters believe that she would be the best President.
If the Clinton folks seem a little strident, it is because the media coverage just seems so darn one sided and that every word and action of Sen. Clinton is put under a microscope while major issues for Sen. Obama are glossed over as barely worth mentioning.
One thing is for sure: If Mr. Obama doesn't show a willingness to try to answer all the questions now, John McCain and the Republican attack machine will not waste a minute pressuring him to do so if he is the Democratic Party's choice in the fall.
Gordo, I wish Lanny would drop that. We've all heard it, and many of us agree, but he made the rounds of the newsers and made his point there. If Obama becomes the nominee, we'll hear it again from the other side of the aisle. I guess he had column inches to fill.
A-P, I assume you are willing to accept the same reaction from Hillary supporters if Obama becomes the nominee?
I don't know if you were referencing me in you"personal attacks" of Obama supporters but that is simply not true!
Any future posts by me would be nugatory. It is said you are driving good decent people away by deliberately and willfully taking them out of context and lying making claims not born out of truth
Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright: Former Muslim
April 07th 2008
A reader from Free Republic has dug up an old article last year (March 07) From TNR about Obama. It was written by Ryan Lizza, Senior editor at The New Republic. It’s a biographical piece, but in the article, it explicitly states that Jeremiah Wright is a former Muslim.
From Wright and others, Obama learned that part of his problem as an organizer was that he was trying to build a confederation of churches but wasn’t showing up in the pews on Sunday. When pastors asked him the inevitable questions about his own spiritual life, Obama would duck them uncomfortably. A Reverend Philips put the problem to him squarely when he learned that Obama didn’t attend services. “It might help your mission if you had a church home,” he told Obama. “It doesn’t matter where, really. What you’re asking from pastors requires us to set aside some of our more priestly concerns in favor of prophesy. That requires a good deal of faith on our part. It makes us want to know just where you’re getting yours from.”
After many lectures like this, Obama decided to take a second look at Wright’s church. Older pastors warned him that Trinity was for “Buppies”–black urban professionals–and didn’t have enough street cred. But Wright was a former Muslim and black nationalist who had studied at Howard and Chicago, and Trinity’s guiding principles–what the church calls the “Black Value System”–included a “Disavowal of the Pursuit of Middleclassness.’”
The crosscurrents appealed to Obama. He came to believe that the church could not only compensate for the limitations of Alinsky-style organizing but could help answer the nagging identity problem he had come to Chicago to solve. “It was a powerful program, this cultural community,” he wrote, “one more pliant than simple nationalism, more sustaining than my own brand of organizing.”
As a result, over the years, Wright became not only Obama’s pastor, but his mentor. The title of Obama’s recent book, The Audacity of Hope, is based on a sermon by Wright. (It’s worth noting, however, that, while Obama’s book is a coolheaded appeal for common ground in an age of political polarization, Wright’s sermon, “The Audacity to Hope,” is a fiery jeremiad about persevering in a world of nuclear arms and racial inequality.) Wright is one of the first people Obama thanked after his Senate victory in 2004, and he recently name-checked Wright in his speech to civil rights leaders in Selma, Alabama.
So the question is, why hasn’t anyone mentioned the fact that he’s a former Muslim? Could this be why Obama’s church posted a Hamas manifesto in the Trinity Church program last year? It obviously explains Wright’s affinity with Louis Farrakhan. It also explains more why Rev. Wright got his Masters degree in “Islam in West Africa”
This is just another blow to the Obama campaign. The American people are not ready to hand the reigns to someone who’s associations are beyond sketchy.
On c-span this morning a caller said GE is making a lot of money with this war.Ge owns msnbc.Explains why they are pushing Obama.They want McCain in to continue this war and Obama woukd be easier to beat.
Ruth
Jamie, I agree with you. However, I must say that both sides are strident. No one has the moral upper hand here and it is dishonest for anyone to suggest otherwise. I think I am basically confirming your comment here.
as a 67 year old male ..im afraid ill never see a female get elected president in ,my lifetime....the sexism in this country is so strong they would rather have a con artist in the white house .....another 4 years of public conning if obama wins ....with the help of the MSM and the far left nuts its going to be very trying
This will splatter on Obama with Zbig and Carter in Obama's camp. Yep, let's talk to the terrorist who triggered the war between Israel and Hizb'Allah in Damascus where recently Zbig visited right after another nasty terrorist was terminated. People wonder why Obama draws anti-Muslim fire? His associations with Hamas-loving Khalidi and others who sport the anti-Israeli line is the answer. Also throw in some top advisors and a credible picture emerges which Nader pointed out: before Obama hit the campaign trail: Obama was pro-Palestinian. Now his BS on the trail is mocked by those who support him. It plays during the primary, but will hurt him in the general.
Carter goes to Damascus after a Hamas group just killed two Israelis. His action now is just the example McCain will use to characterize an Obama administration as NeoCarterism. Think Carter would go to Lebanon and rally the pro-Western supporters? Naw....
This is a principled person? He went to Darfur and came back and said there had been no genocide. Does Obama care to comment? Nope. McCain will read the list of Obama supporter visits to Syria, the offers to Iran and ask what they amounted to. Meanwhile, McCain will point to NK talks, progress in Iraq, sanctions against Iran which Obama doesn't support, Gadafi's WMD stoppage, peace talks between Pakistan and India, no more taliban controlling Afghanistan and ask Americans what the Democrats can show for their talking. THis is why Hillary built a centrist record to counter the weak national security image. For that she is tarred and feathered by the NeoLiberal crowd.
Obama doesn't need any foreign policy help or national security credentials? Well Barak, you just need more time to continue adding to that fine image. His Patraeus comments didn't even register on the radar. Now Carter will remind people of where Obama's coming from. Come November, Independents will run from the NeoLIberals who have flocked to their man. Keep drinking people. Maybe Obama will have Wright swear him in. Obama created this situation, not his critics.
With all the bullshit radical muslims are pulling in Europe and the world, I will be the first to admit I have deep suspicion and dislike of them. And I make no apologies for it. One such person was acting as a double agent for the Belgian government... meanwhile he murdered 8 people... 2 who were Jewish, 1 because he was a Gay man, and a couple mainstream Muslims that he felt had too much power. The inept Belgian "intelligence community" had no idea this guy was going around popping people off. However, one of his Gay victims survived and was able to identify him.
Muslims who have moved from the Middle East to Europe resist any attempt to integrate in Western society. Instead, they are demanding that Western society give them social guarantees such as Sharia Law, women only gynecologists, public swimming pools shut down to men for several hours a day so that Muslim women can swim without a man anywhere in sight... I would love to see some Westerners move to.. oh let's say IRAN and demand European style of Democracy, equal rights for women, acceptance and equal rights of Gays and Lesbians... a free press, etc...
I have no tolerance for religion that hates Gays and others who do not adhere to their perverted "doctrine"... and I don't care if anyone likes it or not.
My last part of the post got cut off :( ... I wanted also to say that this is not say all Muslims are horrible or that just because someone is by familial connection is a muslim that they are automatically suspect. There are many secular peoples who come from Muslim families just like there are many secular peoples who come from Christian families. And there are many Gay and Lesbian muslim people living in Europe who are also at threat of violence.... I don't know how it is in America now because I have lived in Europe for 10 years, but here it's a big debate and I believe greater problems are yet to come in the form of terrorist attacks in Europe.
Carter went to Darfur and did zero. Even Egypt is done letting Palestinians in. We will all watch the change of heart in Hamas that Carter will create. Sadat's military was crushed by Israel and he had lost the Sinai. That is what brought him to the peace table. Carter encourages resistance to terrorists who believe they are "winning". The same terrorists who killed Sadat. Every day seems to confirm the Obama slid into Carterism and keeps him from making that pivot to center. The more people suspect the phoniness, the harder such a pivot will be. Yes, Republicans are salivating for an Obama nomination. If nothing else, his election would promise four years of attacks. Hillary is fire-proof. Obama is not.
"But a former Obama insider says that Obama's sudden aversion to NOI and Farrakhan is belied by the fact that Obama employed and continues to employ several Farrakhan acolytes in high positions on his Illinois and U.S. Senate campaign and office staffs. I have verified that this person--who agreed to talk on the condition of anonymity--held a key position in the Obama campaign. The insider was so close to Senator Obama that they frequently personally discussed and exchanged direct e-mail messages on campaign and policy matters. This person is not connected with the Clintons and is not a disgruntled employee.
The insider says he frequently objected to Mr. Obama's placement of Cynthia K. Miller, a member of the Nation of Islam, as the Treasurer of his U.S. Senate campaign.
The Obama insider says he also objected to Obama's involvement with Jennifer Mason, whom he says is also a member of the Nation of Islam. Mason is Obama's Director of Constituent Services in his U.S. Senate office and is also in charge of selecting Obama's Senate interns.
But it's not just that he employed these individuals in positions of power in his office, it's that when the former associate raised objections, he says Mr. Obama's position was that he saw nothing wrong with the Nation of Islam and didn't think it was a problem. If true--and the fact that Ms. Mason still holds her prominent Obama Senate staff position bears that out--Obama's condemnation of Farrakhan, this month, is phony."
Euro Tom said, "I have no tolerance for religion that hates Gays and others who do not adhere to their perverted "doctrine"... and I don't care if anyone likes it or not."
That would included Jerry Falwell and his like and any other Fundy group, right? What about pedophiles? Catholic Church? Why only stop at Muslims?
This morning I received a letter from Howard Dean. I did not see McCain on the petreaus Iraq hearings yesterday, but this what was sent to me. He is asking that all democrats write to your papers, blogs etc to pass this on. So as a loyal Hillary democrat I am.
Today, as he was questioning Gen. David Petraeus, he again confused the difference between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.
At least five times as a candidate John McCain has stated that Iran (a Shiite nation) is supporting Al-Qaeda (a Sunni group) in Iraq. This is not some minor mistake, but a significant gaffe. He clearly does not understand the sensitive political dynamics in that region of the world.
This is implying and probably rightly so that McCain is not with it-ie - too old. Forgetful - and does not understand the issue.
Julie
Whatever you think of either, The Nation of Islam, and the Islam practices and beliefs of the Middle East have great differences and practices. Equating them can lead to prejudicial errors.
Again, it doesn't matter which side you are on in the political debate, lumping whole groups of disparate peoples together or assuming that actions by one are automatically approved by the other is almost always a mistake.
Try thinking and analysis of the situation and the individuals. At least you stand a chance of coming somewhere near, as far as humanely possible, to the truth.
Now the Clintonites are trying to whip up anti-Muslim predjudice and turn it against Obama.
Every day they take us to a new low.
What's next?
* Obama's a polygamist.
* Obama boils live bunnies in a big iron pot.
* Obama doesn't wash his hands after using the men's room. (We have it on tape!)
The same carrier who brings our local rag every morning also brings the Wall Street Journal. It will sometimes take me a couple of days before I get my money's worth out of the Journal.
But, today, after Stinky had me do the morning shopping rounds, I sat down and went through the op-ed page (I spend ten times as much time on it than I do on their editorials).
This piece caught my eye: The Trouble With Brand Hillary--Mrs. Clinton risks being branded a serial exaggerator, and worse., By Michael Zeldin.
I went through the piece. Seemed like a real straightforward rant/attack. Included the requisite references to Bill, the Ferraros, McCain, Dukakis, Gore, et al., that is, to everyone accept the anointed one, Barack Obama.
Well, that was okay, too. Then I got to the trailer where they give the short bio of the author. It read, "Mr. Zeldin is the former independent counsel who investigated the tampering with Bill Clinton's passport. He is a part-time volunteer for the Obama campaign in the primary cycle."
Any bets on whether or not he gets a promotion after the trash he had published this morning?
Yeah, KO lost all credibility even before he was stricken with Obama-fever. Too many kudos for his "special comments" and he seemed to become Bill-O, just with a different take on things. He's just another pointless, hack journalist who can't bring himself to do his job fairly anymore. What a waste of mind and talent.
As for Obama's mother's religious ties, it's only a valid question because he tries to use her to prop himself up. If he didn't mention her supposed Christian values & how she was his role model, it wouldn't be a fair arguement. But he does, so it is. Good work Heather & Gordo.
Nash for a "professor" you sure seem uneducated. My comment on Muslims has nothing to do with Obama. If I felt there was a connection I wouldn't vote for him in the general if he gets the nomination. I plan to vote for Obama, in spite of nasty comments from people like you. If I thought Obama was at all associated with radical islamic terrorists, I would certainly not even consider voting for the guy.
For someone who is a "professor" you sure don't seem to be able to ascertain what is being said... You just come out tossing b.s.
Nash, I love your posts! They totally make me laugh every time! Thanks!
I got annoyed listening to the hearings yesterday after the opening. What annoys me the most is the type of gotcha questions the politicians ask. It seems they never even listen to the answers that are given because they then turn around and ask the same question again. If I heard the answer the first time, I would assume they did too. And nothing personal against Sen. Biden, but I swear he just speaks to hear himself talk.
Good! Every time I signed in __Blackgirlsconnect.com__ and there were always many women would talk to me ... It is a funny and interesting place to talk to these thoughtful women.
Ok Anon- tell me who you vote for so I can vote the opposite and cancel out your vote. That's how stupid your comment to Jamie sounds like. As I've said time and again, BOTH SIDES are sending venom across the "divide". You are either being incredibly disingenuous, or obstinately obtuse that you can see the forest for the trees. In either case, aren't you still the one claiming that there is only a small chance there will even be an election this year? And if you believe that, what does it matter that you say you wouldn't vote for Hillary?
Greetings from New York City everyone. We picked up our Elton John tickets at the headquarters this morning. So nice to be in an elevator full of Hillary supporters! I was in an elevator with a Floridian and a fellow Iowan. First thing the Floridian said was, "What in the hell happened in Iowa?!" She said there is a big movement in Florida to get their votes counted. People are PO'd. Anyhow...I will provide a report to the Clintonistas in the morning. The Obamaniacs can just ignore!
EuroTom: sharp eyes! Would bet it's because I put up link for the "single page" text -- an option in the blue bordered box near "print", etc.; makes it easier to read multipage stories.
Here's a heartbreaker about DC area families surrendering the family pet to animal shelters when home foreclosures strike. Or some just abandon the pet to fate.
I don't recall these kinds of circumstances in previous administrations. Even during the dark days of Jimmy Carter's gas lines.
Comments section featured one about adoption and rescue groups having unrealistic expectations of adopters -- that's true, in my experience. In Richmond they preferred a fenced in yard. Which says little about one's ability to care for the pet through frequent walks and dog park visits. (It was like adopting a kid! Too much.)
You've got to laugh..those lawyers in Pakistan beat up a crowd of protestors. So this is what Richardson thinks Democracy should do in Pakistan. And the Gucci overnment there will go after OBL? Fat chance on that one Obama.
Carter in Syria talking to Hamas is a great preview of what Obama will do if elected. And what positons will McPeak, Malley, Zbig, Rice and other experts have in his administration?
(And just like the caricatures of Rev. Wright - it is not right to judge someone based solely on one post. I know I have posted (or said) stupid, sexist, racist, (etc.) things plenty in my lifetime. I am not a fan of judging - and broad judgments based on isolated incidents are almost always incorrect.)
It is just like "Lost" people!! There is always more to the people you meet. And often - you need to understand the "backstory" to truly understand the person.
warren, whether Lanny Davis is a whiner or not, questions about Wright aren't going to go away until they are addressed. To that extent there's some truth to Lanny's whinings about Wright, although as I said, I wish he'd drop it - he's already made his point on the teevee and making it again on the pages of the WSJ doesn't do anything to underscore whatever valid points it may contain.
You say yes, I say no
You say stop and I say go go go, oh no
You say goodbye and I say hello
Hello hello
I don't know why you say goodbye, I say hello
Hello hello
I don't know why you say goodbye, I say hello
I say high, you say low
You say why and I say I don't know, oh no
You say goodbye and I say hello
(Hello goodbye hello goodbye) Hello hello
(Hello goodbye) I don't know why you say goodbye, I say hello
(Hello goodbye hello goodbye) Hello hello
(Hello goodbye) I don't know why you say goodbye
(Hello goodbye) I say hello/goodbye
Since we are on song lyrics, here's some great ones for Hillary:
It exemplifies her candidacy. Here are the lyrics:
Well you're the real tough cookie with the long history
Of breaking little hearts, like the one in me
Thats o.k., let's see how you do it
Put up your dukes, let's get down to it!
Hit me with your best shot!
Why don't you hit me with your best shot!
Hit me with your best shot!
Fire away!
You come on with a come on, you don't fight fair
But thats o.k., see if I care!
Knock me down, its all in vain
I'll get right back on my feet again!
Hit me with your best shot!
Why don't you hit me with your best shot!
Hit me with your best shot!
Fire away!
Well you're the real tough cookie with the long history
Of breaking little hearts, like the one in me
Before I put another notch in my lipstick case
You better make sure you put me in my place
Hit me with your best shot!
Come on, hit me with your best shot!
Hit me with your best shot!
Fire away!
Because it's become something of an issue in both the Dem nomination war and the Congreeess/WH war, I've tried to get a grip on this Colombian trade deal. From what I can tell, the agreement would change little for Colombia - which already faces no tariffs on most of its goods coming into the US, but would benefit US business trading there by removing tariffs on our goods that are currently from 7-80%, which sounds like a pretty good deal for our manufactutreres who trade there. Big Labor is pressuring congresscritters to oppose the deal because Colombian laborr leaders have been victimized there, and they don't think Colombia has done enough to protect the labor leaders there. Is that about it? Am I missing some nuance in the agreement?
I think you got it right Pogo, but I think the real issue is Bush not listening to Congress and Nancy Pelosi taking him down a notch by maneuvering the process, as is her privilege as Speaker of the House, to stop his arrogance.
Fact Checking--Heres's the email to mail political things that you want fact checked. It's part of Craig's greater organization:
mailto:truthometer@politifact.com
ET, thanks, I'm really just trying to understand the merits of the trade agreement - the politics of considering and either passing it or not are another issue. I never cry too hard when Congress jams Bush, but I really just wanted to see whether I understood the merits of the deal.
And Pat Benatar? One of the first and best female rock & rollers - an all time fave of mine. Do you get CMTover in EU? They have a series called Crossroads where two artists, one a country star, sing their own and each others' stuff. She was on it with Martina McBride - they were freakin' awesome.
Here are the photos and names of the eight teenagers that have been arrested in Lakeland, Fla., on charges that they allegedly beat another teen in an "animalistic attack" so they could make a videotape to post on YouTube.
Guys- anyone interested in politics/presidential race should definitely check out http://www.savagepolitics.com
Their articles are like nothing I have read in any of the current media outlets. It is brilliant writing plus it offers a great community in which to discuss. The editor actually takes time to answer and the political humor section is awesome!!!
Pogo, there is more to it. Obama doesn't like our military aid to Columbia. He wants to divert said monies to the governments of Latin America (as though that would find its way to the people). Then suddenly Uribe kills the two top FARC leaders and finds a laptop that discloses money deals between Chavez and FARC as well as a desire by FARC to get enriched uranium.
Obama has not taken issue with Chavez and said little when he moved to close a TV station. Are there reputable unions in Caracas? So Columbia stands against the Leftist tide in South America with Brazil and Chile as Russia and Iran look for a partner in Chavez. You can see the Carter approach backing the Leftists and the administration backing Columbia. The centered approach would be to oppose the Leftists and steer Columbia towards moderation while increasing ties with Brazil, Chile and others. If we get Obama, count on the former approach. There is also talk by Pelosi of stopping military aid to Mexico. They can't even stop narco-terrorists practicing on their border. If the situation isn't handled well, we will see South America become a hot spot with Quds hooking up with local gangs and terrorists. There will be more hits on pipelines and guess what Chavez needs subs for? Obama wants to cut military support to the firewall between Chavez and Central America.
You are right about the present situation favoring Columbia. This is another show by the Democrats to act like they're tough on principle, but a little looking will find hypocrisy as usually with Obama leading the pack. One reason Uribe is tough on labor heads is that there are ties to FARC and drug lords. Chavez is a far greater threat and the time has come for the EU and America to introduce new policies that will strengthen Liberal Democracy while improving the lives of the people. We ought to move much of the Chinese labor usage to Latin America. Alternative energy here working with Brazil and Canada would break the influence of Ahmadinejad, Putin and Chavez.
I've decided to try Craig's fact checker. The owner of the group is Times Publishing in Florida. They, editorially, support Mr Obama. I'm curious about how they might handle what I've submitted:
"Based on what I can tell from the University of Chicago statutes, there's no way that Mr Obama was a law professor. He was a senior lecturer, which according to the university statutes, is not even a faculty member but "other academic personnel".
I believe he comes under paragraph 11.4.4 of that document. That places him outside the field of membership for faculty members as defined in para 11.1 of the statutes.
No matter how the Law School may wish to puff their adjunct personnel, I believe the University statutes take precedence.
I'm sure if you go through his videos during the debates, I think the one in Cleveland, you'll find him declaring himself to be a law professor--something that, in my opinion, he clearly wasn't.
Obama's illusions on foreign policy
Joseph C. Wilson
"Sen. Barack Obama declared in Pennsylvania on March 27 that his foreign policy would "return" to that of George H.W. Bush and that Sens. John McCain and Hillary Rodham Clinton both had strayed from that model. Having served in the first Bush administration, as acting U.S. ambassador to Iraq in the run-up to the first Gulf War, and subsequently as ambassador to two African nations, I cannot fathom what Obama is asserting.
Obama claims that an antiwar speech he made while running for state Senate in the most liberal district in Illinois is proof of his superior intuitive judgment. But if Obama had been in Washington at that time, participating in the national debate, he would have come face to face with Secretary of State Colin Powell, the same Colin Powell who, as Gen. Powell, was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the first Bush administration, the one Obama wishes to emulate.
In fact, Obama's understanding of foreign policy is extraordinarily limited. He has had one job in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: chairman of the Europe and NATO subcommittee. He has not held a single policy hearing in that capacity because, as he said in a debate, he has been too busy running for president. He has not even taken a fact-finding trip or provided any other oversight."
I just checked out the Philadelphia Inquirer Joe Wilson article that Gordo linked at 5:05. It generally looks like a re-hash of what Ambassador Wilson has said before, but what struck me was the the brief biographical information the paper listed after the article.
They referenced Valerie Plame and the subsequent investigation that got Scooter Libby convicted, and then they said he was later pardoned by President Bush. My first thought was that a casual reader would think it was Ambassador Wilson, who was pardoned. . . ..... And then I thought, "PARDONED??? When did that happen?"
I've even forgotten the correct term, but wasn't the only action so far the commuting of Libby's sentence? Perhaps, it's a distinction without a difference-particularly in Philly- or did I sleep through something, and has President Bush already pardoned Scooter Libby?
It's not really a huge issue, except that newspapers, even in their online editions, should try to get it right. As I said, maybe they have it right. I just don't remember a pardon, and thought I'd ask here rather than looking it up. Thanks to anyone who has the answer. I'm getting to run out and play some basketball. I'll look for an answer later.
"And when the broken hearted people
Living in the world agree
There will be an answer, let it be
For though they may be parted
There is still a chance that they will see
There will be an answer, let it be
Let it be, let it be
Let it be, let it be
Yeah there will be an answer, let it be
Let it be, let it be
Let it be, let it be
Whisper words of wisdom, let it be"
So Bill and Hillary don't agree on all policy issues? As if that's news.- Pogo 8:48
Pogo,
I guess you don't see much of a problem with Hill's disagreement of the trade deal with Columbia while at the same time paying the mortgage with money from those who support it. Seems a good lawyer could hammer a person's credibility with those facts. catch you manana
"Pelosi last week warned Bush not to submit the trade pact now, in the midst of a heated election season in which trade policy has become a hot-button issue.
“If brought to the floor immediately, it would lose,” she said. “And what message would that send?”
Yes, Pelosi, what message would that send indeed? Shall we wait until after the Democrats stop pandering? Isn't that Bush's point? So you floor the bill despite all the Democratic opposition, to do what? You don't want the bill, but you want to send that message anyway. Seems like somebody's wires are crossed aren't they? You won't break the China free trade and they DON'T have ANY unions. You want to isolate Canada and Columbia to play to the polls, just like Obama plays to gun advocates in Penn. Can one imagine the hypocritical mess that will happen when Obama and Pelosi run the show? Just one major act of terrorism crossing our southern border and Obama will be under siege. More anger coming from north of our border? Obama didn't even come out strongly supporting Canada's position on more troops from NATO in Afghanistan. What a feckless group about to lose their beloved excuse for thier own disingenuity -GWB. So they will call McCain, McBush and "hope" to "change" things based on their anti-stance.
Discuss the Columbia Bill and change what the Democrats don't like. Meanwhile, we ARE giving out the signal that Congress doesn't support Columbia. We ARE giving out the message to Canada that, what, they don't treat their workers right? Democrats seem to have gone from correcting our signals to making them worse. Bill didn't do this, did he?
Okay, Patraeous just tells Obama that Iran is causing serious problems in Iraq. The country actually united more against Sadr and his Iranian friends and Obama tells the general we should talk to Iran. Meanwhile Iran is fielding thousands of centrifuges. Obama's push for the Grand Bargin with Iran in underway. Carter goes to Syria to talk with Hamas and Obama advocates talking with Iran to bring peace to Iraq. Well the general ain't drinking. Obama tries to blame Hillary for the Iraq mess and once again touts his clear vision. If Saddam was in power building nukes, Obama would do what? Someone ought to tell Obama what Israel's hit in Syria was about and that the US has talked to Iran about Iraq. More than once.
I say let Obama keep talking. Let him suggest he is pro-gun. Let him give us all a lecture on Pakistan as lawyers there beat protestors and why he doesn't need any VP to bolster his security credibility. After all, he'll call the responders after an attack. He will let McPeak take charge and support the Boeing crying game over the tanker bid as they ground more 777 for crack inspections. Just give Obama wide berth to put a foot in his own mouth.
Let's be very clear Obama. Iran doesn't want better relations with the US. They don't want any Americans or Brits on the ground because they are quite worried info on their nuclear program will leak out. A new cache of Iranian EEPs have been uncovered. More than 6,000lbs of explosives meant to kill Americans. Iran is the mosted disliked country on the planet and Obama sets zero preconditions like he promised in the debates. Perhaps he should read more about Reagan and learn agreements are based on verification. What record does Iran have that it seeks stability in Iraq.?They green-lighted Sadr when it appeared Maliki was too close to forming a unified government. Now Sunnis and Kurds are working to isolate Sadr as Obama wants to elevate Iran's status.
The more Obama speaks, the more others are beginning to understand the game. No it won't show up at Zogby or MSNBC, but it is growing every day.
Pick Obama if you like Carter, Zbig, Malley, McPeak and all of Obama's decade-long friendships.
Pick Hillary if you like Bill and the standing of America during the Clinton era.
Pick McCain if you see four years of a failed and disingenuous administration under fire from day one for the numerous poor judgments and spins debated today. Obama speaks and makes Patraeous look more credible. And when Obama speaks to the general, how many who support Obama think Patraeous betrayed us? Most are in his camp, not Hillary's. Obama even pandered to the DoD in excusing them of getting us into Iraq. Read FIASCO Obama, there is blame enough to go around and he certainly didn't allow the general to express his belief removing Saddam was the right thing to do. If it wasn't for Iraq, Obama would not see the White House ahead. Now how ironic is that? God Damn Iraq, or is that God Bless Iraq. You decided.
No, the endorsement is not in the mail. The American Postal Workers Union announced its support for Barack Obama with an e-mail sent to reporters a few minutes ago.
The union, which claims to be the largest postal union in the world, said its executive board voted to endorse Obama today.
"We are most impressed by Sen. Obama's commitment to eradicating the undue influence of special interests in the political process, union president William Burrus said in a statement. "Our current political system does not allow for the voices of average citizens to be heard over the demands of lobbyists and big-money campaign contributors."
The union says it represents approximately 300,000 postal workers with clerical, maintenance and motor vehicle-related jobs
Clinton Uses ‘100-Year’ Remark to Fault McCain
By The New York Times
Senator Barack Obama has come under some criticism for suggesting that his colleague in the Senate, John McCain, wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years, even though Mr. McCain was speaking hypothetically. Today in Pennsylvania, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton did not shy away from using that line of attack either.
At a speech at Hopewell High School in Aliquippa, Pa., Mrs. Clinton praised Mr. McCain, but then added that the Senator “has said that it would be alright with him if we kept troops in Iraq for up to 100 years and again yesterday, he basically reiterated his commitment to the course that we are on in Iraq. Well, I don’t agree with that.”
(And someone tell this kid, his mother and their jackass attorney - that the "gansta life" has been glorified as long as I can remember. I mean with stories of the Jewish mafia, the Russion mafia, Scarface and of course the fabled Italians - and lets not forget them Bushes.)
And this kid is already a "gansta" at 14.
"gansta" = someone who gets a lot of money they don't deserve
(Anyways, 50 cent and his songs have done far less damage than the other ganstas I mentioned. Except of course the kid - he is probably alright...despite what his mother and his lawyer think ; )
I was wondering myself. She was in the spotlight for so long....but then there have been many more important issues than Mrs Obama. But nice to know both spouses are paying attention to NC.
I can (and will) take down Chomsky's arguments one by one as each is flawed. (But it may take awhile since there is a lot in there to untangle.)
And I agree the Jews are listening. I was talking about it with my family this past weekend. And people are coming around (I convinced my dad a long time ago the switch from HRC to Obama - but he is a bit of a pushover ; ).
Anyways, everyone listening to this election.
(And they are not going to stop - even Ruth who thinks she is going to be out in the garden all day if HRC doesn't win...plus, once the Dems have a nominee - whoever it is - a bet a lot of people in here will start tuning back into MSNBC.)
"The Obama campaign mantra, “Our time for change has come,” rings hollow on a number of issues. Here are four examples:
Iraq: Obama’s opposition to President Bush’s toppling of Saddam Hussein would seem to contradict the aforementioned definition of “making progress toward better conditions,” because permitting Saddam to continue his destructive behavior would not – by anyone’s measure – have led to the fulfillment of “enlightened or liberal ideas.”"
By my measure, Chomsky has little respect for International Law. Saddam was one of many dictators causing destruction. The problem is that the Iraq War was not based on a principle - that could be universally applied. If so, the principle would be that a country can use military force - without any imminent threat - when that country believes it is in its own national interests to do so.
I don't think there is much debate that Bush started the Iraq War. (Pointing to the attrocities of Saddam is a case that can be built against almost any brutal dictator you want to take out.)
The US and its allies acted within Int'l Law in Afghanistan. But Bush then used the fall out from 9/11 to stretch the limits of Int'l Law to go into Iraq. And ever since Bush did that - I would say there has been a decline the "fulfillment of 'enlightened or liberal ideas.'"
"If Obama had his way, Saddam Hussein would still be murdering countless innocents in his own country and scores of others – via funding of terrorist operations, among other methods – outside of Iraq."
It is the WAY in which Bush went to war - not the war itself. Arrogantly and unilaterally beating the drum and rushing the charge - and in a way that has left all the blood on our hands - and the biggest dent in our treasure.
And since this was our war - instead of a coalition's - we are now left to clean up the mess all by ourselves. (At least as long as Bush remains in office.)
Remember - the US did not start WWI or WWII - we just came in and kicked ass later.
There should NOT be a diplomatic surge until we get a new President.
Any major effort by Bush is almost guaranteed to fail. (That guy is a pariah in that part of the world. And any Iraqi leader he sides with loses the support of many Iraqis.). Plus, if there is some major effort under Bush - and it fails - it will set us back and make it that much hard to get things done when we get a new President.
Bush should just "stay the course" and try not to f*ck anything else up.
I always find it interesting that the same people who were wrong about:
New Hampshire
Texas
Rhode Island
Ohio
Super Tuesday, etc..
continue to speak with such certainty about Pennsylvania ending the campaign. I've seen the dirt shoveled so many times on HIllary's political grave by a few people on this site, it is amazing that some of the posters don't show just a wee bit of humility.
Michelle got over analyzed today for saying she liked accesories ... she was married to one. The talking heads went explosive. Any women could have told the men she meant her husband was handsome arm candy ... sheesh.
I'm no Obama fan, but questioning that remark was a stupid as some of the crud they throw at Hillary.
sorry to disappoint you Warren but I will no longer watch msnbc.Today I worked in greenhouse and my husband watches westerns and old sit coms.He hates watching election shows.They say the same thing all day long.
Ruth
Warren,
I'm not sure where Chomsky came up. He defends Iran and even excuses their push for nukes as a just reaction to American domination. He should have stuck to structuralism in linguistics. Obama has tried hard to counter his associations by now rejecting negotiations with Hamas as Carter prepares another embarrassing mission. His last to Darfur led to nothing more than Carter's declaration that genocide has not happened. Thanks Jimmy. I know now what really is happening in Darfur.
I listen to my heart and I know Hillary and Bill really stand to defend Israel and believe in the benign hegemony of Liberal Democray. So did JFK and RFK, Obama has said far too much for me to believe him. He is not 1/100 th the speaker or writer MLK was. Add Pelosi and crew and you have a serious crapfest. On the other side you had another crapfest form Delay to Cheney, Independents are in between the crapfests wondering which candidate will resurrect the middle. Hillary exaggerates, Obama is a phony and McCain wants to channel Reagan.
If Obama wins he will head into a storm. The general will be uglier than the primary and even if he wins, his position will be so under fire the next four years will make Carter's term a picnic. The Media having elevated a Black man into office will assualt his policies and blame the coming storm on him. Is this good for America? No. Conservatives actually think this scenario will give them new fire for 2012. Most didn't expect 2008 to be close.
No Warren, Znet blasted Chomsky and called him a traitor for not believing the truthers. He wasn't radical emough. Many of these "Independents" are for Obama. The Reagan Democrats will likely vote McCain as will a surprising number of Jews and Hispanics. By election time, Obama's phoniness will be replayed in attack ads, his smuggness will wear thin and the divisiveness his campaign has brought will turn the high road into another crapfest.
The question will be: Do you trust Pelosi/Dean/Durbin/Teddy crowd pulling the strings of an Obama in Chief? Under fire, Obama will need the DNC. America will have proved it can elect a black man and the dam will begin to burst. Iran's centrifuges will be spinning, Chavez will find a way not to leave, Russian subs will vist Caracas, Hizb'Allah will insitgate a war and Obama will not hold the center because his base, his advisors, his most ardent supporters are not center. This will be another lost four years and a further erosion of American leadership. So how far do we have to fall before it's too hard to get up?
Let's see who is invited to the swearing in if Obama wins. That will tell you hard far we will fall.
this morning I watched abc.and probably will watch Charlie Gibson again like I used to.A friend of mine still watches all the cable news shows and she is angry all the time.Even devloped high blood pressure.I amm so much calmer myself now that I turned off the tv..I get info here and on other sites and at least here the opinions are pretty equally divided.And you know where everyone stands.
Ruth
I've quit watching Hardball and Keith O...One good thing about this site is that people alert you about who is on these shows.
I'll watch the re=run later to see Elizabeth Edwards. I loke her.I hope her health is good. Whether she lives 1 or 40 years, she will continue the good fight for the entire period..
Each day the polls seem to go up and down. The undecided numbers go down each time. That's the numbers to watch, but interesting that they are so high this late in the season.
Max;
I don't think you will have to worry about 4 more wasted years with Obama bevause I dont think he will beat McCain if he gets nomination
And as far as a firewall,she doesn't need one because Obama won't have the necessary delegates to get nomination so it will go to the convention.I thought that is why we have conventions.To select a nominee.
And all the crying about how Hillary is making it hard for Obama.He is the one that got in the race and made it hard for her.Hillary was a sure thing and everyone knew with her the dems were going to win easy.Obama's the one that got in and made it a free for all which left it wide open for the republicans to have a chance and now it looks like they are going to win.
Ruth
I watched Mrs Edwards this morning on GMA.I thought she looked pretty good but if she was on tonight's show she may be tired.Must have had a long day
Ruth
Have faith and cheer up. I think no matter what we are going to win. Voting republican is just voting for the same and too many people are afraid and hurting to Vote for them again.
Besides. the moment someone wins the election, all the best leading strategists will be on side of the nom. No one is going to let the NOM lose.
KO just gigged Joe Lieberman as Worst Person for failing to reveal that the crash of his election site was the fault of his people not Lamont even though the info was known the week before the election.
Does this mean KO will now take back all his outrage at Sen Clinton on two separate stories that have since been proven false.
Shelia you are playing identity politics. You can't say that McCain is Bush, not genetically nor ideologically. You want voters to blind themselves to the important differences but ignore the important difference sbetween Hillary and Obama. Khaldi is an old friend of Obama who he got money for and who held fund raisers for Obama. Now Obama says negotiating with Hamas is off the table. How is this believable as his buddy Carter is heading to Syria and his advisor Zbig already went there? This is such a phony spin it will ring in the general. You have a letter of support for Rezko who gave money to Obama and then this letter turned into a slum. You have many examples of Obama saying one thing and doing another. The accumulation of this crap has already produced some harsh numbers of a McCain Obama race. You have Wright and Meeks and a slew of items like a recent blast by Obama of a pro-Hamas article in the Trinity newsletter. Oh, Obama just read it? You have Goolsbee and Powers revealing what Obama is really up to. This isn't about exaggerating a trip to Bosnia, this is about deep ideology and conviction. How many times has Obama changes his tune on the amount of money Rezko gave him? He says he never met Auchi. Really? How can one candidate spend what will be months and months of refuting these sour implications that go to the heart of his message and character? He's getting blasted because he flip-flopped and pandered, surrounded himself with people like Ayers and Wright. His counters are weak, so weak they aren't counters for more than a news cycle.
You hope the Democrats come together and bury McCain, but you are asking them to forget the principle of honesty and the storm brewing outside. Obama tried to sink the Amnesty compromise. Stories don't consitute facts. In your heart you know Obama will not bring our troops back from Iraq faster than Hillary, unless he makes some bogus deal with Iran and places us in more danger down the road. And did you want your son to face an armed Saddam? Do you want other brave Americas to have to face the consequence of a Carter foreign policy than needs a Reagan to rescue in four years?
Iran has said just as bad things about Israel as Hamas has. Sudan murders Blacks and the French are asking the Marines to help get back their yacht in Somalia. We live in a very dangerous world, getting more dangerous each day. The right play would be from a united center and calling that Obama is a stretch. By election time a majority of Americans will see through the phony baloney. Every day Obama now counters with some centrist spin to stop the growing doubts. No one ever doubted Hillary would lead from the center. No one ever dounter she was more of a hawk and fire-proof.
Let's face it, Obama running was a poor judgment. He was a feather-weight trying to inflate his stature with words and political savy. He was going to market his way to the WH. There is no real history of bipartanism. His friends and mentors, advisors and supporters do not really show a centrist inclination. Obama is a guy who would lift just about any speech to play on identy politics. His singular thrust is NOT BUSH and that he can unite. Is this really a uniting campaign Shelia? Really?
Now how many friends will Obama NOT invite to the swearing in? Doesn't that tell you something? And Obama's record is not really anti-gun? His position on Israel a recent attribute? His history in Illinois, bold? You can't run on just money, air and words, especially when the words change. Since Wright, all Obama has done is attack and put his fingers in a leaking boat. By November the boat will be swamped and don't expect enthusiasm from Hillary supporters who are well aware of the contradictions and phony baloney.
off to yahoo to play mahjong.Won't be able to check this site for a couple days.Will have to go to bed early tomorrow ,have to drive to Chicago at 3:a.m..Son has to have back surgery and my 16 year old grandson will be driving.Please say a prayer for the driver.I hate traveling in that city.Will check back here before I sign off tonight
Ruth
(Hah! That is good. The movie description: "Jerry Fletcher is a man who sees conspiracies everywhere. But if you keep doing that long enough, sooner or later you're going to get one right...")
Bingo Max!!!!!! I get it. Obama is an Al Queda operative who has been in deep cover. Back even before tensions were high - bin Laden found some black kid in Kansas to fulfill his master plan. Training the the madrasas - young Barack Hussein Obama was trained in the arts of bamboozling the crackers. The Saudis then paid his way for Harvard Law School and the fix was in for the Law Review. Then - "they" told him the Iraq was gonna be a bad idea - so he should oppose it from the outset.
Now - he can take over America AND...do what. Get people interested in politics again. Get people in Washington to start working WITH each other again - instead of against each other. Damn you bin Laden - what have you done to our Country!!!!???!!!)
The truth is that Bush's arrogant and destructive Foreign Policy plays right into the terrorists hands.
What do you think the terrorists want us to do?
-Continue to wage war in Iraq and perhaps set down a colony. That strategy strains our military and is the best recruiting and propoganda tool the terrorists have. Do you think Al Jezeera is fair and balanced when in comes to Bush and Co? (And can you imagine how much deep-seaded animosity is built up with each "civilian casualty".)
OR
-Create a coalition to improve the circumstances on the ground in Iraq. Through reconstruction and addressing the refugee crisis. (Not by killing more people.). And as peace and prosperity increase - the number of people that want to blow themselves up decreases.
Meanwhile, Obamamaniacs....you seem to overlook that the most important question about Iraq was only asked by Hillary Clinton: what about Bush's "treaty"????? Obama doesn't seem to grasp the importance of this situation.
Damn Patsi. I missed it. Someone MUST do something for HRC. Like I haven't heard that before.
And like Bush is going to abide by any agreement. It is political grandstanding.
Articulating a different policy is the only way to change something. Criticism is only the start (although some people seem to think critique is an end unto itself....)
"Damn Patsi. I missed it. Someone MUST do something for HRC. Like I haven't heard that before.
And like Bush is going to abide by any agreement. It is political grandstanding."
You don't even know what I'm talking about, do you?
1. When you mentioned Chomsky I hadn't noticed that the link I posted was by ELI CHOMSKY. At first I thought you were talking about NORM CHOMSKY, hense my words about NORM.
2. Then when you quoted ELI, at first, I thought that maybe NORM had written that article and I responded in defending who I thought was NORM...LOL Of course, NORM would never say those things and I realized the article had in fact, been written by ELI. So I hope that clears up my response. I;m sure Chomsky would vote for Obama.
Now to your last comment., that is just plain foolish.
1. There was good reason to remove Saddam and he was not like most dictators. He was actually producing the WMD spiral that first caused Iran to start building nukes. Sorry to say it was not because of Bush. Their program started long before Bush. You may see soon that Saddam did move components of his nuclear WMD programs to Syria.
2. Hilter was a neighbor of Poland and talking did little good. There is ample evidence that Iran is helping to destabilize Iraq and because Iran is also supporting terror elsewhere and attempting to get nukes, it is not a good idea to elevate the most hated nation on the planet with direct high level ralks. We have talked to them about Iraq and it has done marginal good.
3. No one said Obama is an AQ spy, that is your absurd deflection. Then you furtther deflect with your lame sarcasm about Obama being OBL Manchurian candidate when his programing is far more local. Carter wasn't a plant by OBL any more than Obama is. They both reflect however, misguided and rather Leftist thinking in solving the Middle East problems. The Democrats have traditionally REJECTED negotiating with terrorists that NORM CHOMSKY would prefer us to bargin with. The Mullahs are quite a different breed than the Soviets who were far more Western and rational.
You end with a strange mixture of fiction and fantasy. Let's be historically honest, shall we? Bush removed the Taliban from Afghanistan's government by working with the Northern Alliance, not sending in hundreds of thousands of US troops. The present failures there are largely due to NATO's lack of effort (and the world I might add). Bush got Pakistan and India to pull back and the worst AQ heads were delivered by Musharraf who escaped three attempts on his life. Clinton didn't dater invade Afghanistan because of Pakistan's opposition while Carter bribed the ruler of Pakistan to create OBL in the first place after Zbig baited the Russians into Afghanistan.
Our invasion of Iraq turned Gadafi's WMD programs off and caused a slow down in Iran's. We removed Saddam and at the moment the Kurds and Sunnis along with many Shia are attempting to restore a more Democratic and stable Iraq. Again, the world isn't helping much as most international arms sellers make Iraq their favorite spot. The US helped to remove extremists from Somalia, push for peacekeepers in Darfur and helped promote Western Democracy in Russia's former vassels. Bush gave more to Africa than any US president. We have held firm in defending Japan giving them missile defense against the NK. In addition, we have NK back to negotiating while defending pro-Wesren leaders in Lebanon despite by Syria trying to kill them.
Our support of Israel has checked Hamas and Hizb'Allah. Your characterization of Bush is wrong and partisan though there is ample evidence of incompetence which has hurt our reputation, cost money and precious lives. While war is nasty stuff, incompetence without accountability is bad stuff. So the centered line would be to admit the successes of Bush policy and object to the mistakes. One does not need to be partisan to evaluate what has happened. It is far from your description. Sorry to burst the bubble.
Then you close out in fantasy, thinking any of the things you mention can be acheieved in the absence of security. Negotiations and improvement happen when there is sufficent security. That is reality. If we pull security then nothing good happens. Do you understand this?
Nothing we do ever has zero negative consequences. The idea is to limit the negatives. The major problem with Obama/Carter is that the consequences of their policy would be more negative consequences. I want to remind you that Obama still says we have the right to take out Iranian nukes as a last resort. The question is how we get adversaries to compromise without our changing NSS goal lines. Taliking requires security and tangible rewards for the US. Since Iran is unwilling to offer anything despite many rewards, what is the point? We removed their worst foe east AND west of them. We offered them a reactor. They have refused to end support of terror groups or stop their enrichment while threatening Israel and teaching their children to hate Jews and Americans. Imagine JFK proposing talking as the central pillar of his foreign policy...LOL
So Warren, get your history and facts straight. It is one thing to blast incompetence or timing based on political considerations. It is quite different and wrong to dump the whole thrust of policy everywhere and offer fantasy and specualtion as an alternative. Reformation of Islam, the containing of extremism and termination of terrorists requires realism and determination. Nothing will ever get done without that drive and threat of intervention. Our adversaries find retreat a sign of weakeness and unfortuantely, our allies have not shown much desire to bear the burdens to secure Liberal Democracy. We can have misguided and embarrassing returns to Carter-like foreing policy and we can have more incompetence. The best course would be competent, strong and clever strategies with confidence and clarity of principle.
Eli is right that Obama has not shown that. Hillary is much closer to the mark. Obama is playing to the masses yet we should remember how lonely yet right Adams was. Had Jefferson been the second President, things might be worse for America. We need a leader who can navigate between the ideologies, instead of Obama who bounces back and forth between NeoLiberalism and the pretense of centrism. It is getting quite transparent and the signal it sends is not a good one, neither for ourselves of for Liberal Democracy and human rights.
Webb is after the hearings. He would be formidable in the debates. He would put Crist to shame.
Plus, he puts VA in play.
(Richardson may get tripped a bit since he is not so much of a politician. Keep him in the back rooms and talking to the "bad guys" - you know the ones that have Max so paranoid ; ).
I sure as hell didn't say Bush is the reason why Iraq was going after nukes. I understand that every country that reaches a certain GDP will go after nukes. Not because of Bush - but because of power (and I am not talking about the stuff that keeps the lights on).
We might be able to have an intelligent conversation if you would quit twisting my words and finding a "slant" that just isn't there...
Webb is tougher than any potential VP I have heard discussed for McCain.
(Except for maybe Condy - but I think doing that would seem to much like pandering - as well as allowing the Democrats to pick your VP.)
The only reason Crist is the front runner in my mind is because he actually did something tangible for McCain in FL - can't say that about any of the other names being bandied about. Plus, FL is a key state for the general.
"Iran is also supporting terror elsewhere and attempting to get nukes, it is not a good idea to elevate the most hated nation on the planet with direct high level ralks."
Not a good idea to elevate the most hated nation on the planet...hmmm. And what do you think the Bush Doctrine is doing.
This idea that other Soveriegn Nations of the world must earn our respect or acquiesce to our demands (or genuflect at the sign of a lapel pin) is horseshit. And it is also VERY un-American.
We are the Country of the everyman brother. Not some holier-than-thou dictator.
Not talking to Iran is one thing. But making them Public Enemy No. 1 elevates their power amongst our growing list of enemies.
And Bush engages in grandstanding just like his doppleganger over there - Akmadeenajad (sp?).
"We have talked to them about Iraq and it has done marginal good."
Like I said. Nothing much can get done under Bush. His credibility is shot.
Sturgeon, Jamie & others who answered my question on Libby's commutation vs. pardon all those hours ago,
Thank you.
Jamie suggested I contact the paper regarding their error. It's Chris Matthews' home town paper, expecting accuracy from them would be setting the bar too high.
Terrorists: Non-state actors who are targeting civilians.
And any country that sees the effects of terrorism first hand - is willing to join in that fight.
Some dictators may be terrorize - but most terrorists are not dictators. And it is the latter category that we should be focused on. The ole "drain the swamp" theory.
When you publicly go after dictators who employ terror to maintain authority - you only fan the flames of the nationalism that is keeping him or her in power.
(Instead of the Iranians rising against their own corrupt and mis-guided govt - we galvanize support because we change the dynamic to Iran vs. the US - and which side do you think most Iranians are taking....)
Well - Hillary's Iran vote would certainly lay some pipe for that.
Webb brough up a good point about the different tone between the Armed Services Comm. as compared to the hearing conducted by Foreign Relations Comm., which was of course chaired by the grand poo-ba Mr. Joe Biden.
I am off to watch Charlie (and Lucy is gonna want to go out once she wakes up).
But one more quick thought. But it involves giving W the benefit of the doubt (so brace yourselves).
I think Bush is much less xenophobic that many of his supporters. And by supporters - I am including plenty of law makers in with Middle America.
I actually think Bush is a "true believer" - even though Cheney and Rumsfield were obviously cynics. I don't think Bush went into Iraq for oil or whatever. I think it was a mis-guided and impatient stab at "glory".
Bush actually believed he would be able to turn Iraq into the United Arab Emirates before the end of his second term.
And "we would be greeted at liberators". (And maybe even get one a dem fancy ho-tel rooms they have over der in the United Ahab Emerts!!)
(And you are out of your mind if you think Obama is as naive or as dense as our current Commander in Chief. Someone ask Wolfson if Bush has passed the test yet....)
![[RSS]](http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/templates/images/rss_icon.gif){kind=icon}
![[ARCHIVES]](http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/templates/images/archives_icon.png){kind=icon}
Comments
Dear Craig, Everyone:
Good morning to all
I loved the vid Crag another winner maybe all the candidates will change their mantra to "Success" LOL!
Sincerely,
Heather
Posted by: Heather
| April 9, 2008 6:08 AM
".....Funny, I have for a long time ;0)"
Was talking to Warren.
Posted by: Patsi
| April 9, 2008 6:09 AM
Ooooooops I forgot I notice no mention of Hillary saying Success in the vid just maybe she wasn't playing up for the cameras
Just food for thought Craig :-))
Sincerely
Heather
Posted by: Heather
| April 9, 2008 6:15 AM
msnbc crawl: "Ambassador Ryan Crocked" (sic)
Posted by: sturgeone | April 9, 2008 6:50 AM
LOL.......
Too good CC, Too good.....
Posted by: Jason | April 9, 2008 7:12 AM
What I really want to know, I mean _really_ is what Senator Nelson is looking at when he keeps peering at the back of Sen Obama's cranium while Obama is speaking.
Posted by: Flatus
| April 9, 2008 7:21 AM
And, question number two, will all the caucus goers who swirled to the Obama Cause, get a chance to review their votes because of the shift from instant departure to a longing for success?
Posted by: Flatus
| April 9, 2008 7:24 AM
Obama: Myths, Falsehoods, Obfuscations
Recently it has been all over the cable and major news channels about Hillary and the Bosnian issue how the media was focused on it like a laser beam inexorably discussing it daily as silage for news shows.
Let us for a few moments of clarity abjure from all this cultish Obamamania, Senator Obama distorts facts as well, that, and with a co-conspiratorial media that aids and abets his distortions of the truth has lead to what I call false popularity, something similar to a false positive on a physical test.
One canard of his I’d like to focus on is the one about his mother which is rarely discussed here, at least in context to Hillary’s Bosnian debacle.
Senator Obama claims his mother was a Christian woman from Kansas and that his father from Kenya in a Muslim village but was not very religious and did not practice Islam. A classmate of Obama’s mother [Anne Dunham] remembers her as an atheist, this from Maxine Box a close High School friend. I would like to know why there has been no media investigation into this.
In a recent interview, Obama called his mother "the dominant figure in my formative years. . . . The values she taught me continue to be my touchstone when it comes to how I go about the world of politics." So who is telling the truth here? Ms. Box or Senator Obama and why is this not discussed routinely on cable news shows? My guess is that sexism rears its ugly head and it is far better to have a man in the presidency rather than a woman whose job it is to be devoted to her man, supportive of her man, heaven knows we cannot allow a matriarch, we must, at all costs keep it a patriarchal White House.
Obama says “My mother was a Christian from Kansas, and they married and then divorced. I was raised by my mother. So, I've always been a Christian.”
So Senator Obama can you please intelligently explain to America how a mother who was an atheist and was able to speak intelligently and passionately about it to at least one close friend in High School, yet you claim she is a Christian woman and raised you as a Christian.
Senator Obama in your childhood years in Kansas can you show us any physical proof…documents, church membership, Baptismal Certificate etc. that shows your mother and you as Christians while growing up in Kansas? We need more than your verbal repartee at stump speeches.
The news media took Hillary to task on Bosnia yet remains silent on Obama’s mother…is this what qualifies as egalitarian journalism in the media today?
If that is the case, then it is a mortal sin, not just on the profession of journalism but on our national democratic republic as well. When you consider that a free and independent press is the cornerstone of our American Democracy these will be sad days ahead if the journalistic standards for decency and integrity do not purge themselves of this flaw.
Since the MSM refuses to apply equal standards to Senator Obama and Senator Clinton then that baton must be passed on to independent bloggers that support Hillary’s campaign for the presidency.
I will continue to point out distortions involved with Senator Obama’s campaign, am I overmatched and out of my league by the MSM, yes I am, but even if I have to use bearskins and knives I will continue the good fight.
--Heather
Posted by: Heather
| April 9, 2008 8:03 AM
mornin' all.
Flatus ... it's not nice to point out a shift in position so early in the morning. Depends on what the definition of precipitous withdrawal is I guess.
I thought it was interesting that what MSNBC highlighted from the hearings yesterday were a question by Clinton to Petraeus and statements by McCain and Obama to Petraeus. From what I heard, McCain said exactly nothing more or less than his choosing to lose is a failure of leadership stump speech. Petraeus' appearance was nothing more than his last one, and neither candidate seemed to ask any boneheaded questions or make any stupid statements from what I saw on the tube, limited though it was. I need to go to NYT or somewhere and read the transcripts, and if I find one of those offending statements, I'll be back to report it.
Posted by: pogo
| April 9, 2008 8:07 AM
Two questions:
For Craig, You didn't mention whether or not Senator Clinton wants to be "succesful". I'll go back and review her statement, but is the lady not marching lock step again?
Second for Heather, Do you know who actually raised him. He has said "mother" and "grandparents". We know he returned to Hawaii at age 10. Did his mother and her second family come with him or was he just shipped back to her parents for several years?
Posted by: Jamie
| April 9, 2008 8:07 AM
Hillary went for process, stabilize, progress, and a few resolutions. If nothing else there is greater variety in her vocabulary.
Posted by: Jamie
| April 9, 2008 8:12 AM
Obama: Myths, Falsehoods, Obfuscations
Recently it has been all over the cable and major news channels about Hillary and the Bosnian issue how the media was focused on it like a laser beam inexorably discussing it daily as silage for news shows.
Let us for a few moments of clarity abjure from all this cultish Obamamania, Senator Obama distorts facts as well, that, and with a co-conspiratorial media that aids and abets his distortions of the truth has lead to what I call false popularity, something similar to a false positive on a physical test.
One canard of his I’d like to focus on is the one about his mother which is rarely discussed here, at least in context to Hillary’s Bosnian debacle.
Senator Obama claims his mother was a Christian woman from Kansas and that his father from Kenya in a Muslim village but was not very religious and did not practice Islam. A classmate of Obama’s mother [Anne Dunham] remembers her as an atheist, this from Maxine Box a close High School friend. I would like to know why there has been no media investigation into this.
In a recent interview, Obama called his mother "the dominant figure in my formative years. . . . The values she taught me continue to be my touchstone when it comes to how I go about the world of politics." So who is telling the truth here? Ms. Box or Senator Obama and why is this not discussed routinely on cable news shows? My guess is that sexism rears its ugly head and it is far better to have a man in the presidency rather than a woman whose job it is to be devoted to her man, supportive of her man, heaven knows we cannot allow a matriarch, we must, at all costs keep it a patriarchal White House. We must have a call to arms to break the final "Glass Ceiling" we must shatter it! Let the glass slivers obliterate from mountaintop to mountaintop...sea to shining sea! We as women, wives, mothers, professionals in every facet of of employment and entrepreneurship must demand the end to sexism and the empowerment that our Constitution guarantees us not as women but as citizens.
Obama says “My mother was a Christian from Kansas, and they married and then divorced. I was raised by my mother. So, I've always been a Christian.”
So Senator Obama can you please intelligently explain to America how a mother who was an atheist and was able to speak intelligently and passionately about it to at least one close friend in High School, yet you claim she is a Christian woman and raised you as a Christian.
Senator Obama in your childhood years in Kansas can you show us any physical proof…documents, church membership, Baptismal Certificate etc. that shows your mother and you as Christians while growing up in Kansas? We need more than your verbal repartee at stump speeches.
The news media took Hillary to task on Bosnia yet remains silent on Obama’s mother…is this what qualifies as egalitarian journalism in the media today?
If that is the case, then it is a mortal sin, not just on the profession of journalism but on our national democratic republic as well. When you consider that a free and independent press is the cornerstone of our American Democracy these will be sad days ahead if the journalistic standards for decency and integrity do not purge themselves of this flaw.
Since the MSM refuses to apply equal standards to Senator Obama and Senator Clinton then that baton must be passed on to independent bloggers that support Hillary’s campaign for the presidency.
I will continue to point out distortions involved with Senator Obama’s campaign, am I overmatched and out of my league by the MSM, yes I am, but even if I have to use bearskins and knives I will continue the good fight as I humbly urge all my sisters that support Hillary to do.
As I state in the header of my blog site..."My goal is to vanquish Neocons / Bush from this Land near and far. To make women wake up, get angry, protest and act! Aw come on, it shouldn't be that hard!"
--Heather
Posted by: Heather
| April 9, 2008 8:20 AM
My Apologies Craig:
I did not realize it went through twice I had pressed "cancel" on the first one but it went through anyway...sorry Craig.
--Heather
Posted by: Heather
| April 9, 2008 8:22 AM
Heather, have you been posing any of the press failing questions to the fact-checking group at Craig's organization?
Posted by: Flatus
| April 9, 2008 8:24 AM
Russ Feingold is terrific(as usual) this morning....on C-Span.
Posted by: Patsi
| April 9, 2008 8:25 AM
Dear Jamie:
I don't know because Obama has not made it clear he has said a variety of things in different stump speeches that seemingly conflict with each other.
Lately I have been surfing and doing lexis nexis searches i'll keep trying.
--Heather
Posted by: Heather
| April 9, 2008 8:27 AM
And, it's not time to let Mr Obama off the hook about accepting public funding if he's in the general election. He needs to unequivocally address the issue prior to the close of the primary season.
Posted by: Flatus
| April 9, 2008 8:28 AM
Dear Flatus:
Not yet I apologize for that I have been so backlogged of late but please email me about that in more detail sweetheart. I'd be most appreciative :-))
Sincerely,
Heather
Posted by: Heather
| April 9, 2008 8:32 AM
Obama’s Foreign Policy Ego Meets Hillary’s Experience
"Every day that passes Obama gets cockier. His confidence grows at a rate directly inverse to the facts. The most recent whopper occurred during a fundraiser in San Francisco while answering a question concerning potential VP choices. Not believing in the conventional wisdom that he needs someone with strong foreign policy experience, Obama pooh poohed the obvious right away.
Ironically, this is an area–foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain.”
Experience in Washington is not knowledge of the world. This I know.
Cue the adoring, mindless fans… yelling and whooping it up.
I realize that facts are verboten in Obamaland, but the truth is he lived in Indonesia from the time he was 6 until he was 10 years old. Now I realize he is a bright lad, but a 10 year old child’s experiences aren’t exactly the deep life affirming and defining experiences that I typically look for in a Commander in Chief. If they were such deep life changing experiences just why is it that he decided to suddenly abandon his mother in Indonesia to join his “typical white person” grandmother in Hawaii? And since he has done so well in life, why is it that his family is impoverished and living in huts in small villages while he lives comfortably in a mansion in a large city? What does that say about the content of his character? His generosity? His morality?
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/04/09/obamas-foreign-policy-ego-meets-hillarys-response/
Posted by: GORDO | April 9, 2008 8:37 AM
I used to work for a military contractor and can say with absolute conviction that the military takes parsing and mincing and hair splitting of language to a level well beyond any other sect of American society. I spent the better part of a week once trying to figure out exactly why I was made to change all instances of the word "analysis" in a report with the word "assessment." The torturing and convoluting of semantics has the effect of neutering language and placing a wall of vagueness between those doing the reporting, in this case, the military, and those consuming the data, either the general public or private contractors.
Posted by: Mary Kitt-Neel
| April 9, 2008 8:41 AM
Very good post, Mary. And terrifyingly true.
Posted by: Patsi
| April 9, 2008 8:45 AM
Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro (November 29, 1942 – November 7, 1995), known as Ann Dunham, was the mother of United States Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama.
Ann Dunham was born in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas while her father was in the military. She was named after her father,who reportedly gave his daughter and only child his name because he had wanted a boy; however, she was referred to as "Ann".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Dunham
Posted by: unlikely_burrito
| April 9, 2008 8:53 AM
Love Ed Rendell:
"Keith Olbermann should be on the Obama payroll."
-- Governor Ed Rendell (D-Pennsylvania)
Posted by: Patsi
| April 9, 2008 8:55 AM
I second that Patsi :-))
--Heather
Posted by: Heather
| April 9, 2008 8:57 AM
Mary,
At least analysis and assessment do something. Try getting gigged for using the wrong version of should, could, would, can or may. :-)
Posted by: Jamie
| April 9, 2008 8:58 AM
Geez Heather - you sound like you have some trust issues . . . just like Lucy.
(Here is the goose's story in case you don't know)
http://www.mycockerspaniel.com/past_contests/sep06.htm
Posted by: warren
| April 9, 2008 9:02 AM
Dowd for once is off the Obama train and back on the hold the bastards accountable for their words train.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/09/opinion/09dowd.html?ref=opinion
Posted by: pogo
| April 9, 2008 9:09 AM
Warren I have no clue as to what your 9.02 post means is it cryptic in nature?
Posted by: Heather
| April 9, 2008 9:10 AM
Good thing for Obama that he can.
Posted by: pogo
| April 9, 2008 9:11 AM
No, warren, it's just like Charlie Brown.
Posted by: pogo
| April 9, 2008 9:14 AM
Heather...
Don't forget to ask John McCain were his Baptismal Certificate is. I read yesterday that someone had said they can find no certificate of him being baptized. I believe the story was on Raw Story.
Posted by: anon-paranoid
| April 9, 2008 9:14 AM
"Pause" button and "success" ......ha ha ......good one...........
Posted by: sturgeone | April 9, 2008 9:15 AM
Pogo -- Every time I read anything that Dowd writes I remember how she slobbered over Don Rumsfeld, calling him a rock star. The press first demonized Al Gore, cheerleaded us into BushWorld, then cheerleaded us into Iraq. In the case of some of these clowns, the messenger does need to be attacked.
Posted by: Patsi
| April 9, 2008 9:18 AM
Funny, anon - I don't recall McCain making his baptism an issue in his campaign. You are missing Heather's point in your unrelenting defense of your candidate.
Posted by: pogo
| April 9, 2008 9:18 AM
Patsi - I completely agree - I quit reading Dowd beyond the caption of her columns about 2 months ago - this time her vemon is spewed at two appropriate targets.
Posted by: pogo
| April 9, 2008 9:21 AM
Just a fun little diversion:
http://www.pibmug.com/files/map_test.swf
Posted by: Patsi
| April 9, 2008 9:23 AM
Heather's point isn't bigoted - it's a complaint about press bigotry, Apparently "we" don't all understand it. And it's not the same as that ridiculous e-mail.
Posted by: pogo
| April 9, 2008 9:29 AM
Warren...
I must say that I greatly admire and respect your ability to take the personal attacks and comments leveled at you for your support of Obama.
The disdain leveled against Obama far surpasses the disdain leveled against the president or the republicans on this board and it makes me fear more for the Senator, his wife and family that some nut might attempt to harm them.
If all the boards are like this one than the Senators life may be in more danger than I thought.
Anyway Warren have a great day.
Posted by: anon-paranoid
| April 9, 2008 9:33 AM
I just LOVE to hear senators ask "questions." Each question is a mini-speech where they provide their own answer to the question, before they finally get around to asking it.
And they're so damn polite, to each other, and to the lying bastards sitting in front of them.
Patreus isn't a general. He's a parrot in a general suit.
Posted by: nash
| April 9, 2008 9:34 AM
Patsi, either they moved california from the SW coastal corner of the US, or that diversion is faulty. lol.
Posted by: pogo
| April 9, 2008 9:39 AM
Who gives a damn about those gutless idiots in Congress? They are still being pushed around by Bush/Cheney.
The most important thing happening today is the protest against the Chinese occupation of Tibet. People in the streets of San Francisco will be trying to knock the Olypic torch out of the hands of cynical sports-business people (who call themselves "athletes"). Hordes of SF police and a swarm of blue and white uniformed Chinese thugs will try to crush dissent here, just like they do in Tibet.
Posted by: nash
| April 9, 2008 9:41 AM
Barack Hussein Obama ~ SHOCKING connections!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsNd4JyYZnY&feature=related
(This is very mild compared to what 527s would use against Obama. Too many Dems are politically tone deaf. It works on enough people to make a difference.)
Posted by: GORDO | April 9, 2008 9:44 AM
A few months ago , I watched an old episode of "All in the Family". In this episode , Cleavon Little and Demond Wilson (LaMont Sanford) played 2 burglers who break into the Bunker's house. Cleavon Little and Archie Bunker have a conversation and Cleavon says "Look what we got here....a bigot!" Rob Reiner apologizes for Archie's comments and says that Archie doesn't understand the plight of the inner city blacks. Cleavon Little says "And you do?" Rob Reiner says "I read about it in my sociology textbook." Cleavon Little replies "And look what we have here , a liberal!"
Posted by: Corey
| April 9, 2008 9:45 AM
"The disdain leveled against Obama far surpasses the disdain leveled against the president or the republicans on this board and it makes me fear more for the Senator, his wife and family that some nut might attempt to harm them.
If all the boards are like this one than the Senators life may be in more danger than I thought."
Funny anon.....I've been having those concerns about Obamatons and Hillary's safety.
Posted by: Patsi
| April 9, 2008 9:46 AM
"Patsi, either they moved california from the SW coastal corner of the US, or that diversion is faulty. lol."
Pogo-- the diversion does get some hinks...and it makes you crazy. Then the trick is that you have to do a fast "save." I think I've also figured out that sometimes you think you've grabbed one state and it's the one underneath it....
Posted by: Patsi
| April 9, 2008 9:48 AM
Heather - I was referring to your 8:20 post.
Posted by: warren
| April 9, 2008 9:49 AM
Patsi/Heather re: Olbermann...shoot let's go further...Obama should have to pay for all the free campaign ads he gets daily at MSNBC
Posted by: Wendy!
| April 9, 2008 9:52 AM
And Lucy is not a bigot.
Posted by: warren
| April 9, 2008 9:52 AM
"Warren I have no clue as to what your 9.02 post means is it cryptic in nature?"
Heather...aren't they all?
Posted by: Wendy!
| April 9, 2008 9:54 AM
"Patreus isn't a general. He's a parrot in a general suit."
No surprise there. The only generals who can afford to be honest are the retired ones. This is a travesty. Where's Paul Wellstone when we need an honest man?
Posted by: Patsi
| April 9, 2008 9:54 AM
Wendy:
He has the money for it!!
(I am off to work)
Posted by: warren
| April 9, 2008 9:54 AM
Hillary has already lost the nomination, but she and her followers still cling to the hope that somehow she can steal it back, by one sordid trick or another.
* Use racism to undermine the winner.
* Bribe/threaten the superdelagtes.
* Bribe/threaten the pledged delegates.
* Try to create a bunch of fake Hillary delegates from Florida & Michigan
*Threaten to withhold support in the general election.
*Threaten to support McCain in the general election
* McCain/Clinton ticket?
Hillary and all her followers should just admit that they are really Republicans and join the GOP.
You'll be happier there. They share your values.
Posted by: nash
| April 9, 2008 9:55 AM
Jamie:
Hear! Hear!
and I'm also off to work.
Posted by: Wendy!
| April 9, 2008 9:59 AM
" Rob Reiner says "I read about it in my sociology textbook." Cleavon Little replies "And look what we have here , a liberal!"
HA! Great, Corey!
Posted by: Patsi
| April 9, 2008 10:02 AM
To whom it may concern...
When the Obama supporters start calling Hillary a secret Muslim out to destroy America or wants to enslave the White Race than I may consider what you posted worthy.
The hate and racial tones amongst the Clinton supporters against Obama far exceed anything I've seen on many sites. The Clinton supporters are more vile than any Obama supporters comments I've seen posted elsewhere as well.
After all it is the White Christians who preach against abortion and gays have had far more of their members commit acts of violence against others such as bombings and killings than anyone else.
Eric Rudolph, Paul Hill are just two examples. So I really wouldn't be concerned about Hillary's safety unless the Religious Right starts condemning her.
Posted by: anon-paranoid
| April 9, 2008 10:04 AM
Nash -- You are so full of it. You're the one who makes me think "BUSH voter!" Yousupport a candidate who thinks Ronnie Raygun was wonderfully transformative. What does that say about you? You must have LOVED the way Obama's mentor Raygun "transformed" America.
Your tactics: Don't allow two major states to vote. Send thugs to state caucuses. Use sexist comments to undermine a candidate. Cry racism at every turn. Play the victim. ANYTHING to keep the object of your irrational hatred out of the White House.
Posted by: Patsi
| April 9, 2008 10:07 AM
AP
"The hate and racial tones amongst the Clinton supporters against Obama far exceed anything I've seen on many sites. "
The only place you have seen this on this list is some of Gordo's posts and everybody has told him to stop it. Just because a candidate is supported by a group you know to be ignorant doesn't mean that ALL the supporters of that candidate believe the same thing.
Some of the Clinton haters are totally off the deep end into conspiracy theories. That doesn't mean that everyone supporting Obama is checking the Tarmac in Mena, Arkansas.
Posted by: Jamie
| April 9, 2008 10:15 AM
I see all the Obama's Hillary haters are out using their Nazi gestapo tactics accusing me and anyone that supports Hillary. I hope people will wake up and see these horrible extremist
move on.org mental cases support Obama and how these extremist trolls will cause democrats another presidential defeat in Nov.
Idiots like these are not representative of the Democratic party! They are angry malicious people that want to censor anyone that disagrees with their support of Obama
I am deeply hurt and offended being labeled racist and bigot and told I am a republican because I am not a whacked out extremist left winger. You are the tiny big mouthed MINORITY of our party I suggest you get out of MY Democratic party and join the green or communist party you would be more at home there since you love censoring those that disagree with you!
It is tragic I any anyone supporting Hillary are no longer allowed liberty and freedom of speech without harassment threats and insults I hope you are proud of yourselves. I suggest you take a lesson on civility, democracy and good manners.
I know its useless asking an apology for being accused of something I am not!
--Heather
Posted by: Heather
| April 9, 2008 10:15 AM
Heather,I suggest you consider the source. I do.
Posted by: pogo
| April 9, 2008 10:19 AM
A voice of reason who is sensitive to this issue. Elizabeth Edwards endorses Hillary's health care plan.
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/04/09/elizabeth_edwards_praises_clinton_health_care_plan.html
Posted by: pogo
| April 9, 2008 10:25 AM
For all of you raging racists out there, tonight's American Masters on PBS is devoted to Zora Neale Hurston, one of the most varied, intelligent, and thought provoking black female authors. Here is the NY Times review.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/tv/la-et-zora9apr09,1,7924444.story
and the official website
http://www.zoranealehurston.com/
If you are not familiar with her work, "Jump At The Sun"... she is well worth the effort.
Posted by: Jamie
| April 9, 2008 10:30 AM
jamie...
I've looked at other sites to see what is going on between the Hillary supporters and the Obama supporters.
There is more hate against Obama than against Hillary on the majority of them.
I stand by what I say. In fact after spending many hours seeing and reading many other sites, including this one I will no longer vote for Hillary if she is the nominee.
You see all of you Clinton supporters have lost another vote for her if she is the nominee.
I would rather give my vote to Nader, Bob Barr if he runs or McCain now than give it to Hillary.
Your support of Hillary and denigration of Obama with the personal attacks against anyone who supports him will in the long run destroy the Democratic Party as those who would have voted for Hillary if she became the nominee will not be forgotten like many of you think here.
And if you won't vote for Obama if he is the nominee or will vote to keep McCain out while not fully supporting Obama will not bridge the gap you have all created.
Good luck with President McCain.
Posted by: anon-paranoid
| April 9, 2008 10:32 AM
heather
heres a list of numerous lies from obama....70 to be exact of which at least 50 are pretty accurate
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/clinton-does-not-lie-but-obama.php
Posted by: tz | April 9, 2008 10:36 AM
Obama's Minister Problem
By LANNY J. DAVIS
"Some have suggested that any Clinton supporters who continue to raise this issue are "playing the race card" or taking the "low" road.
Attacking the motives of those who feel this discomfort about Senator Obama's response or nonresponse to Reverend Wright's comments is not just unfair and wrong. It also misses the important electoral point about winning the general election in November: This issue is not going away. If many loyal, progressive Democrats remain troubled by this issue, then there must be even more unease among key swing voters – soft "Reagan Democrats," independents and moderate Republicans – who will decide the 2008 election."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120770107738700007.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
Posted by: GORDO | April 9, 2008 10:41 AM
AP
All I am saying is that you cannot group people together. I am more than willing to admit that there is a lot of anti-muslim, racist nonsense out there against Obama and because it is on the internet, it is noisier and more obvious. Quite frankly it is the extremes on both sides making all the noise.
To accuse us of those same attitudes would be like me accusing you to believing that Hillary murdered Vince Foster who was her secret lover when she wasn't having lesbian affairs ... Total and complete nonsense.
As far as I can tell from the majority of people here, the Obama supporters believe he would be the best President and the Clinton supporters believe that she would be the best President.
If the Clinton folks seem a little strident, it is because the media coverage just seems so darn one sided and that every word and action of Sen. Clinton is put under a microscope while major issues for Sen. Obama are glossed over as barely worth mentioning.
Posted by: Jamie
| April 9, 2008 10:42 AM
I agree with Lanny on this:
One thing is for sure: If Mr. Obama doesn't show a willingness to try to answer all the questions now, John McCain and the Republican attack machine will not waste a minute pressuring him to do so if he is the Democratic Party's choice in the fall.
But by then, it may be too late.
Posted by: vadaryl
| April 9, 2008 10:50 AM
Gordo, I wish Lanny would drop that. We've all heard it, and many of us agree, but he made the rounds of the newsers and made his point there. If Obama becomes the nominee, we'll hear it again from the other side of the aisle. I guess he had column inches to fill.
A-P, I assume you are willing to accept the same reaction from Hillary supporters if Obama becomes the nominee?
Posted by: pogo
| April 9, 2008 10:52 AM
anon-paranoid
I don't know if you were referencing me in you"personal attacks" of Obama supporters but that is simply not true!
Any future posts by me would be nugatory. It is said you are driving good decent people away by deliberately and willfully taking them out of context and lying making claims not born out of truth
--Heather
Posted by: Heather
| April 9, 2008 10:58 AM
i meant to say sad not said*
Posted by: Heather
| April 9, 2008 10:59 AM
heather
do you have a link to your blog...i would like to read it
Posted by: tz | April 9, 2008 11:06 AM
tz -- Heather's blog and others are on our standing Blogroll on the left sidebar of this page: http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/blogroll.html
And once more with feeling -- any regulars with blogs who'd like to be included, email your link and screen name to cqtrailmix@verizon.net
Posted by: Craig Crawford
| April 9, 2008 11:14 AM
Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright: Former Muslim
April 07th 2008
A reader from Free Republic has dug up an old article last year (March 07) From TNR about Obama. It was written by Ryan Lizza, Senior editor at The New Republic. It’s a biographical piece, but in the article, it explicitly states that Jeremiah Wright is a former Muslim.
From Wright and others, Obama learned that part of his problem as an organizer was that he was trying to build a confederation of churches but wasn’t showing up in the pews on Sunday. When pastors asked him the inevitable questions about his own spiritual life, Obama would duck them uncomfortably. A Reverend Philips put the problem to him squarely when he learned that Obama didn’t attend services. “It might help your mission if you had a church home,” he told Obama. “It doesn’t matter where, really. What you’re asking from pastors requires us to set aside some of our more priestly concerns in favor of prophesy. That requires a good deal of faith on our part. It makes us want to know just where you’re getting yours from.”
After many lectures like this, Obama decided to take a second look at Wright’s church. Older pastors warned him that Trinity was for “Buppies”–black urban professionals–and didn’t have enough street cred. But Wright was a former Muslim and black nationalist who had studied at Howard and Chicago, and Trinity’s guiding principles–what the church calls the “Black Value System”–included a “Disavowal of the Pursuit of Middleclassness.’”
The crosscurrents appealed to Obama. He came to believe that the church could not only compensate for the limitations of Alinsky-style organizing but could help answer the nagging identity problem he had come to Chicago to solve. “It was a powerful program, this cultural community,” he wrote, “one more pliant than simple nationalism, more sustaining than my own brand of organizing.”
As a result, over the years, Wright became not only Obama’s pastor, but his mentor. The title of Obama’s recent book, The Audacity of Hope, is based on a sermon by Wright. (It’s worth noting, however, that, while Obama’s book is a coolheaded appeal for common ground in an age of political polarization, Wright’s sermon, “The Audacity to Hope,” is a fiery jeremiad about persevering in a world of nuclear arms and racial inequality.) Wright is one of the first people Obama thanked after his Senate victory in 2004, and he recently name-checked Wright in his speech to civil rights leaders in Selma, Alabama.
So the question is, why hasn’t anyone mentioned the fact that he’s a former Muslim? Could this be why Obama’s church posted a Hamas manifesto in the Trinity Church program last year? It obviously explains Wright’s affinity with Louis Farrakhan. It also explains more why Rev. Wright got his Masters degree in “Islam in West Africa”
This is just another blow to the Obama campaign. The American people are not ready to hand the reigns to someone who’s associations are beyond sketchy.
Posted by: tz | April 9, 2008 11:14 AM
On c-span this morning a caller said GE is making a lot of money with this war.Ge owns msnbc.Explains why they are pushing Obama.They want McCain in to continue this war and Obama woukd be easier to beat.
Ruth
Posted by: painter
| April 9, 2008 11:14 AM
Here it is tz.....
http://heathercuttie.blogspot.com/
--Heather
Posted by: Heather
| April 9, 2008 11:22 AM
heather
thanks
Posted by: tz | April 9, 2008 11:23 AM
h
Posted by: painter
| April 9, 2008 11:26 AM
Jamie, I agree with you. However, I must say that both sides are strident. No one has the moral upper hand here and it is dishonest for anyone to suggest otherwise. I think I am basically confirming your comment here.
Tom
Posted by: EuroTom
| April 9, 2008 11:32 AM
as a 67 year old male ..im afraid ill never see a female get elected president in ,my lifetime....the sexism in this country is so strong they would rather have a con artist in the white house .....another 4 years of public conning if obama wins ....with the help of the MSM and the far left nuts its going to be very trying
Posted by: tz | April 9, 2008 11:34 AM
McCain must be smiling this morning;
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348413,00.html
This will splatter on Obama with Zbig and Carter in Obama's camp. Yep, let's talk to the terrorist who triggered the war between Israel and Hizb'Allah in Damascus where recently Zbig visited right after another nasty terrorist was terminated. People wonder why Obama draws anti-Muslim fire? His associations with Hamas-loving Khalidi and others who sport the anti-Israeli line is the answer. Also throw in some top advisors and a credible picture emerges which Nader pointed out: before Obama hit the campaign trail: Obama was pro-Palestinian. Now his BS on the trail is mocked by those who support him. It plays during the primary, but will hurt him in the general.
Carter goes to Damascus after a Hamas group just killed two Israelis. His action now is just the example McCain will use to characterize an Obama administration as NeoCarterism. Think Carter would go to Lebanon and rally the pro-Western supporters? Naw....
This is a principled person? He went to Darfur and came back and said there had been no genocide. Does Obama care to comment? Nope. McCain will read the list of Obama supporter visits to Syria, the offers to Iran and ask what they amounted to. Meanwhile, McCain will point to NK talks, progress in Iraq, sanctions against Iran which Obama doesn't support, Gadafi's WMD stoppage, peace talks between Pakistan and India, no more taliban controlling Afghanistan and ask Americans what the Democrats can show for their talking. THis is why Hillary built a centrist record to counter the weak national security image. For that she is tarred and feathered by the NeoLiberal crowd.
Obama doesn't need any foreign policy help or national security credentials? Well Barak, you just need more time to continue adding to that fine image. His Patraeus comments didn't even register on the radar. Now Carter will remind people of where Obama's coming from. Come November, Independents will run from the NeoLIberals who have flocked to their man. Keep drinking people. Maybe Obama will have Wright swear him in. Obama created this situation, not his critics.
Posted by: Maxtrue | April 9, 2008 11:34 AM
With all the bullshit radical muslims are pulling in Europe and the world, I will be the first to admit I have deep suspicion and dislike of them. And I make no apologies for it. One such person was acting as a double agent for the Belgian government... meanwhile he murdered 8 people... 2 who were Jewish, 1 because he was a Gay man, and a couple mainstream Muslims that he felt had too much power. The inept Belgian "intelligence community" had no idea this guy was going around popping people off. However, one of his Gay victims survived and was able to identify him.
Muslims who have moved from the Middle East to Europe resist any attempt to integrate in Western society. Instead, they are demanding that Western society give them social guarantees such as Sharia Law, women only gynecologists, public swimming pools shut down to men for several hours a day so that Muslim women can swim without a man anywhere in sight... I would love to see some Westerners move to.. oh let's say IRAN and demand European style of Democracy, equal rights for women, acceptance and equal rights of Gays and Lesbians... a free press, etc...
I have no tolerance for religion that hates Gays and others who do not adhere to their perverted "doctrine"... and I don't care if anyone likes it or not.
Posted by: EuroTom
| April 9, 2008 11:40 AM
n
Posted by: painter
| April 9, 2008 11:44 AM
tz, if you haven't visited Heather's blog, you should do so,
Posted by: pogo
| April 9, 2008 11:45 AM
My last part of the post got cut off :( ... I wanted also to say that this is not say all Muslims are horrible or that just because someone is by familial connection is a muslim that they are automatically suspect. There are many secular peoples who come from Muslim families just like there are many secular peoples who come from Christian families. And there are many Gay and Lesbian muslim people living in Europe who are also at threat of violence.... I don't know how it is in America now because I have lived in Europe for 10 years, but here it's a big debate and I believe greater problems are yet to come in the form of terrorist attacks in Europe.
Posted by: EuroTom
| April 9, 2008 11:47 AM
pogo
i am in the process as we speak ....she seems to be very level headed and intrelligent.....i have put it on my desktop as a short cut
Posted by: tz | April 9, 2008 11:49 AM
Maybe Carter can talk human rights to Assad
http://www.thememriblog.org/blog_personal/en/6679.htm
Pick Obama is you like Carter
Pick Hillary if you like Bill
It is that simple.
Carter went to Darfur and did zero. Even Egypt is done letting Palestinians in. We will all watch the change of heart in Hamas that Carter will create. Sadat's military was crushed by Israel and he had lost the Sinai. That is what brought him to the peace table. Carter encourages resistance to terrorists who believe they are "winning". The same terrorists who killed Sadat. Every day seems to confirm the Obama slid into Carterism and keeps him from making that pivot to center. The more people suspect the phoniness, the harder such a pivot will be. Yes, Republicans are salivating for an Obama nomination. If nothing else, his election would promise four years of attacks. Hillary is fire-proof. Obama is not.
Posted by: Maxtrue | April 9, 2008 11:55 AM
"But a former Obama insider says that Obama's sudden aversion to NOI and Farrakhan is belied by the fact that Obama employed and continues to employ several Farrakhan acolytes in high positions on his Illinois and U.S. Senate campaign and office staffs. I have verified that this person--who agreed to talk on the condition of anonymity--held a key position in the Obama campaign. The insider was so close to Senator Obama that they frequently personally discussed and exchanged direct e-mail messages on campaign and policy matters. This person is not connected with the Clintons and is not a disgruntled employee.
The insider says he frequently objected to Mr. Obama's placement of Cynthia K. Miller, a member of the Nation of Islam, as the Treasurer of his U.S. Senate campaign.
The Obama insider says he also objected to Obama's involvement with Jennifer Mason, whom he says is also a member of the Nation of Islam. Mason is Obama's Director of Constituent Services in his U.S. Senate office and is also in charge of selecting Obama's Senate interns.
But it's not just that he employed these individuals in positions of power in his office, it's that when the former associate raised objections, he says Mr. Obama's position was that he saw nothing wrong with the Nation of Islam and didn't think it was a problem. If true--and the fact that Ms. Mason still holds her prominent Obama Senate staff position bears that out--Obama's condemnation of Farrakhan, this month, is phony."
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/01/obamas_nation_o.html
Posted by: GORDO | April 9, 2008 12:04 PM
Euro Tom said, "I have no tolerance for religion that hates Gays and others who do not adhere to their perverted "doctrine"... and I don't care if anyone likes it or not."
That would included Jerry Falwell and his like and any other Fundy group, right? What about pedophiles? Catholic Church? Why only stop at Muslims?
Yo soy un demócrata amarillo del perro.
Yo soy Hussein Horsedooty!
Posted by: yo soy Horsedooty!
| April 9, 2008 12:25 PM
of course it would include Jerry Falwell and fundies...
DUH!
Posted by: EuroTom
| April 9, 2008 12:32 PM
Hillary doesn't need to "win" the nomination, she just needs to demonstrate "success."
Posted by: nash
| April 9, 2008 12:32 PM
This morning I received a letter from Howard Dean. I did not see McCain on the petreaus Iraq hearings yesterday, but this what was sent to me. He is asking that all democrats write to your papers, blogs etc to pass this on. So as a loyal Hillary democrat I am.
Today, as he was questioning Gen. David Petraeus, he again confused the difference between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.
At least five times as a candidate John McCain has stated that Iran (a Shiite nation) is supporting Al-Qaeda (a Sunni group) in Iraq. This is not some minor mistake, but a significant gaffe. He clearly does not understand the sensitive political dynamics in that region of the world.
This is implying and probably rightly so that McCain is not with it-ie - too old. Forgetful - and does not understand the issue.
Julie
Posted by: Julie-Young73 | April 9, 2008 12:33 PM
I have been taking a much needed break from this machine...... I have been getting a lot of work done.....
I lurked yesterday's and today's thread...... Patsi, Pogo, Heather, Jamie, Maxtrue..... ROTFLMAO!!.... as usual.... you've been spectacular!....
Craig.... good catch on Obama saying "Me Too" on McCain's Iraq vocabulary.....
I am RebelliousBitchEmbitteredWhiteOlderWomanRenee..... or in other words.... an Adult.....
Posted by: RebelliousRenee
| April 9, 2008 12:39 PM
Gordo,
Whatever you think of either, The Nation of Islam, and the Islam practices and beliefs of the Middle East have great differences and practices. Equating them can lead to prejudicial errors.
Again, it doesn't matter which side you are on in the political debate, lumping whole groups of disparate peoples together or assuming that actions by one are automatically approved by the other is almost always a mistake.
Try thinking and analysis of the situation and the individuals. At least you stand a chance of coming somewhere near, as far as humanely possible, to the truth.
Posted by: Jamie
| April 9, 2008 12:43 PM
Now the Clintonites are trying to whip up anti-Muslim predjudice and turn it against Obama.
Every day they take us to a new low.
What's next?
* Obama's a polygamist.
* Obama boils live bunnies in a big iron pot.
* Obama doesn't wash his hands after using the men's room. (We have it on tape!)
Posted by: nash
| April 9, 2008 12:47 PM
Renee: Do you really think Patsi is funny?
Posted by: nash
| April 9, 2008 12:49 PM
The same carrier who brings our local rag every morning also brings the Wall Street Journal. It will sometimes take me a couple of days before I get my money's worth out of the Journal.
But, today, after Stinky had me do the morning shopping rounds, I sat down and went through the op-ed page (I spend ten times as much time on it than I do on their editorials).
This piece caught my eye: The Trouble With Brand Hillary--Mrs. Clinton risks being branded a serial exaggerator, and worse., By Michael Zeldin.
I went through the piece. Seemed like a real straightforward rant/attack. Included the requisite references to Bill, the Ferraros, McCain, Dukakis, Gore, et al., that is, to everyone accept the anointed one, Barack Obama.
Well, that was okay, too. Then I got to the trailer where they give the short bio of the author. It read, "Mr. Zeldin is the former independent counsel who investigated the tampering with Bill Clinton's passport. He is a part-time volunteer for the Obama campaign in the primary cycle."
Any bets on whether or not he gets a promotion after the trash he had published this morning?
Here's where you can read the piece:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120770047660999941.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
Posted by: Flatus
| April 9, 2008 12:50 PM
Yeah, KO lost all credibility even before he was stricken with Obama-fever. Too many kudos for his "special comments" and he seemed to become Bill-O, just with a different take on things. He's just another pointless, hack journalist who can't bring himself to do his job fairly anymore. What a waste of mind and talent.
As for Obama's mother's religious ties, it's only a valid question because he tries to use her to prop himself up. If he didn't mention her supposed Christian values & how she was his role model, it wouldn't be a fair arguement. But he does, so it is. Good work Heather & Gordo.
Go Hil'ry!
Posted by: blueINdallas | April 9, 2008 1:04 PM
Nash for a "professor" you sure seem uneducated. My comment on Muslims has nothing to do with Obama. If I felt there was a connection I wouldn't vote for him in the general if he gets the nomination. I plan to vote for Obama, in spite of nasty comments from people like you. If I thought Obama was at all associated with radical islamic terrorists, I would certainly not even consider voting for the guy.
For someone who is a "professor" you sure don't seem to be able to ascertain what is being said... You just come out tossing b.s.
Posted by: EuroTom
| April 9, 2008 1:11 PM
Nash, I love your posts! They totally make me laugh every time! Thanks!
I got annoyed listening to the hearings yesterday after the opening. What annoys me the most is the type of gotcha questions the politicians ask. It seems they never even listen to the answers that are given because they then turn around and ask the same question again. If I heard the answer the first time, I would assume they did too. And nothing personal against Sen. Biden, but I swear he just speaks to hear himself talk.
Hope everyone's having a good day!
Jenn
Posted by: JennBe
| April 9, 2008 1:16 PM
Observations without curiosity, analysis, questions or examinations ARE accusations and almost always result in flawed logic and experimental failure.
Posted by: Jamie
| April 9, 2008 1:18 PM
Hah, Renee, thanks, and RFLMFAO.
Posted by: pogo
| April 9, 2008 1:33 PM
Good! Every time I signed in __Blackgirlsconnect.com__ and there were always many women would talk to me ... It is a funny and interesting place to talk to these thoughtful women.
Posted by: Gill | April 9, 2008 1:33 PM
Posted by: anon-paranoid | April 9, 2008 10:32 AM
Ok Anon- tell me who you vote for so I can vote the opposite and cancel out your vote. That's how stupid your comment to Jamie sounds like. As I've said time and again, BOTH SIDES are sending venom across the "divide". You are either being incredibly disingenuous, or obstinately obtuse that you can see the forest for the trees. In either case, aren't you still the one claiming that there is only a small chance there will even be an election this year? And if you believe that, what does it matter that you say you wouldn't vote for Hillary?
I mean ... really!
Posted by: EuroTom
| April 9, 2008 1:50 PM
correction: canNOT see the forest for the trees...
Posted by: EuroTom
| April 9, 2008 1:51 PM
"Good luck with President McCain. "
You're the insane paranoid who says he's voting for MCain.
Posted by: Patsi
| April 9, 2008 2:24 PM
I didn't know that Obama boils bunnies in a big iron pot.
Posted by: Oregon Democrat | April 9, 2008 2:56 PM
ET, doing a little catch up - re: your 1:50, better register in FL - electoral college is by state.
Posted by: pogo
| April 9, 2008 3:05 PM
Preview from next NYTimes Sunday magazine: profile of your favorite talking head (who is not Craig).
It's slated as Sunday's cover story.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/13/magazine/13matthews-t.html?hp=&pagewanted=all
Posted by: dog hussein dog | April 9, 2008 3:13 PM
The 9:55 post by Nash is one of the most silly I have seen on this site.
It does have some value since it reveals the paranoia some Obamaites have and it is all in one single post.
If Baracko has this thing in the bag, why so much anger?
Posted by: Oregon Democrat | April 9, 2008 3:15 PM
Interesting column, whether you agree or disagree. There's a lot of truth in this but I don't see Al's role as being the nominee.
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/calling-al-gore/index.html?hp
Posted by: pogo
| April 9, 2008 3:15 PM
Big article on Chris Matthews in NYT online. This guy is a total jerk!!! My god! Here is the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/13/magazine/13matthews-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp
Posted by: EuroTom
| April 9, 2008 3:19 PM
Greetings from New York City everyone. We picked up our Elton John tickets at the headquarters this morning. So nice to be in an elevator full of Hillary supporters! I was in an elevator with a Floridian and a fellow Iowan. First thing the Floridian said was, "What in the hell happened in Iowa?!" She said there is a big movement in Florida to get their votes counted. People are PO'd. Anyhow...I will provide a report to the Clintonistas in the morning. The Obamaniacs can just ignore!
Posted by: Ally
| April 9, 2008 3:20 PM
heheheh oops Pogo, thanks...
And Dog hussein Dog... great minds... on the matthews story. Why is my link slightly different than yours?
Posted by: EuroTom
| April 9, 2008 3:21 PM
EuroTom: sharp eyes! Would bet it's because I put up link for the "single page" text -- an option in the blue bordered box near "print", etc.; makes it easier to read multipage stories.
Here's a heartbreaker about DC area families surrendering the family pet to animal shelters when home foreclosures strike. Or some just abandon the pet to fate.
I don't recall these kinds of circumstances in previous administrations. Even during the dark days of Jimmy Carter's gas lines.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/08/AR2008040803370.html
Comments section featured one about adoption and rescue groups having unrealistic expectations of adopters -- that's true, in my experience. In Richmond they preferred a fenced in yard. Which says little about one's ability to care for the pet through frequent walks and dog park visits. (It was like adopting a kid! Too much.)
Posted by: dog hussein dog | April 9, 2008 3:30 PM
You've got to laugh..those lawyers in Pakistan beat up a crowd of protestors. So this is what Richardson thinks Democracy should do in Pakistan. And the Gucci overnment there will go after OBL? Fat chance on that one Obama.
Carter in Syria talking to Hamas is a great preview of what Obama will do if elected. And what positons will McPeak, Malley, Zbig, Rice and other experts have in his administration?
RR, glad to make you laugh......
Posted by: Maxtrue | April 9, 2008 3:31 PM
Lanny Davis is a whiner!!
(And just like the caricatures of Rev. Wright - it is not right to judge someone based solely on one post. I know I have posted (or said) stupid, sexist, racist, (etc.) things plenty in my lifetime. I am not a fan of judging - and broad judgments based on isolated incidents are almost always incorrect.)
It is just like "Lost" people!! There is always more to the people you meet. And often - you need to understand the "backstory" to truly understand the person.
Posted by: warren
| April 9, 2008 3:33 PM
So excited you got your tickets Ally!!!! You are going to love it! I can't wait till the 23rd here!
Posted by: JennBe
| April 9, 2008 3:35 PM
She's cute and smart
http://worlddefensereview.com/esman040908.shtml
Posted by: Maxtrue | April 9, 2008 3:36 PM
Hey Warren, here's something from your favorite American Spectator
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13023
Sounds more like Crock and Loads....
I guess disingenuity is "in" these days....
Posted by: Maxtrue | April 9, 2008 3:47 PM
warren, whether Lanny Davis is a whiner or not, questions about Wright aren't going to go away until they are addressed. To that extent there's some truth to Lanny's whinings about Wright, although as I said, I wish he'd drop it - he's already made his point on the teevee and making it again on the pages of the WSJ doesn't do anything to underscore whatever valid points it may contain.
Posted by: pogo
| April 9, 2008 3:53 PM
For the Clintonistas and Obamamaniacs
Come on everybody lets sing together
The Beatles
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QShSmpI0r9k
You say yes, I say no
You say stop and I say go go go, oh no
You say goodbye and I say hello
Hello hello
I don't know why you say goodbye, I say hello
Hello hello
I don't know why you say goodbye, I say hello
I say high, you say low
You say why and I say I don't know, oh no
You say goodbye and I say hello
(Hello goodbye hello goodbye) Hello hello
(Hello goodbye) I don't know why you say goodbye, I say hello
(Hello goodbye hello goodbye) Hello hello
(Hello goodbye) I don't know why you say goodbye
(Hello goodbye) I say hello/goodbye
Jack
Back to taxes
Posted by: whskyjack | April 9, 2008 3:54 PM
Jack, I don't envy you your afternoon. (I paid that piper last weekend - and like every other year, hated every moment).
Posted by: pogo
| April 9, 2008 3:58 PM
Thank god I have a bookkeeper who does my taxes
Posted by: EuroTom
| April 9, 2008 4:00 PM
Since we are on song lyrics, here's some great ones for Hillary:
It exemplifies her candidacy. Here are the lyrics:
Well you're the real tough cookie with the long history
Of breaking little hearts, like the one in me
Thats o.k., let's see how you do it
Put up your dukes, let's get down to it!
Hit me with your best shot!
Why don't you hit me with your best shot!
Hit me with your best shot!
Fire away!
You come on with a come on, you don't fight fair
But thats o.k., see if I care!
Knock me down, its all in vain
I'll get right back on my feet again!
Hit me with your best shot!
Why don't you hit me with your best shot!
Hit me with your best shot!
Fire away!
Well you're the real tough cookie with the long history
Of breaking little hearts, like the one in me
Before I put another notch in my lipstick case
You better make sure you put me in my place
Hit me with your best shot!
Come on, hit me with your best shot!
Hit me with your best shot!
Fire away!
Posted by: EuroTom
| April 9, 2008 4:02 PM
Because it's become something of an issue in both the Dem nomination war and the Congreeess/WH war, I've tried to get a grip on this Colombian trade deal. From what I can tell, the agreement would change little for Colombia - which already faces no tariffs on most of its goods coming into the US, but would benefit US business trading there by removing tariffs on our goods that are currently from 7-80%, which sounds like a pretty good deal for our manufactutreres who trade there. Big Labor is pressuring congresscritters to oppose the deal because Colombian laborr leaders have been victimized there, and they don't think Colombia has done enough to protect the labor leaders there. Is that about it? Am I missing some nuance in the agreement?
Posted by: pogo
| April 9, 2008 4:06 PM
I think you got it right Pogo, but I think the real issue is Bush not listening to Congress and Nancy Pelosi taking him down a notch by maneuvering the process, as is her privilege as Speaker of the House, to stop his arrogance.
Posted by: EuroTom
| April 9, 2008 4:18 PM
Chris Matthews--I started to read the Times Magazine thing. I got down to the bottom of the first page and saw that I was only on page 1 of 9. So much for that. If anyone wants to read my leftovers, here's the url:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/13/magazine/13matthews-t.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&hp&oref=slogin
Posted by: Flatus
| April 9, 2008 4:21 PM
Thanks for the link to the Matthew's story guys, it was a good read.
Posted by: JennBe
| April 9, 2008 4:23 PM
Fact Checking--Heres's the email to mail political things that you want fact checked. It's part of Craig's greater organization:
mailto:truthometer@politifact.com
The main page is:
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/
Posted by: Flatus
| April 9, 2008 4:27 PM
Enjoyed the Matthews article..thanks..
Posted by: Oregon Democrat | April 9, 2008 4:31 PM
Lucy sees every other dog as a threat to her superiority.
As one of her old dog walkers said: "It's Lucy's world....we just live in it!"
Posted by: warren
| April 9, 2008 4:32 PM
ET, thanks, I'm really just trying to understand the merits of the trade agreement - the politics of considering and either passing it or not are another issue. I never cry too hard when Congress jams Bush, but I really just wanted to see whether I understood the merits of the deal.
And Pat Benatar? One of the first and best female rock & rollers - an all time fave of mine. Do you get CMTover in EU? They have a series called Crossroads where two artists, one a country star, sing their own and each others' stuff. She was on it with Martina McBride - they were freakin' awesome.
Posted by: pogo
| April 9, 2008 4:37 PM
Here are the photos and names of the eight teenagers that have been arrested in Lakeland, Fla., on charges that they allegedly beat another teen in an "animalistic attack" so they could make a videotape to post on YouTube.
http://i26.tinypic.com/r9n8mx.jpg
- truly repulsive.
Posted by: unlikely_burrito
| April 9, 2008 4:38 PM
Guys- anyone interested in politics/presidential race should definitely check out http://www.savagepolitics.com
Their articles are like nothing I have read in any of the current media outlets. It is brilliant writing plus it offers a great community in which to discuss. The editor actually takes time to answer and the political humor section is awesome!!!
Check out the article “We are the puppets”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://savagepolitics.com/?p=271
Posted by: elsylee
| April 9, 2008 4:40 PM
http://i28.tinypic.com/35cn4zo.jpg
wrong one before- oops
Posted by: unlikely_burrito
| April 9, 2008 4:45 PM
Pogo, there is more to it. Obama doesn't like our military aid to Columbia. He wants to divert said monies to the governments of Latin America (as though that would find its way to the people). Then suddenly Uribe kills the two top FARC leaders and finds a laptop that discloses money deals between Chavez and FARC as well as a desire by FARC to get enriched uranium.
Obama has not taken issue with Chavez and said little when he moved to close a TV station. Are there reputable unions in Caracas? So Columbia stands against the Leftist tide in South America with Brazil and Chile as Russia and Iran look for a partner in Chavez. You can see the Carter approach backing the Leftists and the administration backing Columbia. The centered approach would be to oppose the Leftists and steer Columbia towards moderation while increasing ties with Brazil, Chile and others. If we get Obama, count on the former approach. There is also talk by Pelosi of stopping military aid to Mexico. They can't even stop narco-terrorists practicing on their border. If the situation isn't handled well, we will see South America become a hot spot with Quds hooking up with local gangs and terrorists. There will be more hits on pipelines and guess what Chavez needs subs for? Obama wants to cut military support to the firewall between Chavez and Central America.
You are right about the present situation favoring Columbia. This is another show by the Democrats to act like they're tough on principle, but a little looking will find hypocrisy as usually with Obama leading the pack. One reason Uribe is tough on labor heads is that there are ties to FARC and drug lords. Chavez is a far greater threat and the time has come for the EU and America to introduce new policies that will strengthen Liberal Democracy while improving the lives of the people. We ought to move much of the Chinese labor usage to Latin America. Alternative energy here working with Brazil and Canada would break the influence of Ahmadinejad, Putin and Chavez.
Posted by: Maxtrue | April 9, 2008 4:51 PM
If I weren't so angry with Matthews for being a groveling, slobbering, Obama addict, I would feel sorry for the poor insecure schlub.
Posted by: Jamie
| April 9, 2008 4:55 PM
Thanks Max, we'll talk more later - tomorrow. I need to run.
Posted by: pogo
| April 9, 2008 4:59 PM
I've decided to try Craig's fact checker. The owner of the group is Times Publishing in Florida. They, editorially, support Mr Obama. I'm curious about how they might handle what I've submitted:
"Based on what I can tell from the University of Chicago statutes, there's no way that Mr Obama was a law professor. He was a senior lecturer, which according to the university statutes, is not even a faculty member but "other academic personnel".
Here's what I'm looking at:
http://trustees.uchicago.edu/articles/statutes.pdf
I believe he comes under paragraph 11.4.4 of that document. That places him outside the field of membership for faculty members as defined in para 11.1 of the statutes.
No matter how the Law School may wish to puff their adjunct personnel, I believe the University statutes take precedence.
I'm sure if you go through his videos during the debates, I think the one in Cleveland, you'll find him declaring himself to be a law professor--something that, in my opinion, he clearly wasn't.
Oh, and here's a blog from The SunTimes' Lynn Sweet that discusses the issue in depth:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/03/sweet_obama_did_hold_the_title.html
And, it would really be fairer if you switched Mrs Clinton's Bosnia video on your home page to something else; you've made your point.
Thanks!"
Posted by: Flatus
| April 9, 2008 5:05 PM
Obama's illusions on foreign policy
Joseph C. Wilson
"Sen. Barack Obama declared in Pennsylvania on March 27 that his foreign policy would "return" to that of George H.W. Bush and that Sens. John McCain and Hillary Rodham Clinton both had strayed from that model. Having served in the first Bush administration, as acting U.S. ambassador to Iraq in the run-up to the first Gulf War, and subsequently as ambassador to two African nations, I cannot fathom what Obama is asserting.
Obama claims that an antiwar speech he made while running for state Senate in the most liberal district in Illinois is proof of his superior intuitive judgment. But if Obama had been in Washington at that time, participating in the national debate, he would have come face to face with Secretary of State Colin Powell, the same Colin Powell who, as Gen. Powell, was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the first Bush administration, the one Obama wishes to emulate.
In fact, Obama's understanding of foreign policy is extraordinarily limited. He has had one job in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: chairman of the Europe and NATO subcommittee. He has not held a single policy hearing in that capacity because, as he said in a debate, he has been too busy running for president. He has not even taken a fact-finding trip or provided any other oversight."
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20080406_Obama_s_illusions_on_foreign_policy.html?adString=inq.news/opinion;!category=opinion;&randomOrd=040608042028
Posted by: GORDO | April 9, 2008 5:05 PM
Pogo, please share your thoughts re Colombia when you can,
Posted by: Flatus
| April 9, 2008 5:10 PM
Oprah paying price for Obama support
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9427.html
Posted by: Jamie
| April 9, 2008 5:29 PM
I just checked out the Philadelphia Inquirer Joe Wilson article that Gordo linked at 5:05. It generally looks like a re-hash of what Ambassador Wilson has said before, but what struck me was the the brief biographical information the paper listed after the article.
They referenced Valerie Plame and the subsequent investigation that got Scooter Libby convicted, and then they said he was later pardoned by President Bush. My first thought was that a casual reader would think it was Ambassador Wilson, who was pardoned. . . ..... And then I thought, "PARDONED??? When did that happen?"
I've even forgotten the correct term, but wasn't the only action so far the commuting of Libby's sentence? Perhaps, it's a distinction without a difference-particularly in Philly- or did I sleep through something, and has President Bush already pardoned Scooter Libby?
It's not really a huge issue, except that newspapers, even in their online editions, should try to get it right. As I said, maybe they have it right. I just don't remember a pardon, and thought I'd ask here rather than looking it up. Thanks to anyone who has the answer. I'm getting to run out and play some basketball. I'll look for an answer later.
Posted by: EdVB
| April 9, 2008 5:34 PM
For those getting ready to press the send key in reply to some trollish comment
The Beatles , "Let It Be"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oZYqAeIdYk
"And when the broken hearted people
Living in the world agree
There will be an answer, let it be
For though they may be parted
There is still a chance that they will see
There will be an answer, let it be
Let it be, let it be
Let it be, let it be
Yeah there will be an answer, let it be
Let it be, let it be
Let it be, let it be
Whisper words of wisdom, let it be"
Jack
Posted by: whskyjack | April 9, 2008 5:35 PM
I've heard nothing of pardon......
Posted by: sturgeone | April 9, 2008 5:36 PM
and lest we forget:
"I am the Eggman.......Goo goo g'joob.
Posted by: sturgeone | April 9, 2008 5:38 PM
Commute was what I heard as well. I would think that a great deal more noise would have been made about a pardon.
You are right that they should be accurate about a point such as this.
Posted by: Jamie
| April 9, 2008 5:40 PM
So Bill and Hillary don't agree on all policy issues? As if that's news.- Pogo 8:48
Pogo,
I guess you don't see much of a problem with Hill's disagreement of the trade deal with Columbia while at the same time paying the mortgage with money from those who support it. Seems a good lawyer could hammer a person's credibility with those facts. catch you manana
Posted by: Rezdog
| April 9, 2008 5:43 PM
EdvB
There has been no pardon. Bush commuted Libby's sentence in July of last year. You might want to let the paper know the error.
Posted by: Jamie
| April 9, 2008 5:44 PM
"Pelosi last week warned Bush not to submit the trade pact now, in the midst of a heated election season in which trade policy has become a hot-button issue.
“If brought to the floor immediately, it would lose,” she said. “And what message would that send?”
Yes, Pelosi, what message would that send indeed? Shall we wait until after the Democrats stop pandering? Isn't that Bush's point? So you floor the bill despite all the Democratic opposition, to do what? You don't want the bill, but you want to send that message anyway. Seems like somebody's wires are crossed aren't they? You won't break the China free trade and they DON'T have ANY unions. You want to isolate Canada and Columbia to play to the polls, just like Obama plays to gun advocates in Penn. Can one imagine the hypocritical mess that will happen when Obama and Pelosi run the show? Just one major act of terrorism crossing our southern border and Obama will be under siege. More anger coming from north of our border? Obama didn't even come out strongly supporting Canada's position on more troops from NATO in Afghanistan. What a feckless group about to lose their beloved excuse for thier own disingenuity -GWB. So they will call McCain, McBush and "hope" to "change" things based on their anti-stance.
Discuss the Columbia Bill and change what the Democrats don't like. Meanwhile, we ARE giving out the signal that Congress doesn't support Columbia. We ARE giving out the message to Canada that, what, they don't treat their workers right? Democrats seem to have gone from correcting our signals to making them worse. Bill didn't do this, did he?
Posted by: Maxtrue | April 9, 2008 5:46 PM
Joe Cocker,
She Came In Through The Bathroom Window
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14dncQ3EBh8
Posted by: whskyjack | April 9, 2008 5:49 PM
Joe Cocker,
She Came In Through The Bathroom Window
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14dncQ3EBh8
Posted by: whskyjack | April 9, 2008 5:52 PM
Who is Bill Maher's daddy?
http://www.stltoday.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=5432498
Posted by: Corey
| April 9, 2008 6:15 PM
Shush....Obama speaks
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/obama_iraq_iran/2008/04/08/86500.html?s=al&promo_code=48F8-1
Okay, Patraeous just tells Obama that Iran is causing serious problems in Iraq. The country actually united more against Sadr and his Iranian friends and Obama tells the general we should talk to Iran. Meanwhile Iran is fielding thousands of centrifuges. Obama's push for the Grand Bargin with Iran in underway. Carter goes to Syria to talk with Hamas and Obama advocates talking with Iran to bring peace to Iraq. Well the general ain't drinking. Obama tries to blame Hillary for the Iraq mess and once again touts his clear vision. If Saddam was in power building nukes, Obama would do what? Someone ought to tell Obama what Israel's hit in Syria was about and that the US has talked to Iran about Iraq. More than once.
I say let Obama keep talking. Let him suggest he is pro-gun. Let him give us all a lecture on Pakistan as lawyers there beat protestors and why he doesn't need any VP to bolster his security credibility. After all, he'll call the responders after an attack. He will let McPeak take charge and support the Boeing crying game over the tanker bid as they ground more 777 for crack inspections. Just give Obama wide berth to put a foot in his own mouth.
Let's be very clear Obama. Iran doesn't want better relations with the US. They don't want any Americans or Brits on the ground because they are quite worried info on their nuclear program will leak out. A new cache of Iranian EEPs have been uncovered. More than 6,000lbs of explosives meant to kill Americans. Iran is the mosted disliked country on the planet and Obama sets zero preconditions like he promised in the debates. Perhaps he should read more about Reagan and learn agreements are based on verification. What record does Iran have that it seeks stability in Iraq.?They green-lighted Sadr when it appeared Maliki was too close to forming a unified government. Now Sunnis and Kurds are working to isolate Sadr as Obama wants to elevate Iran's status.
The more Obama speaks, the more others are beginning to understand the game. No it won't show up at Zogby or MSNBC, but it is growing every day.
Pick Obama if you like Carter, Zbig, Malley, McPeak and all of Obama's decade-long friendships.
Pick Hillary if you like Bill and the standing of America during the Clinton era.
Pick McCain if you see four years of a failed and disingenuous administration under fire from day one for the numerous poor judgments and spins debated today. Obama speaks and makes Patraeous look more credible. And when Obama speaks to the general, how many who support Obama think Patraeous betrayed us? Most are in his camp, not Hillary's. Obama even pandered to the DoD in excusing them of getting us into Iraq. Read FIASCO Obama, there is blame enough to go around and he certainly didn't allow the general to express his belief removing Saddam was the right thing to do. If it wasn't for Iraq, Obama would not see the White House ahead. Now how ironic is that? God Damn Iraq, or is that God Bless Iraq. You decided.
Posted by: Maxtrue | April 9, 2008 6:16 PM
Burrito, OD, Wendy!, and whoever else has been worried.....
WHERE IN THE WORLD IS MICHELE OBAMA!!!
Here she is!
http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/1030379.html
Posted by: Chef Sheila Hussein The Nun
| April 9, 2008 6:32 PM
Well Sheila , I was gonna say she was right here with me , but now , nobody will believe me! Thanks a lot!
Posted by: Corey
| April 9, 2008 6:35 PM
She's in Raleigh? Do you think she will stop in Mayberry , too? That'd be cool.
Posted by: Corey
| April 9, 2008 6:38 PM
Big Endorsement by another Union.
by Mike Dorning
No, the endorsement is not in the mail. The American Postal Workers Union announced its support for Barack Obama with an e-mail sent to reporters a few minutes ago.
The union, which claims to be the largest postal union in the world, said its executive board voted to endorse Obama today.
"We are most impressed by Sen. Obama's commitment to eradicating the undue influence of special interests in the political process, union president William Burrus said in a statement. "Our current political system does not allow for the voices of average citizens to be heard over the demands of lobbyists and big-money campaign contributors."
The union says it represents approximately 300,000 postal workers with clerical, maintenance and motor vehicle-related jobs
Posted by: Chef Sheila Hussein The Nun
| April 9, 2008 6:40 PM
Sorry to mess you up Corey. ;0)
Posted by: Chef Sheila Hussein The Nun
| April 9, 2008 6:41 PM
Obama's campaign has gone postal?
Posted by: Corey
| April 9, 2008 6:42 PM
Maybe Obama can do something about the rising cost of stamps?
Posted by: Corey
| April 9, 2008 6:44 PM
Obama's campaign going postal in this case, A very good thing. ;0)
Posted by: Chef Sheila Hussein The Nun
| April 9, 2008 6:44 PM
Looks like Senator Clinton Aggrees With Senator Obama.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/09/clinton-uses-100-year-remark-to-fault-mccain/
Clinton Uses ‘100-Year’ Remark to Fault McCain
By The New York Times
Senator Barack Obama has come under some criticism for suggesting that his colleague in the Senate, John McCain, wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years, even though Mr. McCain was speaking hypothetically. Today in Pennsylvania, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton did not shy away from using that line of attack either.
At a speech at Hopewell High School in Aliquippa, Pa., Mrs. Clinton praised Mr. McCain, but then added that the Senator “has said that it would be alright with him if we kept troops in Iraq for up to 100 years and again yesterday, he basically reiterated his commitment to the course that we are on in Iraq. Well, I don’t agree with that.”
Posted by: Chef Sheila Hussein The Nun
| April 9, 2008 6:47 PM
Did they poll their membership or is this the officers doing what they want without consultation?
Posted by: Jamie
| April 9, 2008 6:48 PM
Well, Chef Sheila Hussein The Nun,
Thank you for finding Michelle O. I was concerned she may have been in a time-out.
Posted by: unlikely_burrito
| April 9, 2008 6:57 PM
"If you mail a letter to the post office , who delivers it?" - George Carlin
Posted by: Corey
| April 9, 2008 6:57 PM
Oh my goodness...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080409/media_nm/newyork50cent_lawsuit_dc
This is why I hate lawyers!!
(And someone tell this kid, his mother and their jackass attorney - that the "gansta life" has been glorified as long as I can remember. I mean with stories of the Jewish mafia, the Russion mafia, Scarface and of course the fabled Italians - and lets not forget them Bushes.)
And this kid is already a "gansta" at 14.
"gansta" = someone who gets a lot of money they don't deserve
(Anyways, 50 cent and his songs have done far less damage than the other ganstas I mentioned. Except of course the kid - he is probably alright...despite what his mother and his lawyer think ; )
Posted by: warren
| April 9, 2008 6:58 PM
Your welcome Burrito!
I was wondering myself. She was in the spotlight for so long....but then there have been many more important issues than Mrs Obama. But nice to know both spouses are paying attention to NC.
Posted by: Chef Sheila Hussein The Nun
| April 9, 2008 7:00 PM
Here is the APWU endorsement
http://www.apwu.org/index2.htm
Posted by: Jamie
| April 9, 2008 7:01 PM
"If you mail a letter to the post office , who delivers it?" - George Carlin
Corey, it won't be a member of the American Postal Workers Union.
Posted by: Flatus
| April 9, 2008 7:02 PM
Warren , nobody listens to 50 cent anymore. Look at his record sales of late. That should be enough to end that lawsuit.
Posted by: Corey
| April 9, 2008 7:02 PM
Love Biden on Harball.
Posted by: Chef Sheila Hussein The Nun
| April 9, 2008 7:02 PM
Obama is soooooooo not original. He is the greatest wannabe.
MLK,JFK,Reagan,Bush1, not McCain. LOL
Posted by: Jsky | April 9, 2008 7:02 PM
Biden has a great smile. I wish that he would have had more sucess in the primary. I have liked his ideas, commentary and style for years.
Posted by: unlikely_burrito
| April 9, 2008 7:10 PM
Max:
I can (and will) take down Chomsky's arguments one by one as each is flawed. (But it may take awhile since there is a lot in there to untangle.)
And I agree the Jews are listening. I was talking about it with my family this past weekend. And people are coming around (I convinced my dad a long time ago the switch from HRC to Obama - but he is a bit of a pushover ; ).
Anyways, everyone listening to this election.
(And they are not going to stop - even Ruth who thinks she is going to be out in the garden all day if HRC doesn't win...plus, once the Dems have a nominee - whoever it is - a bet a lot of people in here will start tuning back into MSNBC.)
Posted by: warren
| April 9, 2008 7:11 PM
Here's a David Horsey Cartoon for you Maxtrue,
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/viewbydate.asp?id=1741
Posted by: Chef Sheila Hussein The Nun
| April 9, 2008 7:11 PM
Corey:
Kanye did beat him out. 50 cent was supposed to retire!
I hope that suit gets thrown out sooner rather than later.
Posted by: warren
| April 9, 2008 7:13 PM
I'm with you Burrito. Its a travesty. BUT, he will make a fantastic Sec of State for either. I hope he accepts that this is where he belongs.
Posted by: Chef Sheila Hussein The Nun
| April 9, 2008 7:13 PM
Americans like to win....that's for sure. SO much can happen between now and November.
Posted by: unlikely_burrito
| April 9, 2008 7:15 PM
Michelle Obama is in the news as much as Cindy McCain.
(Nether of them are former Presidents or cultural icons...at least not yet with regard to the latter.)
Posted by: warren
| April 9, 2008 7:20 PM
Max:
Chomsky says:
"The Obama campaign mantra, “Our time for change has come,” rings hollow on a number of issues. Here are four examples:
Iraq: Obama’s opposition to President Bush’s toppling of Saddam Hussein would seem to contradict the aforementioned definition of “making progress toward better conditions,” because permitting Saddam to continue his destructive behavior would not – by anyone’s measure – have led to the fulfillment of “enlightened or liberal ideas.”"
By my measure, Chomsky has little respect for International Law. Saddam was one of many dictators causing destruction. The problem is that the Iraq War was not based on a principle - that could be universally applied. If so, the principle would be that a country can use military force - without any imminent threat - when that country believes it is in its own national interests to do so.
I don't think there is much debate that Bush started the Iraq War. (Pointing to the attrocities of Saddam is a case that can be built against almost any brutal dictator you want to take out.)
The US and its allies acted within Int'l Law in Afghanistan. But Bush then used the fall out from 9/11 to stretch the limits of Int'l Law to go into Iraq. And ever since Bush did that - I would say there has been a decline the "fulfillment of 'enlightened or liberal ideas.'"
"If Obama had his way, Saddam Hussein would still be murdering countless innocents in his own country and scores of others – via funding of terrorist operations, among other methods – outside of Iraq."
It is the WAY in which Bush went to war - not the war itself. Arrogantly and unilaterally beating the drum and rushing the charge - and in a way that has left all the blood on our hands - and the biggest dent in our treasure.
And since this was our war - instead of a coalition's - we are now left to clean up the mess all by ourselves. (At least as long as Bush remains in office.)
Remember - the US did not start WWI or WWII - we just came in and kicked ass later.
Posted by: warren
| April 9, 2008 7:48 PM
There should NOT be a diplomatic surge until we get a new President.
Any major effort by Bush is almost guaranteed to fail. (That guy is a pariah in that part of the world. And any Iraqi leader he sides with loses the support of many Iraqis.). Plus, if there is some major effort under Bush - and it fails - it will set us back and make it that much hard to get things done when we get a new President.
Bush should just "stay the course" and try not to f*ck anything else up.
Posted by: warren
| April 9, 2008 7:56 PM
I always find it interesting that the same people who were wrong about:
New Hampshire
Texas
Rhode Island
Ohio
Super Tuesday, etc..
continue to speak with such certainty about Pennsylvania ending the campaign. I've seen the dirt shoveled so many times on HIllary's political grave by a few people on this site, it is amazing that some of the posters don't show just a wee bit of humility.
Posted by: Oregon Democrat | April 9, 2008 7:59 PM
Michelle got over analyzed today for saying she liked accesories ... she was married to one. The talking heads went explosive. Any women could have told the men she meant her husband was handsome arm candy ... sheesh.
I'm no Obama fan, but questioning that remark was a stupid as some of the crud they throw at Hillary.
Posted by: Jamie
| April 9, 2008 8:03 PM
sorry to disappoint you Warren but I will no longer watch msnbc.Today I worked in greenhouse and my husband watches westerns and old sit coms.He hates watching election shows.They say the same thing all day long.
Ruth
Posted by: painter
| April 9, 2008 8:06 PM
I just heard that Glen Beck had a new tape of another Obama/Pastor James Meeks. It maybe the same one on this link.
http://www.chicagopride.com/news/article.cfm/articleid/5603104
The Chicago SunTimes story bacxk in 2004
http://www.suntimes.com/news/falsani/726619,obamafalsani040504.article
Posted by: vadaryl
| April 9, 2008 8:07 PM
Jamie.I agree. I thought the Michelle Obama remark was kind of funny.
I'm just glad she is o.k..I thoght they had her locked in a basement someplace.
Posted by: Oregon Democrat | April 9, 2008 8:08 PM
Warren,
I'm not sure where Chomsky came up. He defends Iran and even excuses their push for nukes as a just reaction to American domination. He should have stuck to structuralism in linguistics. Obama has tried hard to counter his associations by now rejecting negotiations with Hamas as Carter prepares another embarrassing mission. His last to Darfur led to nothing more than Carter's declaration that genocide has not happened. Thanks Jimmy. I know now what really is happening in Darfur.
I listen to my heart and I know Hillary and Bill really stand to defend Israel and believe in the benign hegemony of Liberal Democray. So did JFK and RFK, Obama has said far too much for me to believe him. He is not 1/100 th the speaker or writer MLK was. Add Pelosi and crew and you have a serious crapfest. On the other side you had another crapfest form Delay to Cheney, Independents are in between the crapfests wondering which candidate will resurrect the middle. Hillary exaggerates, Obama is a phony and McCain wants to channel Reagan.
If Obama wins he will head into a storm. The general will be uglier than the primary and even if he wins, his position will be so under fire the next four years will make Carter's term a picnic. The Media having elevated a Black man into office will assualt his policies and blame the coming storm on him. Is this good for America? No. Conservatives actually think this scenario will give them new fire for 2012. Most didn't expect 2008 to be close.
No Warren, Znet blasted Chomsky and called him a traitor for not believing the truthers. He wasn't radical emough. Many of these "Independents" are for Obama. The Reagan Democrats will likely vote McCain as will a surprising number of Jews and Hispanics. By election time, Obama's phoniness will be replayed in attack ads, his smuggness will wear thin and the divisiveness his campaign has brought will turn the high road into another crapfest.
The question will be: Do you trust Pelosi/Dean/Durbin/Teddy crowd pulling the strings of an Obama in Chief? Under fire, Obama will need the DNC. America will have proved it can elect a black man and the dam will begin to burst. Iran's centrifuges will be spinning, Chavez will find a way not to leave, Russian subs will vist Caracas, Hizb'Allah will insitgate a war and Obama will not hold the center because his base, his advisors, his most ardent supporters are not center. This will be another lost four years and a further erosion of American leadership. So how far do we have to fall before it's too hard to get up?
Let's see who is invited to the swearing in if Obama wins. That will tell you hard far we will fall.
Posted by: Maxtrue | April 9, 2008 8:09 PM
here is glen's link
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/8564/
Posted by: vadaryl
| April 9, 2008 8:13 PM
this morning I watched abc.and probably will watch Charlie Gibson again like I used to.A friend of mine still watches all the cable news shows and she is angry all the time.Even devloped high blood pressure.I amm so much calmer myself now that I turned off the tv..I get info here and on other sites and at least here the opinions are pretty equally divided.And you know where everyone stands.
Ruth
Posted by: painter
| April 9, 2008 8:15 PM
A non-political quewtion..
Is Great Harvest Bread all over the country or is it a West Coast thing? Thanks
Posted by: Oregon Democrat | April 9, 2008 8:15 PM
A west coast Thing and I miss it!
The equal here is Arnold's
Posted by: Chef Sheila Hussein The Nun
| April 9, 2008 8:17 PM
West Virginia then....Pogo's there ;0)
Posted by: Chef Sheila Hussein The Nun
| April 9, 2008 8:22 PM
Like to see if this Meeks story affects the next set of polls.
Posted by: vadaryl
| April 9, 2008 8:22 PM
I've quit watching Hardball and Keith O...One good thing about this site is that people alert you about who is on these shows.
I'll watch the re=run later to see Elizabeth Edwards. I loke her.I hope her health is good. Whether she lives 1 or 40 years, she will continue the good fight for the entire period..
Posted by: Oregon Democrat | April 9, 2008 8:23 PM
Each day the polls seem to go up and down. The undecided numbers go down each time. That's the numbers to watch, but interesting that they are so high this late in the season.
Posted by: vadaryl
| April 9, 2008 8:24 PM
Max;
I don't think you will have to worry about 4 more wasted years with Obama bevause I dont think he will beat McCain if he gets nomination
And as far as a firewall,she doesn't need one because Obama won't have the necessary delegates to get nomination so it will go to the convention.I thought that is why we have conventions.To select a nominee.
And all the crying about how Hillary is making it hard for Obama.He is the one that got in the race and made it hard for her.Hillary was a sure thing and everyone knew with her the dems were going to win easy.Obama's the one that got in and made it a free for all which left it wide open for the republicans to have a chance and now it looks like they are going to win.
Ruth
Posted by: painter
| April 9, 2008 8:25 PM
I watched Mrs Edwards this morning on GMA.I thought she looked pretty good but if she was on tonight's show she may be tired.Must have had a long day
Ruth
Posted by: painter
| April 9, 2008 8:29 PM
Ruth,
Have faith and cheer up. I think no matter what we are going to win. Voting republican is just voting for the same and too many people are afraid and hurting to Vote for them again.
Besides. the moment someone wins the election, all the best leading strategists will be on side of the nom. No one is going to let the NOM lose.
Posted by: Chef Sheila Hussein The Nun
| April 9, 2008 8:30 PM
"So no predictions about where the next firewall for Clinton will be? "
The question presumes much.
Posted by: Patsi
| April 9, 2008 8:33 PM
"will need a new word to use WHEN Obama is nominated"
Nope. We will just call them racists.
And remember peeps - hate the racisim - not the racist.
Posted by: warren
| April 9, 2008 8:51 PM
b
Posted by: painter
| April 9, 2008 8:52 PM
KO just gigged Joe Lieberman as Worst Person for failing to reveal that the crash of his election site was the fault of his people not Lamont even though the info was known the week before the election.
Does this mean KO will now take back all his outrage at Sen Clinton on two separate stories that have since been proven false.
Posted by: Jamie
| April 9, 2008 8:54 PM
There he goes again..making predictions
Dewey Defeats Truman
Posted by: Oregon Democrat | April 9, 2008 8:55 PM
Ruth:
"They say the same thing all day long."
Ain't that the truth!
And your husband sounds like he has better taste than me. (Heck, I usually watch "Rock of Love" on VH1 - it doesn't get much worse than that!)
Posted by: warren
| April 9, 2008 8:56 PM
ABC's?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=466FSE9Gouk
Posted by: Corey
| April 9, 2008 9:00 PM
Warren,
He's watching the cubs now.See why I'm on pc
Ruth
Posted by: painter
| April 9, 2008 9:01 PM
Shelia you are playing identity politics. You can't say that McCain is Bush, not genetically nor ideologically. You want voters to blind themselves to the important differences but ignore the important difference sbetween Hillary and Obama. Khaldi is an old friend of Obama who he got money for and who held fund raisers for Obama. Now Obama says negotiating with Hamas is off the table. How is this believable as his buddy Carter is heading to Syria and his advisor Zbig already went there? This is such a phony spin it will ring in the general. You have a letter of support for Rezko who gave money to Obama and then this letter turned into a slum. You have many examples of Obama saying one thing and doing another. The accumulation of this crap has already produced some harsh numbers of a McCain Obama race. You have Wright and Meeks and a slew of items like a recent blast by Obama of a pro-Hamas article in the Trinity newsletter. Oh, Obama just read it? You have Goolsbee and Powers revealing what Obama is really up to. This isn't about exaggerating a trip to Bosnia, this is about deep ideology and conviction. How many times has Obama changes his tune on the amount of money Rezko gave him? He says he never met Auchi. Really? How can one candidate spend what will be months and months of refuting these sour implications that go to the heart of his message and character? He's getting blasted because he flip-flopped and pandered, surrounded himself with people like Ayers and Wright. His counters are weak, so weak they aren't counters for more than a news cycle.
You hope the Democrats come together and bury McCain, but you are asking them to forget the principle of honesty and the storm brewing outside. Obama tried to sink the Amnesty compromise. Stories don't consitute facts. In your heart you know Obama will not bring our troops back from Iraq faster than Hillary, unless he makes some bogus deal with Iran and places us in more danger down the road. And did you want your son to face an armed Saddam? Do you want other brave Americas to have to face the consequence of a Carter foreign policy than needs a Reagan to rescue in four years?
Iran has said just as bad things about Israel as Hamas has. Sudan murders Blacks and the French are asking the Marines to help get back their yacht in Somalia. We live in a very dangerous world, getting more dangerous each day. The right play would be from a united center and calling that Obama is a stretch. By election time a majority of Americans will see through the phony baloney. Every day Obama now counters with some centrist spin to stop the growing doubts. No one ever doubted Hillary would lead from the center. No one ever dounter she was more of a hawk and fire-proof.
Let's face it, Obama running was a poor judgment. He was a feather-weight trying to inflate his stature with words and political savy. He was going to market his way to the WH. There is no real history of bipartanism. His friends and mentors, advisors and supporters do not really show a centrist inclination. Obama is a guy who would lift just about any speech to play on identy politics. His singular thrust is NOT BUSH and that he can unite. Is this really a uniting campaign Shelia? Really?
Now how many friends will Obama NOT invite to the swearing in? Doesn't that tell you something? And Obama's record is not really anti-gun? His position on Israel a recent attribute? His history in Illinois, bold? You can't run on just money, air and words, especially when the words change. Since Wright, all Obama has done is attack and put his fingers in a leaking boat. By November the boat will be swamped and don't expect enthusiasm from Hillary supporters who are well aware of the contradictions and phony baloney.
Posted by: Maxtrue | April 9, 2008 9:05 PM
OD:
"Elizabeth Edwards. I like her.I hope her health is good. Whether she lives 1 or 40 years, she will continue the good fight for the entire period."
I think she will continue to inspire people even after that. She is a nice lady...and tough too!
Posted by: warren
| April 9, 2008 9:06 PM
Off to Portland for a little Hillary campaigning..
Posted by: Oregon Democrat | April 9, 2008 9:08 PM
off to yahoo to play mahjong.Won't be able to check this site for a couple days.Will have to go to bed early tomorrow ,have to drive to Chicago at 3:a.m..Son has to have back surgery and my 16 year old grandson will be driving.Please say a prayer for the driver.I hate traveling in that city.Will check back here before I sign off tonight
Ruth
Posted by: painter
| April 9, 2008 9:09 PM
The Cubs...
They are overdue. I used to watch them back in the day since WGN always had on baseball. The day games were great. I like Andre Dawson.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_Dawson#Chicago_Years
(hey look at that! He is from FL...I knew I liked that guy.)
Posted by: warren
| April 9, 2008 9:14 PM
Max,
Bottom line for most of us, is that we don't want anything to do with the republicans. Had it, Been There, Got the Badge.
Cry Wolf all you want, but you may never see a McCain White House.
We are circling the wagons in unity. ;0)
Posted by: Chef Sheila Hussein The Nun
| April 9, 2008 9:14 PM
"We are circling the wagons in unity. ;0)"
I'll vote Democratic, unlike many on here haven't in the past, but I won't be circling His Holiness's wagon or trying to climb on Joshua's bus.
Posted by: Patsi
| April 9, 2008 9:38 PM
Max:
The reason we need to talk to Iran is because they are Iraq's neighbor.
(btw, nukes)
Max - are you in love with Julia Roberts cause you sound like Mel Gibson in "Conspiracy Theory"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118883/
(Hah! That is good. The movie description: "Jerry Fletcher is a man who sees conspiracies everywhere. But if you keep doing that long enough, sooner or later you're going to get one right...")
Bingo Max!!!!!! I get it. Obama is an Al Queda operative who has been in deep cover. Back even before tensions were high - bin Laden found some black kid in Kansas to fulfill his master plan. Training the the madrasas - young Barack Hussein Obama was trained in the arts of bamboozling the crackers. The Saudis then paid his way for Harvard Law School and the fix was in for the Law Review. Then - "they" told him the Iraq was gonna be a bad idea - so he should oppose it from the outset.
Now - he can take over America AND...do what. Get people interested in politics again. Get people in Washington to start working WITH each other again - instead of against each other. Damn you bin Laden - what have you done to our Country!!!!???!!!)
The truth is that Bush's arrogant and destructive Foreign Policy plays right into the terrorists hands.
What do you think the terrorists want us to do?
-Continue to wage war in Iraq and perhaps set down a colony. That strategy strains our military and is the best recruiting and propoganda tool the terrorists have. Do you think Al Jezeera is fair and balanced when in comes to Bush and Co? (And can you imagine how much deep-seaded animosity is built up with each "civilian casualty".)
OR
-Create a coalition to improve the circumstances on the ground in Iraq. Through reconstruction and addressing the refugee crisis. (Not by killing more people.). And as peace and prosperity increase - the number of people that want to blow themselves up decreases.
(Like Adam Smith and "The Invisible Hand")
Posted by: warren
| April 9, 2008 9:38 PM
"The reason we need to talk to Iran is because they are Iraq's neighbor.
(btw, nukes)"
Oh my God!! I had NO idea you were such a foreign policy expert. Thanks for this info!!!!!!!
Posted by: Patsi
| April 9, 2008 9:47 PM
Patsi:
I was talking to Max!!
(high-five@ Sheila ; )
Posted by: warren
| April 9, 2008 9:54 PM
Argentinean tonight.
(there is a reason I don't cook in NYC...its called menupages.com)
Posted by: warren
| April 9, 2008 9:56 PM
Meanwhile, Obamamaniacs....you seem to overlook that the most important question about Iraq was only asked by Hillary Clinton: what about Bush's "treaty"????? Obama doesn't seem to grasp the importance of this situation.
Posted by: Patsi
| April 9, 2008 10:01 PM
"Republican Sen. John McCain refused Wednesday to rule out a pre-emptive war against another country, although he said one would be very unlikely."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080410/ap_on_el_pr/mccain
Unlikely because the state of the world is so splendid? Or because you would rather we not think about that?
Posted by: warren
| April 9, 2008 10:02 PM
x
Posted by: painter
| April 9, 2008 10:05 PM
Buenos Aires
(guess they didn't get a marketing team...but then again - simple works.)
Posted by: warren
| April 9, 2008 10:08 PM
Damn Patsi. I missed it. Someone MUST do something for HRC. Like I haven't heard that before.
And like Bush is going to abide by any agreement. It is political grandstanding.
Articulating a different policy is the only way to change something. Criticism is only the start (although some people seem to think critique is an end unto itself....)
Posted by: warren
| April 9, 2008 10:12 PM
Time to watch some "Ultimate Fighter"!
(i told you I watch some bad TV)
Posted by: warren
| April 9, 2008 10:16 PM
"Damn Patsi. I missed it. Someone MUST do something for HRC. Like I haven't heard that before.
And like Bush is going to abide by any agreement. It is political grandstanding."
You don't even know what I'm talking about, do you?
Posted by: Patsi
| April 9, 2008 10:18 PM
Yes I do Pasti. I heard Jim Webb discuss it in detail.
Posted by: warren
| April 9, 2008 10:30 PM
Warren,
First to clear up some confusion.
1. When you mentioned Chomsky I hadn't noticed that the link I posted was by ELI CHOMSKY. At first I thought you were talking about NORM CHOMSKY, hense my words about NORM.
2. Then when you quoted ELI, at first, I thought that maybe NORM had written that article and I responded in defending who I thought was NORM...LOL Of course, NORM would never say those things and I realized the article had in fact, been written by ELI. So I hope that clears up my response. I;m sure Chomsky would vote for Obama.
Now to your last comment., that is just plain foolish.
1. There was good reason to remove Saddam and he was not like most dictators. He was actually producing the WMD spiral that first caused Iran to start building nukes. Sorry to say it was not because of Bush. Their program started long before Bush. You may see soon that Saddam did move components of his nuclear WMD programs to Syria.
2. Hilter was a neighbor of Poland and talking did little good. There is ample evidence that Iran is helping to destabilize Iraq and because Iran is also supporting terror elsewhere and attempting to get nukes, it is not a good idea to elevate the most hated nation on the planet with direct high level ralks. We have talked to them about Iraq and it has done marginal good.
3. No one said Obama is an AQ spy, that is your absurd deflection. Then you furtther deflect with your lame sarcasm about Obama being OBL Manchurian candidate when his programing is far more local. Carter wasn't a plant by OBL any more than Obama is. They both reflect however, misguided and rather Leftist thinking in solving the Middle East problems. The Democrats have traditionally REJECTED negotiating with terrorists that NORM CHOMSKY would prefer us to bargin with. The Mullahs are quite a different breed than the Soviets who were far more Western and rational.
You end with a strange mixture of fiction and fantasy. Let's be historically honest, shall we? Bush removed the Taliban from Afghanistan's government by working with the Northern Alliance, not sending in hundreds of thousands of US troops. The present failures there are largely due to NATO's lack of effort (and the world I might add). Bush got Pakistan and India to pull back and the worst AQ heads were delivered by Musharraf who escaped three attempts on his life. Clinton didn't dater invade Afghanistan because of Pakistan's opposition while Carter bribed the ruler of Pakistan to create OBL in the first place after Zbig baited the Russians into Afghanistan.
Our invasion of Iraq turned Gadafi's WMD programs off and caused a slow down in Iran's. We removed Saddam and at the moment the Kurds and Sunnis along with many Shia are attempting to restore a more Democratic and stable Iraq. Again, the world isn't helping much as most international arms sellers make Iraq their favorite spot. The US helped to remove extremists from Somalia, push for peacekeepers in Darfur and helped promote Western Democracy in Russia's former vassels. Bush gave more to Africa than any US president. We have held firm in defending Japan giving them missile defense against the NK. In addition, we have NK back to negotiating while defending pro-Wesren leaders in Lebanon despite by Syria trying to kill them.
Our support of Israel has checked Hamas and Hizb'Allah. Your characterization of Bush is wrong and partisan though there is ample evidence of incompetence which has hurt our reputation, cost money and precious lives. While war is nasty stuff, incompetence without accountability is bad stuff. So the centered line would be to admit the successes of Bush policy and object to the mistakes. One does not need to be partisan to evaluate what has happened. It is far from your description. Sorry to burst the bubble.
Then you close out in fantasy, thinking any of the things you mention can be acheieved in the absence of security. Negotiations and improvement happen when there is sufficent security. That is reality. If we pull security then nothing good happens. Do you understand this?
Nothing we do ever has zero negative consequences. The idea is to limit the negatives. The major problem with Obama/Carter is that the consequences of their policy would be more negative consequences. I want to remind you that Obama still says we have the right to take out Iranian nukes as a last resort. The question is how we get adversaries to compromise without our changing NSS goal lines. Taliking requires security and tangible rewards for the US. Since Iran is unwilling to offer anything despite many rewards, what is the point? We removed their worst foe east AND west of them. We offered them a reactor. They have refused to end support of terror groups or stop their enrichment while threatening Israel and teaching their children to hate Jews and Americans. Imagine JFK proposing talking as the central pillar of his foreign policy...LOL
So Warren, get your history and facts straight. It is one thing to blast incompetence or timing based on political considerations. It is quite different and wrong to dump the whole thrust of policy everywhere and offer fantasy and specualtion as an alternative. Reformation of Islam, the containing of extremism and termination of terrorists requires realism and determination. Nothing will ever get done without that drive and threat of intervention. Our adversaries find retreat a sign of weakeness and unfortuantely, our allies have not shown much desire to bear the burdens to secure Liberal Democracy. We can have misguided and embarrassing returns to Carter-like foreing policy and we can have more incompetence. The best course would be competent, strong and clever strategies with confidence and clarity of principle.
Eli is right that Obama has not shown that. Hillary is much closer to the mark. Obama is playing to the masses yet we should remember how lonely yet right Adams was. Had Jefferson been the second President, things might be worse for America. We need a leader who can navigate between the ideologies, instead of Obama who bounces back and forth between NeoLiberalism and the pretense of centrism. It is getting quite transparent and the signal it sends is not a good one, neither for ourselves of for Liberal Democracy and human rights.
Posted by: Maxtrue | April 9, 2008 10:43 PM
Or maybe that's why some of us ain't sick.
Posted by: Patsi
| April 9, 2008 10:59 PM
Webb is after the hearings. He would be formidable in the debates. He would put Crist to shame.
Plus, he puts VA in play.
(Richardson may get tripped a bit since he is not so much of a politician. Keep him in the back rooms and talking to the "bad guys" - you know the ones that have Max so paranoid ; ).
Posted by: warren
| April 9, 2008 11:17 PM
Max:
I sure as hell didn't say Bush is the reason why Iraq was going after nukes. I understand that every country that reaches a certain GDP will go after nukes. Not because of Bush - but because of power (and I am not talking about the stuff that keeps the lights on).
We might be able to have an intelligent conversation if you would quit twisting my words and finding a "slant" that just isn't there...
Posted by: warren
| April 9, 2008 11:21 PM
And I don't think you paranoid to think some weapons were taken out of Iraq - or at least hidden within its own borders.
Posted by: warren
| April 9, 2008 11:25 PM
Webb is tougher than any potential VP I have heard discussed for McCain.
(Except for maybe Condy - but I think doing that would seem to much like pandering - as well as allowing the Democrats to pick your VP.)
The only reason Crist is the front runner in my mind is because he actually did something tangible for McCain in FL - can't say that about any of the other names being bandied about. Plus, FL is a key state for the general.
Posted by: warren
| April 9, 2008 11:29 PM
Max:
"Iran is also supporting terror elsewhere and attempting to get nukes, it is not a good idea to elevate the most hated nation on the planet with direct high level ralks."
Not a good idea to elevate the most hated nation on the planet...hmmm. And what do you think the Bush Doctrine is doing.
This idea that other Soveriegn Nations of the world must earn our respect or acquiesce to our demands (or genuflect at the sign of a lapel pin) is horseshit. And it is also VERY un-American.
We are the Country of the everyman brother. Not some holier-than-thou dictator.
Not talking to Iran is one thing. But making them Public Enemy No. 1 elevates their power amongst our growing list of enemies.
And Bush engages in grandstanding just like his doppleganger over there - Akmadeenajad (sp?).
"We have talked to them about Iraq and it has done marginal good."
Like I said. Nothing much can get done under Bush. His credibility is shot.
Posted by: warren
| April 9, 2008 11:39 PM
Sturgeon, Jamie & others who answered my question on Libby's commutation vs. pardon all those hours ago,
Thank you.
Jamie suggested I contact the paper regarding their error. It's Chris Matthews' home town paper, expecting accuracy from them would be setting the bar too high.
Posted by: EdVB
| April 9, 2008 11:48 PM
Obama said a boycott "should be firmly on the table," but that a decision should be made closer to the Games.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080410/ap_on_el_pr/candidates_olympics
At least he left a door open. The Chinese will get their act together. They don't want to fuck this thing up.
And if world leaders boycott the opening ceremonies - it is fucked.
(Did people really enjoy the Cold War that much?)
Posted by: warren
| April 10, 2008 12:04 AM
Yes it is.
Terrorists: Non-state actors who are targeting civilians.
And any country that sees the effects of terrorism first hand - is willing to join in that fight.
Some dictators may be terrorize - but most terrorists are not dictators. And it is the latter category that we should be focused on. The ole "drain the swamp" theory.
When you publicly go after dictators who employ terror to maintain authority - you only fan the flames of the nationalism that is keeping him or her in power.
(Instead of the Iranians rising against their own corrupt and mis-guided govt - we galvanize support because we change the dynamic to Iran vs. the US - and which side do you think most Iranians are taking....)
Posted by: warren
| April 10, 2008 12:31 AM
Well - Hillary's Iran vote would certainly lay some pipe for that.
Webb brough up a good point about the different tone between the Armed Services Comm. as compared to the hearing conducted by Foreign Relations Comm., which was of course chaired by the grand poo-ba Mr. Joe Biden.
Posted by: warren
| April 10, 2008 12:45 AM
I am off to watch Charlie (and Lucy is gonna want to go out once she wakes up).
But one more quick thought. But it involves giving W the benefit of the doubt (so brace yourselves).
I think Bush is much less xenophobic that many of his supporters. And by supporters - I am including plenty of law makers in with Middle America.
I actually think Bush is a "true believer" - even though Cheney and Rumsfield were obviously cynics. I don't think Bush went into Iraq for oil or whatever. I think it was a mis-guided and impatient stab at "glory".
Bush actually believed he would be able to turn Iraq into the United Arab Emirates before the end of his second term.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Arab_Emirates
And "we would be greeted at liberators". (And maybe even get one a dem fancy ho-tel rooms they have over der in the United Ahab Emerts!!)
(And you are out of your mind if you think Obama is as naive or as dense as our current Commander in Chief. Someone ask Wolfson if Bush has passed the test yet....)
Thank you and good night.
Posted by: warren
| April 10, 2008 12:59 AM
John F. Burns just sold me on "the surge".
"Stay the course" Bush. And don't veer of into Iran (no matter what that Dick says!).
And that was a heavy charge Keith-O leveled on ole Joey-boy. Talk about the politics of "distraction."
(Plus, Lieberman reminds me of Senator Palpatine ; )
http://www.starwars.com/databank/character/palpatine/
Hah! Even parts of the write up are similar (at least about as much as a horoscope contained in the NY Post)
Posted by: warren
| April 10, 2008 2:17 AM
RCP average..Hillary is rebuilding her Pennsylvania lead. You wouldn't know it from the Church of Obama press coverage.
Posted by: Oregon Democrat | April 10, 2008 4:08 AM
by the way.........it's NOAM Chomsky.......not Norm......
Posted by: sturgeone | April 10, 2008 5:48 AM
Norm is the guy on "Cheers"
Posted by: sturgeone | April 10, 2008 5:57 AM
Post A Comment