Hi Friends: This blog is only periodically active. However, I write nearly every day on two other blogs: http://stevemaloneygop.blogspot.com and http://draftpalin2012.blogspot.com. I hope you'll visit both. The material below was sent out today to my e-mail list, and it mentions both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. Again, thanks to those of you who keep coming back here.
Artemis March is a excellent writer with great insight into the "Obama Phenomenon." She's been a staunch defender of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, although I admit her defense of the latter sounds much more plausible to me than her defense of the former. That aside, her pieces on the campaign and post-election period (in places like NoQuarter and The New Agenda) are very worth reading. She truly understands Obama's appeal -- and it scares her to death. She's worth googling. Her insights also contain the core of a strategy for defeating Obama in 2012 when, yes my friends, he will be running for re-election. :"The dog ate my birth certificate."
"Those caught up in his [Obama's] rhetoric feel like they are part of the "we," and that they are going to be part of something big and wonderful together. Others of us get an unsettling sense that even when he says "we," it's all about him, quite singular. We don't sense individuals in a crowd relating to him (as we do, for example, when Hillary Clinton speaks), but a fused entity lost in him. He is not offering to serve them or fight on their behalf. He is proclaiming that they can become part of him. Many of us get an eerie chill because this is the kind of messianic promise made by cult leaders, not politicians. She says:
"And that's just the beginning of the diametrically opposed reactions to Obama that have deeply divided feminists, progressives, and Democrats, and pitted friends, family members, co-workers, neighbors, networks, interest group members and officials, former political allies, as well as demographic groups against one another. One of the things that keeps us so divided is that his devotees and even many of his converts seem to know so little about him yet consistently reject information that does not fit with their trusting view of him. Many pour out unprecedented-for "progressives"-nastiness, misinformation, and hatred to demean Hillary Clinton and then Sarah Palin, and to intimidate and even threaten those who don't agree with them. Their bullying has dominated campuses, caucuses, and the convention as well as the blogosphere and media. "Truth squads" aim to silence anything but unqualified admiration.
"http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/11/16/anatomy-of-a-divider-part-1a-why-obama-cannot-unify/ [This piece and the related one are very worth reading]
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Monday, March 2, 2009
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Historic Obama-Palin Contest Coming
Is this the woman that will derail Obama's effort to be a two-term President? One hopes so.This particular blog came to an end after the election of Nov. 4, 2008, but I now am blogging regularly at two sites: http://draftpalin2012.blogspot.com/ and http://stevemaloneygop.blogspot.com/. Until Jan. 20, 2009 (Inauguration Day, I'll be cross-posting pieces at those two sites. Beginning with the presidency of President Barack Hussein Obama the columns on stevemaloneygop will deal with the Obama Administration. There will be approximately four columns per week, sometime more.
On the DraftPalin2012, I will be writing approximately five-six times per week. Almost all the columns will deal with Gov. Sarah Palin and her historic candidacy for the U.S. presidency. Yes, as the saying goes, "She's in it to win it."
I hope you'll all visit both sites regularly. Thanks for stopping by!
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Hillary Clinton's Actions: Disgraceful, Despicable
Let's see: during the Democratic Primaries, Obama branded both Clintons as racists -- and added that Mrs. Clinton was a warmonger and a liar. So, both of them are now wildly campaigning for their tormentor -- the man Mrs. Clinton labeled as no more than "a speech he gave in 2002." Yes, Barack Obama is an empty suit, but, well, he's also a Democrat.
I sent the following to one of "Hillary's" staunchest supporters -- a woman who, unlike her political "heroine" -- is now campaigning for McCain-Palin.
I would like to say that I think it's time you and other former Hillary Supporters step up to the plate and label her actions on behalf of Obama for what they are: disgraceful, despicable, and immoral. I realize Hillary's Supporters demand almost nothing from her, and she certainly lives down to their expectations.
If this is the real Hillary, she would make a terrible President. She's a weak person, easily intimidated and totally focused on her absurd "career." It is a career based totally on riding on the coattails of men with no respect for her -- Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.
John McCain and Sarah Palin have been completely respectful of her. In return, she's joined Barack Hussein Obama, Chicago politician, heaping garbage on them.
Clearly, she values Party over County, and that's not exactly a quality we want in a person that might occupy the White House.
I sent the following to one of "Hillary's" staunchest supporters -- a woman who, unlike her political "heroine" -- is now campaigning for McCain-Palin.
I would like to say that I think it's time you and other former Hillary Supporters step up to the plate and label her actions on behalf of Obama for what they are: disgraceful, despicable, and immoral. I realize Hillary's Supporters demand almost nothing from her, and she certainly lives down to their expectations.
If this is the real Hillary, she would make a terrible President. She's a weak person, easily intimidated and totally focused on her absurd "career." It is a career based totally on riding on the coattails of men with no respect for her -- Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.
John McCain and Sarah Palin have been completely respectful of her. In return, she's joined Barack Hussein Obama, Chicago politician, heaping garbage on them.
Clearly, she values Party over County, and that's not exactly a quality we want in a person that might occupy the White House.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Obama Campaign: Band of Thugs
Michael BaroneSaturday, October 11, 2008
"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors," Barack Obama told a crowd in Elko, Nev. "I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face." Actually, Obama supporters are doing a lot more than getting into people's faces. They seem determined to shut people up.
That's what Obama supporters, alerted by campaign emails, did when conservative Stanley Kurtz appeared on Milt Rosenberg's WGN radio program in Chicago. Kurtz had been researching Obama's relationship with unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers in Chicago Annenberg Challenge papers in the Richard J. Daley Library in Chicago -- papers that were closed off to him for some days, apparently at the behest of Obama supporters.
Obama fans jammed WGN's phone lines and sent in hundreds of protest emails. The message was clear to anyone who would follow Rosenberg's example. We will make trouble for you if you let anyone make the case against The One.
Other Obama supporters have threatened critics with criminal prosecution. In September, St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce warned citizens that they would bring criminal libel prosecutions against anyone who made statements against Obama that were "false." I had been under the impression that the Alien and Sedition Acts had gone out of existence in 1801-02. Not so, apparently, in metropolitan St. Louis. Similarly, the Obama campaign called for a criminal investigation of the American Issues Project when it ran ads highlighting Obama's ties to Ayers.
These attempts to shut down political speech have become routine for liberals.
Congressional Democrats sought to reimpose the "fairness doctrine" on broadcasters, which until it was repealed in the 1980s required equal time for different points of view. The motive was plain: to shut down the one conservative-leaning communications medium, talk radio. Liberal talk-show hosts have mostly failed to draw audiences, and many liberals can't abide having citizens hear contrary views.
To their credit, some liberal old-timers -- like House Appropriations Chairman David Obey -- voted against the "fairness doctrine," in line with their longstanding support of free speech. But you can expect the "fairness doctrine" to get another vote if Barack Obama wins and Democrats increase their congressional majorities.
Corporate liberals have done their share in shutting down anti-liberal speech, too. "Saturday Night Live" ran a spoof of the financial crisis that skewered Democrats like House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank and liberal contributors Herbert and Marion Sandler, who sold toxic-waste-filled Golden West to Wachovia Bank for $24 billion. Kind of surprising, but not for long. The tape of the broadcast disappeared from NBC's Website and was replaced with another that omitted the references to Frank and the Sandlers. Evidently NBC and its parent, General Electric, don't want people to hear speech that attacks liberals.
Then there's the Democrats' "card check" legislation, which would abolish secret ballot elections in determining whether employees are represented by unions. The unions' strategy is obvious: Send a few thugs over to employees' homes -- we know where you live -- and get them to sign cards that will trigger a union victory without giving employers a chance to be heard.
Once upon a time, liberals prided themselves, with considerable reason, as the staunchest defenders of free speech. Union organizers in the 1930s and 1940s made the case that they should have access to employees to speak freely to them, and union leaders like George Meany and Walter Reuther were ardent defenders of the First Amendment.
Today's liberals seem to be taking their marching orders from other quarters. Specifically, from the college and university campuses where administrators, armed with speech codes, have for years been disciplining and subjecting to sensitivity training any students who dare to utter thoughts that liberals find offensive. The campuses that used to pride themselves as zones of free expression are now the least free part of our society.
Obama supporters who found the campuses congenial and Obama himself, who has chosen to live all his adult life in university communities, seem to find it entirely natural to suppress speech that they don't like and seem utterly oblivious to claims that this violates the letter and spirit of the First Amendment. In this campaign, we have seen the coming of the Obama thugocracy, suppressing free speech, and we may see its flourishing in the four or eight years ahead.
Source: http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelBarone/2008/10/11/the_coming_obama_thugocracy
"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors," Barack Obama told a crowd in Elko, Nev. "I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face." Actually, Obama supporters are doing a lot more than getting into people's faces. They seem determined to shut people up.
That's what Obama supporters, alerted by campaign emails, did when conservative Stanley Kurtz appeared on Milt Rosenberg's WGN radio program in Chicago. Kurtz had been researching Obama's relationship with unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers in Chicago Annenberg Challenge papers in the Richard J. Daley Library in Chicago -- papers that were closed off to him for some days, apparently at the behest of Obama supporters.
Obama fans jammed WGN's phone lines and sent in hundreds of protest emails. The message was clear to anyone who would follow Rosenberg's example. We will make trouble for you if you let anyone make the case against The One.
Other Obama supporters have threatened critics with criminal prosecution. In September, St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce warned citizens that they would bring criminal libel prosecutions against anyone who made statements against Obama that were "false." I had been under the impression that the Alien and Sedition Acts had gone out of existence in 1801-02. Not so, apparently, in metropolitan St. Louis. Similarly, the Obama campaign called for a criminal investigation of the American Issues Project when it ran ads highlighting Obama's ties to Ayers.
These attempts to shut down political speech have become routine for liberals.
Congressional Democrats sought to reimpose the "fairness doctrine" on broadcasters, which until it was repealed in the 1980s required equal time for different points of view. The motive was plain: to shut down the one conservative-leaning communications medium, talk radio. Liberal talk-show hosts have mostly failed to draw audiences, and many liberals can't abide having citizens hear contrary views.
To their credit, some liberal old-timers -- like House Appropriations Chairman David Obey -- voted against the "fairness doctrine," in line with their longstanding support of free speech. But you can expect the "fairness doctrine" to get another vote if Barack Obama wins and Democrats increase their congressional majorities.
Corporate liberals have done their share in shutting down anti-liberal speech, too. "Saturday Night Live" ran a spoof of the financial crisis that skewered Democrats like House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank and liberal contributors Herbert and Marion Sandler, who sold toxic-waste-filled Golden West to Wachovia Bank for $24 billion. Kind of surprising, but not for long. The tape of the broadcast disappeared from NBC's Website and was replaced with another that omitted the references to Frank and the Sandlers. Evidently NBC and its parent, General Electric, don't want people to hear speech that attacks liberals.
Then there's the Democrats' "card check" legislation, which would abolish secret ballot elections in determining whether employees are represented by unions. The unions' strategy is obvious: Send a few thugs over to employees' homes -- we know where you live -- and get them to sign cards that will trigger a union victory without giving employers a chance to be heard.
Once upon a time, liberals prided themselves, with considerable reason, as the staunchest defenders of free speech. Union organizers in the 1930s and 1940s made the case that they should have access to employees to speak freely to them, and union leaders like George Meany and Walter Reuther were ardent defenders of the First Amendment.
Today's liberals seem to be taking their marching orders from other quarters. Specifically, from the college and university campuses where administrators, armed with speech codes, have for years been disciplining and subjecting to sensitivity training any students who dare to utter thoughts that liberals find offensive. The campuses that used to pride themselves as zones of free expression are now the least free part of our society.
Obama supporters who found the campuses congenial and Obama himself, who has chosen to live all his adult life in university communities, seem to find it entirely natural to suppress speech that they don't like and seem utterly oblivious to claims that this violates the letter and spirit of the First Amendment. In this campaign, we have seen the coming of the Obama thugocracy, suppressing free speech, and we may see its flourishing in the four or eight years ahead.
Source: http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelBarone/2008/10/11/the_coming_obama_thugocracy
Friday, October 3, 2008
Did Obama Threaten Hillary Clinton?
Note: If you want to buy a tee-shirt celebrating a real woman, Gov. Saah Palin, you can do so by clicking on the "Vote Bitter" image to your right. Put in the promo code of: steve
Obama dumps a load of dung on Hillary Clinton. She responds by endorsing him.
Obama dumps a load of dung on Hillary Clinton. She responds by endorsing him.
For the past several months, since the end of the Democratic primaries, I've been watching Hillary Clinton -- a heroine to some -- with a mixture of dismay and disgust. She has been enthusiastically endorsing the man, Barack Obama, who branded her as a warmonger, a liar, and a racist.
It's really shameful. But it's also the continuation of a pattern. For 30-years plus she's been in a marriage of convenience with a man who's a chronic adulterer. Frankly, that is a form of abuse and a source of continuing humuliation. I'm not a psychiatrist, but somehow Mrs. Clinton seems to feel that humiliation by men is her due. Some people won't like my saying that, but in fact it's rather obviously true.
Mrs. Clinton endorses Obama for much the same reason that she stayed with Bill Clinton, her permanent abuser. In some part of her being, she expects powerful men to mistreat her, and in that regard, they don't let her down.
If she had divorced Bill, that would ended her chances for the presidency -- and probably even for the Senate. She hangs around to get ahead. She's become a professional rider of Bill's coattails, a woman who seems to have no life of her own.
Hillary is one of those sad political cases who believes "there's no life outside the Beltway." For her, that absurd belief just may be true, if we can call what she has "a life."
A friend of mine -- a good friend -- from Texas has tried to explain Hillary's behavior this way: "They [Obama? his minions? the Chicago boys?] threatened her. They threatened her daughter [Chelsea]. They even threatened her mother!"
I don't buy it. How does anyone threaten former First Lady, one under constant Secret Service protection? When HRC takes a shower, there's someone outside the bathroom, listening to make sure she doesn't fall. I don't believe for a minute that anyone threatened her. I believe she does what she does because she's a weak human being.
She obviously values her Party over her Country. She obviously values her career over any character she may once have had. She's a sad spectacle. She doesn't deserve to be President. She doesn't even deserve to be a U.S. Senator.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Hillary Clinton as Abused Woman:
For the past several months, since the end of the Democratic primaries, I've been watching Hillary Clinton -- a heroine to some -- with a mixture of dismay and disgust. She has been enthusiastically endorsing the man, Barack Obama, who branded her as a warmonger, a liar, and a racist. It's really shameful. But it's also the continuation of a pattern. For 30-years plus she's been in a marriage of convenience with a man who's a chronic adulterer. Frankly, that is a form of abuse and a source of continuing humuliation. I'm not a psychiatrist, but somehow Mrs. Clinton seems to feel that humiliation by men is her due. Some people won't like my saying that, but in fact it's rather obviously true. Mrs. Clinton endorses Obama for much the same reason that she stayed with Bill Clinton, her permanent abuser. In some part of her being, she expects powerful men to mistreat her, and in that regard, they don't let her down. If she had divorced Bill, that would ended her chances for the presidency -- and probably even for the Senate. She hangs around to get ahead. She's become a professional rider of Bill's coattails, a woman who seems to have no life of her own. Hillary is one of those sad political cases who believes "there's no life outside the Beltway." For her, that absurd belief just may be true, if we can call what she has "a life."
[Comments Welcome]
http://votebitter.com/debate/vp/ Join us at the debate "watch party" Thursday night by clicking on the link above. My prediction? "Sarah will mop the floor with him."
"We've tried the military surge option before and it failed. If we try it again, it will fail again." (Joe Biden, December, 2006) As the banking industry's "main man in Washington," Biden has a heap of 'splaining to do.
[Comments Welcome]
http://votebitter.com/debate/vp/ Join us at the debate "watch party" Thursday night by clicking on the link above. My prediction? "Sarah will mop the floor with him."
"We've tried the military surge option before and it failed. If we try it again, it will fail again." (Joe Biden, December, 2006) As the banking industry's "main man in Washington," Biden has a heap of 'splaining to do.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
America's Economy? Basically, It's Fine
thanks to Mike Devine ("Gamecock" on Red State for acquainting me with the material below.) Recently, John McCain said America's economic "fundamentals are good." Of course, Barack Obama and his horde of know-nothings immediately rushed out with a commercial indicating that McCain must be clueless because he was not presenting the kind of hysterical message we were hearing on CNN and MSNBC.
As the article by Max Boot (an excerpt below) shows, what McCain said was factually (key word) correct. Of course, in the world of BHO and David Axelrod, little matters like truth count for nothing -- and demagoguery counts for everything.
Here's the link to Boot's profoundly important essay that appeared in the LA Times.http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-boot24-2008sep24,0,96527.storyThe following is an excerpt from the article:
"What the pessimists ignore is that the fundamentals of the U.S. economy remain strong. Indeed, the World Economic Forum has ranked the United States as the world's most competitive economy for the last two years. (The new survey comes out next month.) Its statistics show that per-capita gross domestic product in the U.S. consistently has grown faster than in other developed economies since 1980.
Looking deeper at the causes of American competitiveness shows that we score especially strongly not only in domestic market size (No. 1 in the world) but also in such areas as time required to start a business (No. 3), venture capital availability (No. 1), the cost of firing an employee (No. 1), ownership of personal computers (No. 2), university/industry research collaboration (No. 1) and quality of scientific research institutions (No. 2).
"The availability of venture capital might be affected temporarily by the market turmoil, and we should worry if Democrats gain control of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue in November because they might exacerbate what the survey found to be the two most "problematic" issues for doing business in the U.S. -- high tax rates and cumbersome tax regulations. [Note: Of course Obama wants to raise taxes and increase regulation.]
"But whatever happens in the next few months, most of the other advantages that have been powering the U.S. economy forward for decades will remain unchanged.
"So too will another vital statistic: population growth. According to federal statistics, the fertility rate in the U.S., where each woman has on average 2.1 children, is now the highest among major industrialized economies. We are above replacement level while Europe, Japan and other industrialized economies have long been beneath it.
That means that, even as our major competitors have to cope with graying populations, declining productivity and increasing pension costs, our population will remain relatively youthful and vibrant, notwithstanding the retirement of the baby boomers. This advantage is enhanced by our ability to attract and integrate hardworking immigrants from around the world."
Barack Obama, meet Max Boot.
Max Boot is a contributing editor to Opinion and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
As the article by Max Boot (an excerpt below) shows, what McCain said was factually (key word) correct. Of course, in the world of BHO and David Axelrod, little matters like truth count for nothing -- and demagoguery counts for everything.
Here's the link to Boot's profoundly important essay that appeared in the LA Times.http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-boot24-2008sep24,0,96527.storyThe following is an excerpt from the article:
"What the pessimists ignore is that the fundamentals of the U.S. economy remain strong. Indeed, the World Economic Forum has ranked the United States as the world's most competitive economy for the last two years. (The new survey comes out next month.) Its statistics show that per-capita gross domestic product in the U.S. consistently has grown faster than in other developed economies since 1980.
Looking deeper at the causes of American competitiveness shows that we score especially strongly not only in domestic market size (No. 1 in the world) but also in such areas as time required to start a business (No. 3), venture capital availability (No. 1), the cost of firing an employee (No. 1), ownership of personal computers (No. 2), university/industry research collaboration (No. 1) and quality of scientific research institutions (No. 2).
"The availability of venture capital might be affected temporarily by the market turmoil, and we should worry if Democrats gain control of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue in November because they might exacerbate what the survey found to be the two most "problematic" issues for doing business in the U.S. -- high tax rates and cumbersome tax regulations. [Note: Of course Obama wants to raise taxes and increase regulation.]
"But whatever happens in the next few months, most of the other advantages that have been powering the U.S. economy forward for decades will remain unchanged.
"So too will another vital statistic: population growth. According to federal statistics, the fertility rate in the U.S., where each woman has on average 2.1 children, is now the highest among major industrialized economies. We are above replacement level while Europe, Japan and other industrialized economies have long been beneath it.
That means that, even as our major competitors have to cope with graying populations, declining productivity and increasing pension costs, our population will remain relatively youthful and vibrant, notwithstanding the retirement of the baby boomers. This advantage is enhanced by our ability to attract and integrate hardworking immigrants from around the world."
Barack Obama, meet Max Boot.
Max Boot is a contributing editor to Opinion and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Obama Not Black? Plus Palins
Tomorrow I'll write about "Is Barack Obama Really Black?" The answer will surprise you. If he's elected, he will NOT be our "first Black President," much as he'd like you to think otherwise. Below, see how you can help Sarah and the Palin Family.
"We cling to our God . . . and our Children." Sarah, Todd, and Trig Palin
"We cling to our God . . . and our Children." Sarah, Todd, and Trig PalinNote: It's absolutely critical that all of us reach out to as many people as possible to indicate our support for John McCain and Sarah Palin. Here's how you can do so: Make Phone Calls from Home. . . Reaching out to undecided voters in your state. That's vital to spreading the word that John McCain and Governor Palin are the right choice for voters all across America. That's why we're asking you to take a few minutes or even a free evening to make calls for John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin. You can call your local McCain or GOP office and volunteer, or you can phone from home in your spare time. Visit www.JohnMcCain.com/PhoneBank to get started today.
If you'll scroll down to the prvious columns, you'll see why Bill Clinton has his fingers crossed -- and probably his toes -- when he says he supports Obama, the man whose campaign labeled the former President a racist.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
BILL CLINTON CAN'T ENDORSE OBAMA
Can Bill Clinton support Obama? He certainly can PRETEND to do so. But he's cant -- in good conscience -- support a man who although with his surrogates and media toadies labeled his wife a warmonger, a liar, and a racist. He especially can't endorse a man who, along with his top advisers, branded Bill Clinton himself a racist. Seemingly, just about anything is possible in politics, but some things that are possible are not plausible -- such as forgiving a former opponent for despicable conduct.
The following CNN story suggests why you should take with a grain of salt any suggestion of an endorsement of Obama by the Clintons. A man who plays the worst form of racial politics, Obama, should not be a serious candidate for President.
Bill Clinton: Obama camp 'played the race card on me'Posted: 10:27 AM ET
From CNN Political Producer Alexander Marquardt, CNN's Chris Welch
Former president Clinton campaigned for his wife in Pennsylvania recently.
(CNN) — On the eve of Tuesday’s critical Pennsylvania primary, former President Bill Clinton accused Barack Obama’s campaign of playing the race card against him.
After the phone interview with Delaware radio station WHYY Monday night, a stray comment of his on the issue was also recorded before he hung up: “I don’t think I should take any s*** from anybody on that, do you?”The former president had been asked whether his remarks comparing Obama’s strong showing in South Carolina to that of Jesse Jackson in 1988 had been a mistake given their impact on his wife Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
“No, I think that they played the race card on me,” said Clinton, “and we now know from memos from the campaign and everything that they planned to do it all along.”
“We were talking about South Carolina political history and this was used out of context and twisted for political purposes by the Obama campaign to try to breed resentment elsewhere. And you know, do I regret saying it? No. Do I regret that it was used that way? I certainly do. But you really got to go some to try to portray me as a racist.”
He added that the way Obama’s campaign had reacted was “disrespectful to Jesse Jackson” and that the former presidential candidate had told him he was not offended, and that “we all know what’s going on."
UPDATE: At a Pittsburgh press availability,
Obama was asked about Clinton's charge that his campaign had drawn up plans to use 'the race card.'“Hold on a second,’’ he said. “So former President Clinton dismissed my victory in South Carolina as being similar to Jesse Jackson and he is suggesting that somehow I had something to do with it? You better ask him what he meant by that. I have no idea what he meant. These were words that came out of his mouth. Not words that came out of mine.’
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/22/bill-clinton-obama-camp-played-t
The following CNN story suggests why you should take with a grain of salt any suggestion of an endorsement of Obama by the Clintons. A man who plays the worst form of racial politics, Obama, should not be a serious candidate for President.
Bill Clinton: Obama camp 'played the race card on me'Posted: 10:27 AM ET
From CNN Political Producer Alexander Marquardt, CNN's Chris Welch
Former president Clinton campaigned for his wife in Pennsylvania recently.
(CNN) — On the eve of Tuesday’s critical Pennsylvania primary, former President Bill Clinton accused Barack Obama’s campaign of playing the race card against him.
After the phone interview with Delaware radio station WHYY Monday night, a stray comment of his on the issue was also recorded before he hung up: “I don’t think I should take any s*** from anybody on that, do you?”The former president had been asked whether his remarks comparing Obama’s strong showing in South Carolina to that of Jesse Jackson in 1988 had been a mistake given their impact on his wife Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
“No, I think that they played the race card on me,” said Clinton, “and we now know from memos from the campaign and everything that they planned to do it all along.”
“We were talking about South Carolina political history and this was used out of context and twisted for political purposes by the Obama campaign to try to breed resentment elsewhere. And you know, do I regret saying it? No. Do I regret that it was used that way? I certainly do. But you really got to go some to try to portray me as a racist.”
He added that the way Obama’s campaign had reacted was “disrespectful to Jesse Jackson” and that the former presidential candidate had told him he was not offended, and that “we all know what’s going on."
UPDATE: At a Pittsburgh press availability,
Obama was asked about Clinton's charge that his campaign had drawn up plans to use 'the race card.'“Hold on a second,’’ he said. “So former President Clinton dismissed my victory in South Carolina as being similar to Jesse Jackson and he is suggesting that somehow I had something to do with it? You better ask him what he meant by that. I have no idea what he meant. These were words that came out of his mouth. Not words that came out of mine.’
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/22/bill-clinton-obama-camp-played-t
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Bill Clinton, Obama: Dark Hearts
Gov. Sarah Palin in red outline addresses huge crowd at Colorado Springs Airport.Sarah Palin, Hillary, and Biden
On the meeting between Bill Clinton and Barack Obama: Are we really to believe that the substance of the two men's discussion was Bill's advice that Barack use the same Mud Machine on Sarah Palin previously employed successfully against Hillary Clinton. That would be too cynical even for Beltway politics -- wouldn't it? Joseph Conrad wrote a novel about people's descent into evil -- "The Heart of Darkness" -- and both men should read it.
If you want to click above on "Sarah Palin, Hillary, and Biden" you can read more about the real possibility that Hillary Clinton will replace Joe Biden on the Democratic ticket. To use a mixed metaphor, check the tea leaves carefully (Biden's recent statements) -- and then see if something doesn't smell very fishy.
On the meeting between Bill Clinton and Barack Obama: Are we really to believe that the substance of the two men's discussion was Bill's advice that Barack use the same Mud Machine on Sarah Palin previously employed successfully against Hillary Clinton. That would be too cynical even for Beltway politics -- wouldn't it? Joseph Conrad wrote a novel about people's descent into evil -- "The Heart of Darkness" -- and both men should read it.
If you want to click above on "Sarah Palin, Hillary, and Biden" you can read more about the real possibility that Hillary Clinton will replace Joe Biden on the Democratic ticket. To use a mixed metaphor, check the tea leaves carefully (Biden's recent statements) -- and then see if something doesn't smell very fishy.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Shocker: Hillary to Replace Biden
Sarah Palin, America's most lovable "pit bull" -- lipstick no additional costThe column below (yesterday's) about Hillary Clinton replacing Joe Biden on the Democratic ticket is accurate. The column below (yesterday's) about Hillary Clinton replacing Joe Biden on the Democratic ticket is accurate. The information is coming from very knowledgable and patriotic Americans -- who are very fearful what damage an Obama presidency would do to their country.
If Mrs. Clinton accepts the V-P offer -- and it appears she will -- the damage to our nation's political system would be enormous. On a lesser plane, it could destroy her reputation.
In regard to the "Hillary V-P story," I've heard from several HUNDRED people, including some in the national media. In fact, I have nothing additional to say to them. As time goes on, however, I'll have plenty more to say to you -- and to individuals in the media who do not spend all their waking moments being cheerleaders for a deeply flawed candidate, Barack H. Obama.
How are the "PUMAs" reacting? Most of them are horrified -- and outraged. They have moved on from the Democrats' soap-opera. They believe they're being manipulated. Most of them love Gov. Palin and strongly support McCain-Palin. They don't want Hillary Clinton to commit the biggest mistake of her political career. They are no longer inclined to engage in endless rationalizations for her behavior -- and that of her husband.
Many still revere the Clintons, but they fear they've lost their minds.
We (Clintons4McCain, NoBama Mission, and other coaltion groups) know (as opposed to "believe") that the campaign of rumor, innuendo, and hatred directed against Gov. Sarah Heath Palin is orchestrated by Barack H. Obama and his minion David Axelrod. It's carried on by various extremist groups, including Moveon.org and Daily Kos. The Obama Campaign tells them what falsehoods and innuendoes to print, and they do it. All of these groups are paid -- directly or indirectly -- by Obama, Inc.
What on earth is going on in America? Please understand that far-left Obama Democrats truly believe "there is no life beyond the Beltway." That is of course ridiculous, but they do indeed accept it as an article of faith.
Many of them have huge personal fortunes (Kerry, Pelosi, Kennedy, Kohl, Lautenberg, Rockefeller, Feinstein, Clinton, and Edwards in his day), and they're willing to spend whatever it takes to retain their places in Congress.
The Obama Democrats have as their role model Sen. Robert Byrd of WV, a nine-term Senator, one with 50-plus years of so-called "service." You ask, service toward whom? And the sad answer is "service to himself and his Party." Sen. Byrd, now wearing adult diapers, doddering about the Senate floor, and frequently breaking into tears, is the ideal. He's expected to run for re-election.
His epitaph might read, "He outlasted everyone else." What did he do for his country? Not much. .
If Mrs. Clinton accepts the V-P offer -- and it appears she will -- the damage to our nation's political system would be enormous. On a lesser plane, it could destroy her reputation.
In regard to the "Hillary V-P story," I've heard from several HUNDRED people, including some in the national media. In fact, I have nothing additional to say to them. As time goes on, however, I'll have plenty more to say to you -- and to individuals in the media who do not spend all their waking moments being cheerleaders for a deeply flawed candidate, Barack H. Obama.
How are the "PUMAs" reacting? Most of them are horrified -- and outraged. They have moved on from the Democrats' soap-opera. They believe they're being manipulated. Most of them love Gov. Palin and strongly support McCain-Palin. They don't want Hillary Clinton to commit the biggest mistake of her political career. They are no longer inclined to engage in endless rationalizations for her behavior -- and that of her husband.
Many still revere the Clintons, but they fear they've lost their minds.
We (Clintons4McCain, NoBama Mission, and other coaltion groups) know (as opposed to "believe") that the campaign of rumor, innuendo, and hatred directed against Gov. Sarah Heath Palin is orchestrated by Barack H. Obama and his minion David Axelrod. It's carried on by various extremist groups, including Moveon.org and Daily Kos. The Obama Campaign tells them what falsehoods and innuendoes to print, and they do it. All of these groups are paid -- directly or indirectly -- by Obama, Inc.
What on earth is going on in America? Please understand that far-left Obama Democrats truly believe "there is no life beyond the Beltway." That is of course ridiculous, but they do indeed accept it as an article of faith.
Many of them have huge personal fortunes (Kerry, Pelosi, Kennedy, Kohl, Lautenberg, Rockefeller, Feinstein, Clinton, and Edwards in his day), and they're willing to spend whatever it takes to retain their places in Congress.
The Obama Democrats have as their role model Sen. Robert Byrd of WV, a nine-term Senator, one with 50-plus years of so-called "service." You ask, service toward whom? And the sad answer is "service to himself and his Party." Sen. Byrd, now wearing adult diapers, doddering about the Senate floor, and frequently breaking into tears, is the ideal. He's expected to run for re-election.
His epitaph might read, "He outlasted everyone else." What did he do for his country? Not much. .
Friday, September 12, 2008
Obama Dumps Biden, Chooses Hillary
The lady, Sarah Palin, who has scared the Dems into casting aside Biden and choosing Hillary as V-P. Are they desperate or are they desperate?Obama to name Hillary as V-P candidate as Biden gets unceremoniously dumped . . .
"I have a lifetime of experience. Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience. Senator Obama has a speech he delivered in 2002." (Hillary Rodham Clinton)
"I have a lifetime of experience. Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience. Senator Obama has a speech he delivered in 2002." (Hillary Rodham Clinton)
We have received information from sources high in the Democratic Party that, in a cynical, desperation move, Hillary Rodham Clinton will replace the hapless Joe Biden as V-P candidate on the floundering Obama ticket. I will send out more information on this within the next hour. Hillary Clinton has said that Barack H. Obama is not qualified to be Commander-in-Chief. He hasn't grown any more qualified presumably in the past few weeks. As the saying now goes, "It took a Republican woman [Sarah Palin] to have the Obama Dems name a woman to the ticket."
"Stand up! Stand up! And fight for what's right" (John McCain)
Much more information to follow later . . . On my blogs, I first broke the news that John McCain would name Sarah Palin as his running mate (scroll down to the columns two weeks ago today).
Monday, September 8, 2008
McCain, Palin Qualified, Obama UNQUALIFIED
Sarah Palin is the political "hurricane" from Alaska, and American politics will never be the same. She's the kind of national leader that comes along about once in a century -- and the Democrats believe they're finished if they and their media minions don't destroy her. They will not -- and cannot -- succeed. In the words of national columnist Jack Kelly, "Journalists last week cast aside the mask of objectivity to reveal they are so deeply in the tank for Mr. Obama [that] most have grown gills." (http://post-gazette.com/forum). Most MSM types hate Sarah Palin. Most Americans love her -- for obvious reasons.
John McCain, Sarah Palin, Bristol Palin, and America's favorite "special needs" child, Trig Paxson Palin. Unlike the American flags at the Obama Invesco Field nomination, the ones you see were NOT thrown in the trash.
I sincerely believe that on this blog and my others (stevemaloneygop and hillarysupportersformccain) you're going to find the very best insight and analysis about the McCain-Palin team and their opponents. I've been advocating for 18 months that Sarah Palin get a place on the ticket.
Is Sarah Palin qualified for the nation's highest offices? To determine the answer, please read the following opinion piece from the Miami Herald:
The following Herald piece is titled, "Candidate Obama is not qualified"
John McCain, Sarah Palin, Bristol Palin, and America's favorite "special needs" child, Trig Paxson Palin. Unlike the American flags at the Obama Invesco Field nomination, the ones you see were NOT thrown in the trash.If you scroll down to the post two Fridays ago, you'll see that this blog BROKE the story that John McCain would name Sarah Palin as his running mate. Frankly, I beat the MSM by 8 hours, since my story appeared at 2:30 a.m. I've explained how I knew it would happen and why I took the "risk" ("I hope I'm right," I said) of going with it. On that Fateful Friday, I had more blog visitors in ONE DAY than I'd had -- combined -- in the previous year.
I sincerely believe that on this blog and my others (stevemaloneygop and hillarysupportersformccain) you're going to find the very best insight and analysis about the McCain-Palin team and their opponents. I've been advocating for 18 months that Sarah Palin get a place on the ticket.
As this week unfolds, I'll be posting about many topics, including: (1) Why the MSM HATES Sarah Palin -- mainly because she's a normal American with tremendous capacity to upset Obama's apple cart; (2) Why voter intimidation by Obama thugs in the Black community is a national disgrace; and, (3) Why the McCain-Palin team has a chance to produce some dramatic -- and highly positive -- changes in American popular culture (briefly, Sarah is the kind of decent, caring person who can help turn around the "sliming of American society." )
Is Sarah Palin qualified for the nation's highest offices? To determine the answer, please read the following opinion piece from the Miami Herald:
The following Herald piece is titled, "Candidate Obama is not qualified"
Now that Barack Obama has selected Joe Biden as his vice presidential running mate and John McCain has tapped Sarah Palin as his, we know five definitive things about all four distinguished candidates:Three are qualified to be vice president; two as president;and one for neither position.
One: Obama picked Biden because of what he is not: white and experienced.
Two: McCain picked Palin because of who is he not: a woman.
Three: Biden is more qualified to be president than either Obama or McCain.
Four: Palin is more qualified to be vice president or president than Obama.
Five: Biden has been a senator for 35 years, chairman of the Senate Judiciary and Foreign Relations committees. McCain spent four years as a U.S. House member and the past 22 years as a senator, also chairing the Senate Commerce Committee.
Palin was a city council member and chairwoman for four years, mayor for six years, ethics commissioner for four years and governor for two years. Combined she has 16 years of experience.
Obama has been a state senator in Illinois for seven years and a U.S. senator for the past 3 ½ years, two of which have been spent running for president.
If anyone doesn't belong in the Oval Office, it is Barack Obama.
DON GREGORIOS, Fort Lauderdale
One: Obama picked Biden because of what he is not: white and experienced.
Two: McCain picked Palin because of who is he not: a woman.
Three: Biden is more qualified to be president than either Obama or McCain.
Four: Palin is more qualified to be vice president or president than Obama.
Five: Biden has been a senator for 35 years, chairman of the Senate Judiciary and Foreign Relations committees. McCain spent four years as a U.S. House member and the past 22 years as a senator, also chairing the Senate Commerce Committee.
Palin was a city council member and chairwoman for four years, mayor for six years, ethics commissioner for four years and governor for two years. Combined she has 16 years of experience.
Obama has been a state senator in Illinois for seven years and a U.S. senator for the past 3 ½ years, two of which have been spent running for president.
If anyone doesn't belong in the Oval Office, it is Barack Obama.
DON GREGORIOS, Fort Lauderdale
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
PRIEST BEGS HILLARY: "SAY NOBAMA!"
"If JFK gave his Inaugural Address now, with its emphasis on country over party and liberty over dependence, he'd be booed off the stage in Denver."
Hillary Clinton is a closet McCain Supporter. Whom do you really believe she will vote for on November 4? Senator Clinton, a long-time admirer of John McCain, has repeatedly said she believes Senator Obama is not ready for the presidency because he lacks the experience necessary to lead. She said,"In this election we need a nominee who can pass the Commander in Chief test. ... Senator McCain will bring a time of experience to the campaign. I will bring a lifetime of experience and Senator Obama will bring a speech he gave in 2002. I think that is a significant difference."If you are disgusted by what's happening in Denver -- and you should be -- the best steps you can take are to join Clintons4McCain (whatever your politics) and NoBama Mission, groups dedicated to Obama's defeat. Both groups are now flooded with people saying "NoBama." You'll be among friends. Please copy the above and send it to friends and family. Thanks.
The following was written by my very good friend and fellow Hillary Clinton Supporter Rev. Father V.M. Could you please post his message. He has asked me to send this to you with his deepest Love and appreciation and God's Blessing. [Charles, a good friend a strong Hillary backer, sent this to me. Charles is one of those broken-hearted by Sen. Clinton's recent decisions. Please feel free to use this on your own blog or otherwise disseminate it.]
Hillary...We only have hours left and I know you'll never see this but maybe someone who has some contacts will get this to you. 18,000,000 wonderful supportive Americans helped you and stood by your side night and day. We watched you and cheered for you...when you laughed-we laughed, when you were hurt-we were hurt. We are, Hillary, your supporters who respect and admire you as a person who told us you would NEVER abandon us and now the worst of your enemies beckon you to come to their side. The people who mocked you, bashed you, insulted you, bought off the Media to destroy you etc....yes Hillary, now they call for help...well, we are calling also. True, you are a Democrat but you are an American and represent the people to whom you came to for support...now we ask you to help us...Do not yield to the call of evil but come to your friends...Please Hillary...tell your supporters tonite to vote for McCain and to do what's right. If you are not permitted to ask them to do this then,at the very least, do not ask them to support Obama. His attributes are not in thebest interest of the finest Country in the World. YOU KNOW OBAMA IS BAD FOR OUR COUNTRY..PLEASE, PLEASE HELP US.May the Lord be with you and guide you to make the decision from your heart.
Hillary Clinton is a closet McCain Supporter. Whom do you really believe she will vote for on November 4? Senator Clinton, a long-time admirer of John McCain, has repeatedly said she believes Senator Obama is not ready for the presidency because he lacks the experience necessary to lead. She said,"In this election we need a nominee who can pass the Commander in Chief test. ... Senator McCain will bring a time of experience to the campaign. I will bring a lifetime of experience and Senator Obama will bring a speech he gave in 2002. I think that is a significant difference."If you are disgusted by what's happening in Denver -- and you should be -- the best steps you can take are to join Clintons4McCain (whatever your politics) and NoBama Mission, groups dedicated to Obama's defeat. Both groups are now flooded with people saying "NoBama." You'll be among friends. Please copy the above and send it to friends and family. Thanks.
The following was written by my very good friend and fellow Hillary Clinton Supporter Rev. Father V.M. Could you please post his message. He has asked me to send this to you with his deepest Love and appreciation and God's Blessing. [Charles, a good friend a strong Hillary backer, sent this to me. Charles is one of those broken-hearted by Sen. Clinton's recent decisions. Please feel free to use this on your own blog or otherwise disseminate it.]
Hillary...We only have hours left and I know you'll never see this but maybe someone who has some contacts will get this to you. 18,000,000 wonderful supportive Americans helped you and stood by your side night and day. We watched you and cheered for you...when you laughed-we laughed, when you were hurt-we were hurt. We are, Hillary, your supporters who respect and admire you as a person who told us you would NEVER abandon us and now the worst of your enemies beckon you to come to their side. The people who mocked you, bashed you, insulted you, bought off the Media to destroy you etc....yes Hillary, now they call for help...well, we are calling also. True, you are a Democrat but you are an American and represent the people to whom you came to for support...now we ask you to help us...Do not yield to the call of evil but come to your friends...Please Hillary...tell your supporters tonite to vote for McCain and to do what's right. If you are not permitted to ask them to do this then,at the very least, do not ask them to support Obama. His attributes are not in thebest interest of the finest Country in the World. YOU KNOW OBAMA IS BAD FOR OUR COUNTRY..PLEASE, PLEASE HELP US.May the Lord be with you and guide you to make the decision from your heart.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Obama's Hillary-Boating Cristi Adkins
Cristi Adkins is mad as hell at Barack Obama, and she isn't going to take it -- his narcissistic, thuggish, dishonest campaign -- anymore. She's mad because Obama-bot have hacked your computers, sent her hate-filled e-mails, and even threatened her life. She refuses to be intimidated.
[On Sunday, I'll reveal "Obama's VP Text-Message Scam." Was Obama really sending out 3 a.m. messages on his Biden choice? Of course not. He was deceiving people with an "information grab," gathering cell phone numbers from individuals he'll contact many times -- perhaps always at 3 a.m.]
Cristi is one of the most effective "Hillary Supporters", a woman who's working 14-hour-days to ensure the defeat on Nov. 4 of the man she calls "Hussein." She calls him that because she believes -- correctly -- that he has only a tangential connection to American values.
His history demonstrates that he's much more at home in Kenya than in mainstream America, which is too "bitter" for his rarified tastes.Obama and his sycophants despise what Cristi, a co-founder of Clintons4McCain and NobamaMission, is doing, and they've responded by initiating a campaign of hatred and innuendo against her.
Cristi is a mom (two teenagers and a three-year-old), a wife, a veteran (former MP), and a nurse. The father of her two teenagers just came home from a combat tour in Afghanistan. In short, she's the kind of American with whom Obama and his fellow elitists have nothing in common.
Why does she bug Obama so much? Mainly because she's frequent guest on shows hosted by people by Neil Cavuto, Sean Hannity, Jim Bohannon. She's even been on the "Daily Show." Right now, she's headed to Denver to "Just Say No Deal" to Barack H. Obama. She's a force in contemporary politics.
For that reason, she's been the target of absurd attacks by bloggers who serve as cheerleaders for BHO. Many of the people reading this blog. Were you aware that Obama PAYS his bloggers? Most of them get roughly $7 an hour, and some apparently receive much more. That would come as news to people who visit their sites and believe they're getting something approximating "straight talk." In fact, those bloggers are presenting all the "news" that fits with the Obama agenda.
In our own NoBama Mission Bloggers, a brainchild of Cristi Adkins and others in the NoBama Mission effort, we will have 200 blogs by the end of this day. How many of them are paid by anyone? A grand total of zero. They are all volunteers -- just like me, just like Cristi, just like the other tens of thousand of people who center their lives around the NoBama effort.
One thing Cristi is asked is why she works with non-Democrats. Well, DUH! She founded Clintons4McCain. She didn't found Clintons4Nobody, or Clintons4theheckuvait. If you're against Obama with us, you're among friends.The NoBama effort is perhaps the most diverse coalition in American history.
It consists of Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and even a stray Libertarian or two. In that effort, there are liberals, moderates, and conservatives. There are no far-left crazies or America-haters, unlike Obama's own scary group.What binds our people of so many different views together is a commitment to the following statement: "Barack Obama is too inexperienced, too unqualified, too untrustworthy, and too dangerous to be POTUS."
Anyone who shares that view is welcome in our coalition.The hate campaign by Obama, his staffers, and his bought-and-paid for bloggers against Cristi is similar to the effort they waged against Hillary Clinton. Of course, she has been one of the more liberal members of the Clinton Administration and the U.S. Senate.
Many Black members of Congress backed her bid for the presidency. Those who did so are now being punished by Obama at the Democratic National Convention. Charlie Rangel, one of the most important members of the House and a Clinton backer, has NOT been invited to speak.
For her efforts on behalf of civil rights and liberal causes, Hillary Clinton was branded by Obama and his surrogates as a warmonger, a liar, and a racist. Geraldine Ferraro, also a long-time proponent of civil rights, was also labeled a racist, as was President Bill Clinton.
Given this background by Obama and his minions, it's no surprise that Cristi Adkins is under attack. Of course, she isn't being defamed for her statements about Obama, all of which are factual. Instead, they're trying to bleed her to death with a thousand pinpricks. She's accused of saying this (maybe) once, or of knowing this person or someone else, or of advocating this-or-that.
Does Cristi head right to the front-lines, where the chances of taking political shrapnel are the greatest? If you've ever seen her in action, you know she does. Also, she "pushs the envelope." She takes after "Hussein" in creative, imaginative ways. Most of these efforts work, and some don't, which is par for the course with risk-takers.
The main "charge" against Cristi is that she once was in a business venture that didn't work out. Big deal. There are probably 150 million Americans, including this one, who are in the same boat.
In fact, Cristi -- my friend and political ally -- is one of the single most effective spokeswomen in America against Obama. As long as that remains the case -- and it will through November 4 -- Obama and his meanspirited, robotic followers will try to destroy her.
In other words, they will try to "Hillary-boat" her, just as they did the junior Senator from New York.I have news for the man Cristi calls "Hussein." You will not succeed. You will not win this election. You are up against people who will not rest until John McCain send you back to the Chicago political machine that spawned you.
What can the readers of this piece do in support of Cristi Adkins, American? You can go to Clintons4McCain and NoBama Mission and sign up as members of those organizations. Many thousands of people have already done. Please do it for Cristi -- and do it for America. Now.
Note: Below is the link to the Jim Bohannen show on which Cristi Adkins appeared. It's very much worth listening to.
http://search.everyzing.com/viewMedia.jsp?dedupe=1&index=8&col=en-all-public-ep&e=20600582&il=en&format=xml&num=10&scol=pod&mc=en-all&start=0&q=networks&expand=true&match=query,channel&filter=1
[On Sunday, I'll reveal "Obama's VP Text-Message Scam." Was Obama really sending out 3 a.m. messages on his Biden choice? Of course not. He was deceiving people with an "information grab," gathering cell phone numbers from individuals he'll contact many times -- perhaps always at 3 a.m.]
Cristi is one of the most effective "Hillary Supporters", a woman who's working 14-hour-days to ensure the defeat on Nov. 4 of the man she calls "Hussein." She calls him that because she believes -- correctly -- that he has only a tangential connection to American values.
His history demonstrates that he's much more at home in Kenya than in mainstream America, which is too "bitter" for his rarified tastes.Obama and his sycophants despise what Cristi, a co-founder of Clintons4McCain and NobamaMission, is doing, and they've responded by initiating a campaign of hatred and innuendo against her.
Cristi is a mom (two teenagers and a three-year-old), a wife, a veteran (former MP), and a nurse. The father of her two teenagers just came home from a combat tour in Afghanistan. In short, she's the kind of American with whom Obama and his fellow elitists have nothing in common.
Why does she bug Obama so much? Mainly because she's frequent guest on shows hosted by people by Neil Cavuto, Sean Hannity, Jim Bohannon. She's even been on the "Daily Show." Right now, she's headed to Denver to "Just Say No Deal" to Barack H. Obama. She's a force in contemporary politics.
For that reason, she's been the target of absurd attacks by bloggers who serve as cheerleaders for BHO. Many of the people reading this blog. Were you aware that Obama PAYS his bloggers? Most of them get roughly $7 an hour, and some apparently receive much more. That would come as news to people who visit their sites and believe they're getting something approximating "straight talk." In fact, those bloggers are presenting all the "news" that fits with the Obama agenda.
In our own NoBama Mission Bloggers, a brainchild of Cristi Adkins and others in the NoBama Mission effort, we will have 200 blogs by the end of this day. How many of them are paid by anyone? A grand total of zero. They are all volunteers -- just like me, just like Cristi, just like the other tens of thousand of people who center their lives around the NoBama effort.
One thing Cristi is asked is why she works with non-Democrats. Well, DUH! She founded Clintons4McCain. She didn't found Clintons4Nobody, or Clintons4theheckuvait. If you're against Obama with us, you're among friends.The NoBama effort is perhaps the most diverse coalition in American history.
It consists of Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and even a stray Libertarian or two. In that effort, there are liberals, moderates, and conservatives. There are no far-left crazies or America-haters, unlike Obama's own scary group.What binds our people of so many different views together is a commitment to the following statement: "Barack Obama is too inexperienced, too unqualified, too untrustworthy, and too dangerous to be POTUS."
Anyone who shares that view is welcome in our coalition.The hate campaign by Obama, his staffers, and his bought-and-paid for bloggers against Cristi is similar to the effort they waged against Hillary Clinton. Of course, she has been one of the more liberal members of the Clinton Administration and the U.S. Senate.
Many Black members of Congress backed her bid for the presidency. Those who did so are now being punished by Obama at the Democratic National Convention. Charlie Rangel, one of the most important members of the House and a Clinton backer, has NOT been invited to speak.
For her efforts on behalf of civil rights and liberal causes, Hillary Clinton was branded by Obama and his surrogates as a warmonger, a liar, and a racist. Geraldine Ferraro, also a long-time proponent of civil rights, was also labeled a racist, as was President Bill Clinton.
Given this background by Obama and his minions, it's no surprise that Cristi Adkins is under attack. Of course, she isn't being defamed for her statements about Obama, all of which are factual. Instead, they're trying to bleed her to death with a thousand pinpricks. She's accused of saying this (maybe) once, or of knowing this person or someone else, or of advocating this-or-that.
Does Cristi head right to the front-lines, where the chances of taking political shrapnel are the greatest? If you've ever seen her in action, you know she does. Also, she "pushs the envelope." She takes after "Hussein" in creative, imaginative ways. Most of these efforts work, and some don't, which is par for the course with risk-takers.
The main "charge" against Cristi is that she once was in a business venture that didn't work out. Big deal. There are probably 150 million Americans, including this one, who are in the same boat.
In fact, Cristi -- my friend and political ally -- is one of the single most effective spokeswomen in America against Obama. As long as that remains the case -- and it will through November 4 -- Obama and his meanspirited, robotic followers will try to destroy her.
In other words, they will try to "Hillary-boat" her, just as they did the junior Senator from New York.I have news for the man Cristi calls "Hussein." You will not succeed. You will not win this election. You are up against people who will not rest until John McCain send you back to the Chicago political machine that spawned you.
What can the readers of this piece do in support of Cristi Adkins, American? You can go to Clintons4McCain and NoBama Mission and sign up as members of those organizations. Many thousands of people have already done. Please do it for Cristi -- and do it for America. Now.
Note: Below is the link to the Jim Bohannen show on which Cristi Adkins appeared. It's very much worth listening to.
http://search.everyzing.com/viewMedia.jsp?dedupe=1&index=8&col=en-all-public-ep&e=20600582&il=en&format=xml&num=10&scol=pod&mc=en-all&start=0&q=networks&expand=true&match=query,channel&filter=1
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Hillary Clinton Rationalizing Bad Behavior
Note: You can find everything you need to know about starting a blog that will play a role in defeating Barack Obama in November by going to: http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com. The site contains critical information about how you can help defeat Obama.
"If we hold politicians to very low standards, they will live down to them." (My earlier assessment)
By endorsing Obama, Hillary Clinton is leaving many of her strongest supporters distraught. If you scroll down, I reprint a letter to Sen. Clinton from her once-staunch backer, Barbara in California. I'm exasperated by the tendency of some people who admire Sen. Clinton to excuse anything she does, no matter how harmful it may be.
One of my friends in the NoBama Mission Movement recently wrote the following excuse for what Sen. Clinton is being "forced" [sic] to do.
"Hillary is being forced to tell everyone to vote for BO while he is kicking back on vacation in Hawaii!!!"
DailyKos.com and Moveon.org are the dominant forces in the modern Democratic Party. Both of them despise Hilary Rodham Clinton. She knows that, to have a possible future as President, she has to satisfy those despicable groups. Is that the real explanation for the bad decisions she's made lately?
(Elizabeth Edwards posted on Daily Kos her statement about her husband's supposed "honesty" and the supposedly unfair treatment they received from media outlets (few) who were telling the truth about her husband.)
Here's how I responded to my friend who made the 'forced" statement:
As you know I respectfully disagree with you about Sen. Clinton and her recent behavior. No one can "force" her to do anything. She has the same freedom and responsibility as any other American.
If John McCain could not be forced to do unethical things while he was being tortured in a a Communist prison camp, others -- including HRC -- should have the courage to emulate him.
I realize that many Democrats, especially women, have a great deal of psychic energy tied up with the (flawed) candidacy of Sen. Clinton. Unfortunately, they've attempted to turn her into "St. Hillary," the leader who can do no wrong. We've learned lately, unfortunately, that she's not the person many of her supporters thought she was.
Look up on Google the phrase "gun to her head," and you'll find thousands of links. The popular phrase reflects the rationalization that the bad things HRC is doing are the result of pressure from the Democratic poobahs, such as Howard Dean, Donna Brazile, and Barack Obama.
Let's be honest, okay? Sen. Clinton and her husband are extremely wealthy individuals. Her Senate seat in New York is secure -- probably for as long as she lives. In her campaign, she made the point that Sen. Obama is not ready -- and may never be ready -- to be POTUS. Are we now to assume that she meant almost nothing she said about Obama in the primaries? If so, this leaves her with a severely diminished status.
Frankly, the rationalizations for HRC's extremely bad behavior drive me nuts. If she's incapable of real leadership and integrity, why on earth are people continuing not just to support -- and idolize -- her?
Here's the reprint of Babara from California letter to HRC:
The Honorable Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton:
Mrs. Clinton, I am writing this letter to let you know I supported you throughout your campaign. I contributed to your cause when I had only a small amount of funds to offer. I left my daughter at home while I drove 30 miles one way night-after-night to telephone for your cause (our cause). I did this because my 3 year old daughter from China needed to understand that we recognize that women are important.
She needed to know that her life, whatever it may be, is equally as important as any male child and we celebrate that.[During the primaries,] she would run around the house shouting, “Go Hillary! Hillary is for girls!”
[But] I now hear you, the only one who can decide, will not place your request in writing for the Nomination as the Presidential Candidate for the Democratic Party. That is beyond my comprehension.You promised you would not let me down. You promised you would stand with me…if I stood with you.
Now, at the end of the day, you are standing. However, you are not standing by me or my daughter but rather by Barack Obama. I will somehow let my daughter know [the situation] in the months ahead.
I am so ashamed of who you are at this moment. I cannot believe I feel this way.Now, I will not stand by you. I will not stand by Barack Obama. I will never stand by any Democrat that had a hand in this nomination.
I will fight to see all of these Democrats are sent on their way -- hopefully never again to grace the halls of my nation's Capital.
Barbara, California, USA
"If we hold politicians to very low standards, they will live down to them." (My earlier assessment)
By endorsing Obama, Hillary Clinton is leaving many of her strongest supporters distraught. If you scroll down, I reprint a letter to Sen. Clinton from her once-staunch backer, Barbara in California. I'm exasperated by the tendency of some people who admire Sen. Clinton to excuse anything she does, no matter how harmful it may be.
One of my friends in the NoBama Mission Movement recently wrote the following excuse for what Sen. Clinton is being "forced" [sic] to do.
"Hillary is being forced to tell everyone to vote for BO while he is kicking back on vacation in Hawaii!!!"
DailyKos.com and Moveon.org are the dominant forces in the modern Democratic Party. Both of them despise Hilary Rodham Clinton. She knows that, to have a possible future as President, she has to satisfy those despicable groups. Is that the real explanation for the bad decisions she's made lately?
(Elizabeth Edwards posted on Daily Kos her statement about her husband's supposed "honesty" and the supposedly unfair treatment they received from media outlets (few) who were telling the truth about her husband.)
Here's how I responded to my friend who made the 'forced" statement:
As you know I respectfully disagree with you about Sen. Clinton and her recent behavior. No one can "force" her to do anything. She has the same freedom and responsibility as any other American.
If John McCain could not be forced to do unethical things while he was being tortured in a a Communist prison camp, others -- including HRC -- should have the courage to emulate him.
I realize that many Democrats, especially women, have a great deal of psychic energy tied up with the (flawed) candidacy of Sen. Clinton. Unfortunately, they've attempted to turn her into "St. Hillary," the leader who can do no wrong. We've learned lately, unfortunately, that she's not the person many of her supporters thought she was.
Look up on Google the phrase "gun to her head," and you'll find thousands of links. The popular phrase reflects the rationalization that the bad things HRC is doing are the result of pressure from the Democratic poobahs, such as Howard Dean, Donna Brazile, and Barack Obama.
Let's be honest, okay? Sen. Clinton and her husband are extremely wealthy individuals. Her Senate seat in New York is secure -- probably for as long as she lives. In her campaign, she made the point that Sen. Obama is not ready -- and may never be ready -- to be POTUS. Are we now to assume that she meant almost nothing she said about Obama in the primaries? If so, this leaves her with a severely diminished status.
Frankly, the rationalizations for HRC's extremely bad behavior drive me nuts. If she's incapable of real leadership and integrity, why on earth are people continuing not just to support -- and idolize -- her?
Here's the reprint of Babara from California letter to HRC:
The Honorable Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton:
Mrs. Clinton, I am writing this letter to let you know I supported you throughout your campaign. I contributed to your cause when I had only a small amount of funds to offer. I left my daughter at home while I drove 30 miles one way night-after-night to telephone for your cause (our cause). I did this because my 3 year old daughter from China needed to understand that we recognize that women are important.
She needed to know that her life, whatever it may be, is equally as important as any male child and we celebrate that.[During the primaries,] she would run around the house shouting, “Go Hillary! Hillary is for girls!”
[But] I now hear you, the only one who can decide, will not place your request in writing for the Nomination as the Presidential Candidate for the Democratic Party. That is beyond my comprehension.You promised you would not let me down. You promised you would stand with me…if I stood with you.
Now, at the end of the day, you are standing. However, you are not standing by me or my daughter but rather by Barack Obama. I will somehow let my daughter know [the situation] in the months ahead.
I am so ashamed of who you are at this moment. I cannot believe I feel this way.Now, I will not stand by you. I will not stand by Barack Obama. I will never stand by any Democrat that had a hand in this nomination.
I will fight to see all of these Democrats are sent on their way -- hopefully never again to grace the halls of my nation's Capital.
Barbara, California, USA
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Unity Journalists Mere Obama Shills
Scroll down below the following paragraph and you'll find the sad story about the minority journalists at today's (Sunday's) "Unity" Journalism Forum being addressed by "St. Barack." The following paragraph is my response.
Journalists shouldn't be seeking "unity," which in this case is another name for groupthink. Journalists should be seeking honesty, candor, and, yes, objectivity. Frankly, minority journalists -- and even the MSM -- have broken next-to-nothing of value about Barack Obama, his wife, or his life. Barack Obama remains to many people "the man no one knows," or, as he described himself, "a blank screen." Journalists, minority or otherwise, are supposed to fill in that screen. From the [following] story about the people attending the "unity" event, they should not be carrying pads, pens, and laptops, but rather poms poms to wave at "St. Barack." I've taught many journalists in my lifetime, and I doubt many of them would be comfortable acting like cheerleaders. Many of the minority journalists, including Chicago's Leonard Pitts, should be seeking honest work. In his comments, Pitts suggests that members of minority groups can't be serious journalists. His remarks are shameful, but I doubt he will ever grasp that.
Following is the story referred to in the preceding paragraph:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080726/D925MAPG0.html
Can minority journalists resist applauding Obama?
Jul 26, 1:53 PM (ET) By JESSE WASHINGTON
CHICAGO (AP) - When Barack Obama ascends the stage Sunday at the Unity journalism convention, fresh from an exhaustively chronicled overseas tour, he will face a surprisingly divided audience.Not on the subject of whether Obama should be president - members of the four minority organizations that comprise Unity are largely Democratic.
But many at the quadrennial gathering differ on whether the underlying current of enthusiasm for Obama's historic candidacy should be constrained or allowed to spill forth on live television.In addition to race, the issue boils down to questions of human emotion, empathy versus ethics, and whether a group that has experienced its own share of prejudice can resist responding to Obama's powerful oratory and potent symbolism.
"This is not a pep rally," said Tonju Francois, a producer for CNN en Espanol and board member of the National Association of Black Journalists. "I don't want to say it's offensive, but the idea that just because he's a black candidate, somehow our journalistic ethics would go out the window ... I think we need to behave."
So does Unity. In an e-mail sent to the 6,800 conference attendees,the organization advised that "every effort should be made to maintain professional decorum during the event, especially since it will be broadcast to millions of people."
Yet the same diversity embodied by Unity itself can blur the definition of decorum."People don't view (attending Obama's speech) as work," said Connie Llanos, a reporter for the Los Angeles Daily News and member of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists. "We're not going to write about it, so you're allowed to voice your emotion or feeling."
Still, "people shouldn't be throwing underwear," said Veronica Garcia,a NAHJ board member and copy editor who spent 17 years at the Los Angeles Times. "We're journalists. We should strive to be a little objective."Conservatives have spent years decrying a liberal media bias;Democrats fought over how Hillary Clinton's primary coverage compared with Obama's.
This week, the campaign of John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, sniped at the media constellation chasing Obama on his excursion through the Middle East and Europe. And questions of personal politics have plagued journalists of all backgrounds.
But even against this backdrop, the Unity journalists face some unique pressures. In 2004, Democrat John Kerry inspired a standing ovation;President Bush got a few boos during his speech, which disturbed some of the journalists present.
This year, McCain declined an invitation to appear at Unity, citing scheduling conflicts.Barbara Ciara, president of NABJ and the anchor/managing editor at WTKR in Norfolk, Va., said it would be inappropriate "to show enthusiasm on any level" on Sunday because of a perception that minority journalists' coverage is slanted by their ethnicity."Maybe I'm a little bit old school, but I do believe there's a trust we have to achieve with our audience of viewers, listeners and readers," she said.
"In order to trust you, they have to believe you're going to act dispassionately. You can't start jumping around like a little bumblebee just because a bee that looks like you is in the room."Leonard Pitts, the Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for the Miami Herald, believes that media objectivity is "a fairy tale we're supposed to pledge allegiance to." As one of the panelists who will question Obama on Sunday, he's more concerned with being fair to both sides, and he isn't bothered by the prospect of a few extra cheers.
"It's asking a little bit much to ask a room full of African-American journalists, or a room full of journalists of color, who have seen people like them and probably seem themselves excluded many times on the basis of color, not to have some sort of emotional reaction to the success of the person who may arguably become the first African-American president," said Pitts, who is black.The fear at the convention, especially among veterans, is that emotions will run amok given the many young journalists, public relations professionals and sponsors in attendance.
"Taking pictures afterward, asking for autographs, acting like groupies," said Alfredo Araiza, a photographer for the Arizona Daily Star. He and Ramon Chavez, a University of Oklahoma journalism professor and member of the Native American Journalists Association,led a student seminar at Unity on how to act professionally at news conferences."I have the feeling the exact opposite will happen here," said Chavez.
So does Nicole Newsum, a 27-year-old public relations executive who described herself as "obsessed" with the candidate. "I'll be screaming," she said.
Said Luz Villarreal, an associate producer for "Dateline NBC": "I don't think it's such a bad thing if for 15 minutes you take off your reporter hat and respond to (Obama) as a human being at an event where you're surrounded by people of color and you're here for a united cause."In the new media world of attack blogs, pundit power and felled newspapers, perhaps Obama's candidacy is marking yet another milestone.
"Barack Obama is the Jackie Robinson of our era," said Pitts, the columnist. "There's no getting around that, there's no asking people not to respond to that. ... Journalists are recruited from the human race. And as long as they're recruited from the human race they're going to have emotions, and they're going to have feelings."
Journalists shouldn't be seeking "unity," which in this case is another name for groupthink. Journalists should be seeking honesty, candor, and, yes, objectivity. Frankly, minority journalists -- and even the MSM -- have broken next-to-nothing of value about Barack Obama, his wife, or his life. Barack Obama remains to many people "the man no one knows," or, as he described himself, "a blank screen." Journalists, minority or otherwise, are supposed to fill in that screen. From the [following] story about the people attending the "unity" event, they should not be carrying pads, pens, and laptops, but rather poms poms to wave at "St. Barack." I've taught many journalists in my lifetime, and I doubt many of them would be comfortable acting like cheerleaders. Many of the minority journalists, including Chicago's Leonard Pitts, should be seeking honest work. In his comments, Pitts suggests that members of minority groups can't be serious journalists. His remarks are shameful, but I doubt he will ever grasp that.
Following is the story referred to in the preceding paragraph:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080726/D925MAPG0.html
Can minority journalists resist applauding Obama?
Jul 26, 1:53 PM (ET) By JESSE WASHINGTON
CHICAGO (AP) - When Barack Obama ascends the stage Sunday at the Unity journalism convention, fresh from an exhaustively chronicled overseas tour, he will face a surprisingly divided audience.Not on the subject of whether Obama should be president - members of the four minority organizations that comprise Unity are largely Democratic.
But many at the quadrennial gathering differ on whether the underlying current of enthusiasm for Obama's historic candidacy should be constrained or allowed to spill forth on live television.In addition to race, the issue boils down to questions of human emotion, empathy versus ethics, and whether a group that has experienced its own share of prejudice can resist responding to Obama's powerful oratory and potent symbolism.
"This is not a pep rally," said Tonju Francois, a producer for CNN en Espanol and board member of the National Association of Black Journalists. "I don't want to say it's offensive, but the idea that just because he's a black candidate, somehow our journalistic ethics would go out the window ... I think we need to behave."
So does Unity. In an e-mail sent to the 6,800 conference attendees,the organization advised that "every effort should be made to maintain professional decorum during the event, especially since it will be broadcast to millions of people."
Yet the same diversity embodied by Unity itself can blur the definition of decorum."People don't view (attending Obama's speech) as work," said Connie Llanos, a reporter for the Los Angeles Daily News and member of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists. "We're not going to write about it, so you're allowed to voice your emotion or feeling."
Still, "people shouldn't be throwing underwear," said Veronica Garcia,a NAHJ board member and copy editor who spent 17 years at the Los Angeles Times. "We're journalists. We should strive to be a little objective."Conservatives have spent years decrying a liberal media bias;Democrats fought over how Hillary Clinton's primary coverage compared with Obama's.
This week, the campaign of John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, sniped at the media constellation chasing Obama on his excursion through the Middle East and Europe. And questions of personal politics have plagued journalists of all backgrounds.
But even against this backdrop, the Unity journalists face some unique pressures. In 2004, Democrat John Kerry inspired a standing ovation;President Bush got a few boos during his speech, which disturbed some of the journalists present.
This year, McCain declined an invitation to appear at Unity, citing scheduling conflicts.Barbara Ciara, president of NABJ and the anchor/managing editor at WTKR in Norfolk, Va., said it would be inappropriate "to show enthusiasm on any level" on Sunday because of a perception that minority journalists' coverage is slanted by their ethnicity."Maybe I'm a little bit old school, but I do believe there's a trust we have to achieve with our audience of viewers, listeners and readers," she said.
"In order to trust you, they have to believe you're going to act dispassionately. You can't start jumping around like a little bumblebee just because a bee that looks like you is in the room."Leonard Pitts, the Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for the Miami Herald, believes that media objectivity is "a fairy tale we're supposed to pledge allegiance to." As one of the panelists who will question Obama on Sunday, he's more concerned with being fair to both sides, and he isn't bothered by the prospect of a few extra cheers.
"It's asking a little bit much to ask a room full of African-American journalists, or a room full of journalists of color, who have seen people like them and probably seem themselves excluded many times on the basis of color, not to have some sort of emotional reaction to the success of the person who may arguably become the first African-American president," said Pitts, who is black.The fear at the convention, especially among veterans, is that emotions will run amok given the many young journalists, public relations professionals and sponsors in attendance.
"Taking pictures afterward, asking for autographs, acting like groupies," said Alfredo Araiza, a photographer for the Arizona Daily Star. He and Ramon Chavez, a University of Oklahoma journalism professor and member of the Native American Journalists Association,led a student seminar at Unity on how to act professionally at news conferences."I have the feeling the exact opposite will happen here," said Chavez.
So does Nicole Newsum, a 27-year-old public relations executive who described herself as "obsessed" with the candidate. "I'll be screaming," she said.
Said Luz Villarreal, an associate producer for "Dateline NBC": "I don't think it's such a bad thing if for 15 minutes you take off your reporter hat and respond to (Obama) as a human being at an event where you're surrounded by people of color and you're here for a united cause."In the new media world of attack blogs, pundit power and felled newspapers, perhaps Obama's candidacy is marking yet another milestone.
"Barack Obama is the Jackie Robinson of our era," said Pitts, the columnist. "There's no getting around that, there's no asking people not to respond to that. ... Journalists are recruited from the human race. And as long as they're recruited from the human race they're going to have emotions, and they're going to have feelings."
Friday, July 25, 2008
Black Scholar Blasts Jackson, Obama
The Wall Street Journal
Why Jesse Jackson Hates Obama
By SHELBY STEELE
July 22, 2008
A few weeks ago, the Rev. Jesse Jackson made something of a fool of himself. There he was -- a historical figure in his own right -- threatening the castration of Barack Obama. It was sad to see.
If I have often criticized Mr. Jackson, I have also, reservedly, admired him. He is a late 20th century outcropping of a profoundly American archetype: the self-invented man who comes from nothing and, out of sheer force of personality, imposes himself on the American consciousness. If he never reached the greatness to which he aspired, he nevertheless did honor to the enduring American tradition of bold and unapologetic opportunism.
But now -- not looking old so much as a bit lost within the new Obama aura -- it is clear that Jesse Jackson has come to a kind of dénouement. Some force that once buoyed him up now seems spent.
Mr. Jackson was always a challenger. He confronted American institutions (especially wealthy corporations) with the shame of America's racist past and demanded redress. He could have taken up the mantle of the early Martin Luther King (he famously smeared himself with the great man's blood after King was shot), and argued for equality out of a faith in the imagination and drive of his own people. Instead -- and tragically -- he and the entire civil rights establishment pursued equality through the manipulation of white guilt.
Their faith was in the easy moral leverage over white America that the civil rights victories of the 1960s had suddenly bestowed on them. So Mr. Jackson and his generation of black leaders made keeping whites "on the hook" the most sacred article of the post-'60s black identity.
They ushered in an extortionist era of civil rights, in which they said to American institutions: Your shame must now become our advantage. To argue differently -- that black development, for example, might be a more enduring road to black equality -- took whites "off the hook" and was therefore an unpardonable heresy. For this generation, an Uncle Tom was not a black who betrayed his race; it was a black who betrayed the group's bounty of moral leverage over whites.
And now comes Mr. Obama, who became the first viable black presidential candidate precisely by giving up his moral leverage over whites.
Mr. Obama's great political ingenuity was very simple: to trade moral leverage for gratitude. Give up moral leverage over whites, refuse to shame them with America's racist past, and the gratitude they show you will constitute a new form of black power. They will love you for the faith you show in them.
So it is not hard to see why Mr. Jackson might have experienced Mr. Obama's emergence as something of a stiletto in the heart. Mr. Obama is a white "race card" -- moral leverage that whites can use against the moral leverage black leaders have wielded against them for decades. He is the nullification of Jesse Jackson -- the anti-Jackson.
And Mr. Obama is so successful at winning gratitude from whites precisely because Mr. Jackson was so successful at inflaming and exploiting white guilt. Mr. Jackson must now see his own oblivion in the very features of Mr. Obama's face. Thus the on-camera threat of castration, followed by the little jab of his fist as if to deliver a stiletto of his own.
And then Mr. Obama took it further by going to the NAACP with a message of black responsibility -- this after his speech on the need for black fathers to take responsibility for the children they sire. "Talking down to black people," Mr. Jackson mumbled.
Normally, "black responsibility" is a forbidden phrase for a black leader -- not because blacks reject responsibility, but because even the idea of black responsibility weakens moral leverage over whites. When Mr. Obama uses this language, whites of course are thankful. Black leaders seethe.
Nevertheless, Mr. Obama's sacrifice of black leverage has given him a chance to actually become the president. He has captured the devotion of millions of whites in ways that black leveragers never could. And the great masses of blacks -- blacks outside today's sclerotic black leadership -- see this very clearly.
Until Mr. Obama, any black with a message of black responsibility would be called a "black conservative" and thereby marginalized. After Obama's NAACP speech, blacks flooded into the hotel lobby thanking him for "reminding" them of their responsibility.
Thomas Sowell, among many others, has articulated the power of individual responsibility as an antidote to black poverty for over 40 years. Black thinkers as far back as Frederick Douglas and Booker T. Washington have done the same. Why then, all of a sudden, are blacks willing to openly embrace this truth -- and in the full knowledge that it will weaken their leverage with whites?
I think the answer is that Mr. Obama potentially offers them something far more profound than mere moral leverage. If only symbolically, he offers nothing less than an end to black inferiority. This has been an insidious spiritual torment for blacks because reality itself keeps mockingly proving the original lie. Barack Obama in the Oval Office -- a black man governing a largely white nation -- would offer blacks an undreamed-of spiritual solace far more meaningful than the petty self-importance to be gained from moral leverage.
But white Americans have also been tormented by their stigmatization as moral inferiors, as racists. An Obama presidency would give them considerable moral leverage against this stigma.
This, no doubt, is what Barack Obama means by "change." He promises to reconfigure our exhausted cultural arrangement.
But here lies his essential contradiction: His campaign is more cultural than political. He sells himself more as a cultural breakthrough than as a candidate for office.
To be a projection screen for the cultural aspirations of both blacks and whites one must be an invisible man politically. Real world politics, in their mundanity, interrupt cultural projections. And so Mr. Obama's political invisibility -- a charm that can only derive from a lack of deep political convictions -- may well serve his cultural appeal, but it also makes him something of a political mess.
Already he has flip-flopped on campaign financing, wire-tapping, gun control, faith-based initiatives, and the terms of withdrawal from Iraq. Those enamored of his cultural potential may say these reversals are an indication of thoughtfulness, or even open-mindedness. But could it be that this is a man who trusted so much in his cultural appeal that the struggles of principle and conscience never seemed quite real to him?
His flip-flops belie an almost existential callowness toward principle, as if the very idea of permanent truth is passé, a form of bad taste.
John McCain is simply a man of considerable character, poor guy. He is utterly bereft of cultural cachet. Against an animating message of cultural "change," he is retrogression itself. Worse, Mr. Obama's trick is to take politics off the table by moving so politically close to his opponent that only culture is left to separate them. And, unencumbered as he is by deep attachment to principle, he can be both far-left and center-right. He can steal much of Mr. McCain's territory.
Mr. Obama has already won a cultural mandate to the American presidency. And politically, he is now essentially in a contest with himself. His challenge is not Mr. McCain; it is the establishment of his own patriotism, trustworthiness and gravitas.
He has to channel a little Colin Powell, and he no doubt hopes his trip to the Middle East and Europe will reflect him back to America with something of Mr. Powell's stature. He wants even Middle America to feel comfortable as the mantle they bestow on him settles upon his shoulders.
Mr. Steele is a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and the author of "A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can't Win" (Free Press, 2007).
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121668579909472083.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
Why Jesse Jackson Hates Obama
By SHELBY STEELE
July 22, 2008
A few weeks ago, the Rev. Jesse Jackson made something of a fool of himself. There he was -- a historical figure in his own right -- threatening the castration of Barack Obama. It was sad to see.
If I have often criticized Mr. Jackson, I have also, reservedly, admired him. He is a late 20th century outcropping of a profoundly American archetype: the self-invented man who comes from nothing and, out of sheer force of personality, imposes himself on the American consciousness. If he never reached the greatness to which he aspired, he nevertheless did honor to the enduring American tradition of bold and unapologetic opportunism.
But now -- not looking old so much as a bit lost within the new Obama aura -- it is clear that Jesse Jackson has come to a kind of dénouement. Some force that once buoyed him up now seems spent.
Mr. Jackson was always a challenger. He confronted American institutions (especially wealthy corporations) with the shame of America's racist past and demanded redress. He could have taken up the mantle of the early Martin Luther King (he famously smeared himself with the great man's blood after King was shot), and argued for equality out of a faith in the imagination and drive of his own people. Instead -- and tragically -- he and the entire civil rights establishment pursued equality through the manipulation of white guilt.
Their faith was in the easy moral leverage over white America that the civil rights victories of the 1960s had suddenly bestowed on them. So Mr. Jackson and his generation of black leaders made keeping whites "on the hook" the most sacred article of the post-'60s black identity.
They ushered in an extortionist era of civil rights, in which they said to American institutions: Your shame must now become our advantage. To argue differently -- that black development, for example, might be a more enduring road to black equality -- took whites "off the hook" and was therefore an unpardonable heresy. For this generation, an Uncle Tom was not a black who betrayed his race; it was a black who betrayed the group's bounty of moral leverage over whites.
And now comes Mr. Obama, who became the first viable black presidential candidate precisely by giving up his moral leverage over whites.
Mr. Obama's great political ingenuity was very simple: to trade moral leverage for gratitude. Give up moral leverage over whites, refuse to shame them with America's racist past, and the gratitude they show you will constitute a new form of black power. They will love you for the faith you show in them.
So it is not hard to see why Mr. Jackson might have experienced Mr. Obama's emergence as something of a stiletto in the heart. Mr. Obama is a white "race card" -- moral leverage that whites can use against the moral leverage black leaders have wielded against them for decades. He is the nullification of Jesse Jackson -- the anti-Jackson.
And Mr. Obama is so successful at winning gratitude from whites precisely because Mr. Jackson was so successful at inflaming and exploiting white guilt. Mr. Jackson must now see his own oblivion in the very features of Mr. Obama's face. Thus the on-camera threat of castration, followed by the little jab of his fist as if to deliver a stiletto of his own.
And then Mr. Obama took it further by going to the NAACP with a message of black responsibility -- this after his speech on the need for black fathers to take responsibility for the children they sire. "Talking down to black people," Mr. Jackson mumbled.
Normally, "black responsibility" is a forbidden phrase for a black leader -- not because blacks reject responsibility, but because even the idea of black responsibility weakens moral leverage over whites. When Mr. Obama uses this language, whites of course are thankful. Black leaders seethe.
Nevertheless, Mr. Obama's sacrifice of black leverage has given him a chance to actually become the president. He has captured the devotion of millions of whites in ways that black leveragers never could. And the great masses of blacks -- blacks outside today's sclerotic black leadership -- see this very clearly.
Until Mr. Obama, any black with a message of black responsibility would be called a "black conservative" and thereby marginalized. After Obama's NAACP speech, blacks flooded into the hotel lobby thanking him for "reminding" them of their responsibility.
Thomas Sowell, among many others, has articulated the power of individual responsibility as an antidote to black poverty for over 40 years. Black thinkers as far back as Frederick Douglas and Booker T. Washington have done the same. Why then, all of a sudden, are blacks willing to openly embrace this truth -- and in the full knowledge that it will weaken their leverage with whites?
I think the answer is that Mr. Obama potentially offers them something far more profound than mere moral leverage. If only symbolically, he offers nothing less than an end to black inferiority. This has been an insidious spiritual torment for blacks because reality itself keeps mockingly proving the original lie. Barack Obama in the Oval Office -- a black man governing a largely white nation -- would offer blacks an undreamed-of spiritual solace far more meaningful than the petty self-importance to be gained from moral leverage.
But white Americans have also been tormented by their stigmatization as moral inferiors, as racists. An Obama presidency would give them considerable moral leverage against this stigma.
So it has to be acknowledged that, on the level of cultural and historical symbolism, an Obama presidency might nudge the culture forward a bit -- presuming of course that he would be at least a competent president. (A less-than-competent black president would likely be a step backwards.)
It would be a good thing were blacks to be more open to the power of individual responsibility. And it would surely help us all if whites were less cowed by the political correctness on black issues that protects their racial innocence at the expense of the very principles that made America great. We Americans are hungry for such a cultural shift.This, no doubt, is what Barack Obama means by "change." He promises to reconfigure our exhausted cultural arrangement.
But here lies his essential contradiction: His campaign is more cultural than political. He sells himself more as a cultural breakthrough than as a candidate for office.
To be a projection screen for the cultural aspirations of both blacks and whites one must be an invisible man politically. Real world politics, in their mundanity, interrupt cultural projections. And so Mr. Obama's political invisibility -- a charm that can only derive from a lack of deep political convictions -- may well serve his cultural appeal, but it also makes him something of a political mess.
Already he has flip-flopped on campaign financing, wire-tapping, gun control, faith-based initiatives, and the terms of withdrawal from Iraq. Those enamored of his cultural potential may say these reversals are an indication of thoughtfulness, or even open-mindedness. But could it be that this is a man who trusted so much in his cultural appeal that the struggles of principle and conscience never seemed quite real to him?
His flip-flops belie an almost existential callowness toward principle, as if the very idea of permanent truth is passé, a form of bad taste.
John McCain is simply a man of considerable character, poor guy. He is utterly bereft of cultural cachet. Against an animating message of cultural "change," he is retrogression itself. Worse, Mr. Obama's trick is to take politics off the table by moving so politically close to his opponent that only culture is left to separate them. And, unencumbered as he is by deep attachment to principle, he can be both far-left and center-right. He can steal much of Mr. McCain's territory.
Mr. Obama has already won a cultural mandate to the American presidency. And politically, he is now essentially in a contest with himself. His challenge is not Mr. McCain; it is the establishment of his own patriotism, trustworthiness and gravitas.
He has to channel a little Colin Powell, and he no doubt hopes his trip to the Middle East and Europe will reflect him back to America with something of Mr. Powell's stature. He wants even Middle America to feel comfortable as the mantle they bestow on him settles upon his shoulders.
Mr. Steele is a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and the author of "A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can't Win" (Free Press, 2007).
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121668579909472083.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
OBAMA CAMPAIGN EXCESSES INSULT JEWS
[Note: If you have a blog or know someone who does, scroll down to the bottom of the page to get the code for Clintons4McCain radio show, which I'll be on this Saturday and throughout August.]
Obama Group puts up campaign posters at sacred place in Jerusalem
Barack Obama campaigning at Wailing Wall, sacred to Jews and Christians . . .
Obama, the Narcissist at the "Wailing Wall"
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/mediaplayer.swf?displayheight=&file=http://www.blogtalkradio.com%2fclintons4mccain%2fplay_list.xml&autostart=true&shuffle=false&callback=http://www.blogtalkradio.com/FlashPlayerCallback.aspx&width=180&height=152&volume=80&corner=rounded' width='180' height='152' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer' quality='high' wmode='transparent' menu='false'>
Obama Group puts up campaign posters at sacred place in Jerusalem
Barack Obama campaigning at Wailing Wall, sacred to Jews and Christians . . .
Thanks to Sammy at http://www.yidwithalid.blogspot.com/ for the following column on Obama's offensive conduct toward Jews.
The word Narcissist is derived from the Greek myth of Narcissus. Narcissus was a handsome Greek youth who rejected the desperate advances of the nymph Echo. As punishment, he was doomed to fall in love with his own reflection in a pool of water. Unable to consummate his love, Narcissus pined away and changed into the flower that bears his name, the narcissus. Senator Barack Obama should also bear the name NarcissusFor a few days people have been sniping at the Jr. Senator from Illinois, saying that he thinks he is already president, they are wrong.
Yesterday when he visited the Kotel (the "Wailing Wall" ) he proved that he thinks he is already GOD. He took the Holiest Place in the world to the Jews, and one of the holiest place to Christians and turned it into a crass campaign stop.This is not about the gallery of press surrounding him. This is about the disgusting display of campaign posters Set up by his staff for his visit.
Jerusalem police spokesman Mickey Rosenfeld confirmed the campaign posters that adorned police barricades erected at the Western Wall plaza for Obama's visit were distributed by the presidential candidate's campaign.
"These posters were his campaign and not the doing of the police," said Rosenfeld, whose police department coordinated security and provided protection for Obama's visit today to the holy site. Asked if it was traditional practice for politicians visiting the Western Wall to bring along posters or campaign materials, Rosenfeld replied, "No." Source
Of COURSE NO. Does the Senator Really think he is bigger than GOD? Or is it that he has no respect for the Jewish faith. Lets face it, no one in their right mind would EVER have their staff bring campaign posters to the Vatican, or to Mecca. Maybe its just that he sees religion as a political tool rather than something to foster a relationship with your maker. That is why he stayed at Jeremiah Wright's Church for 20 years, not to listen to those hateful words but to get votes.
I would Imagine the first thing he would do if elected is change the Pledge of Allegiance from "one nation under God" to "one nation under Obama"Folks this guy is so filled with self-importance, not only is he ill-suited to be president, he is DANGEROUS.
1. Code for your blogs to copy and paste:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/mediaplayer.swf?displayheight=&file=http://www.blogtalkradio.com%2fclintons4mccain%2fplay_list.xml&autostart=true&shuffle=false&callback=http://www.blogtalkradio.com/FlashPlayerCallback.aspx&width=180&height=152&volume=80&corner=rounded' width='180' height='152' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer' quality='high' wmode='transparent' menu='false'>
This code will automomatically put the radio show on your blog with a 'radio player' and it will also automatically upload the newest shows
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
OBAMA: THE AUDACITY OF ARROGANCE
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” - Obama {Scroll down to see Barack's Senate "Experience"]
Hard to Be Humble
July 22, 2008
Posted by TOM BEVAN
For a while now, one of the strongest narratives working against Barack Obama has been the notion that he is an elitist and too full of himself. Hillary Clinton exploited this angle to the best of her ability in the primaries, and the narrative has only strengthened in the general election as the Obama campaign has made move after move that display varying degrees of arrogance: the faux seal, the move to Invesco stadium, the aborted attempt to speak at Brandenburg Gate, etc.
Knowing that Americans tend not to like candidates who are too full of themselves, you would think Obama and his surrogates would be focused on trying to muster at least a modicum of humility in their dealings with the public and the press. But apparently not.
Jim Geraghty highlights another small but telling example of the Obama campaign's self regard, this time by foreign policy advisor Susan Rice in an interview with Der Spiegel:
SPIEGEL: "Critics say the trip is nothing but a PR stunt to strengthen his foreign-policy credentials and that he has only rarely been to Europe before.
Rice: Senator Obama has travelled to Europe, Africa, the Middle East and South Asia many times before. He lived in Asia. He bows to nobody in his understanding of this world."
Intentional or not, the phrase "he bows to nobody" is the kind of tone deaf rhetoric that reinforces the narrative about Obama's arrogance.Far more telling than what a surrogate says publicly, however, is what the candidate himself says privately. And the Der Spiegel item reminded me of this post by Netscape founder and internet wunderkind Marc Andreessen. The post is dated March 3, 2008, but in it Andreessen recounts a conversation he had with Senator Obama in early 2007 as he was gearing up to run for President.
Near the end, Andreessen asked Obama directly about his lack of foreign policy experience, and this is how Obama responded:We then asked, well, what about foreign policy -- should we be concerned that you just don't have much experience there?
He said, directly, two things.First, he said, I'm on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where I serve with a number of Senators who are widely regarded as leading experts on foreign policy -- and I can tell you that I know as much about foreign policy at this point as most of them.
Just who is Obama comparing himself to with this remark? Senators on the Foreign Relations Committee who would fit the description of "widely regarded as leading experts on foreign policy" include Joe Biden (34 years on the Committee), Dick Lugar (28 years), Chris Dodd (26 years), and Chuck Hagel (10 years). Together those gentlemen have nearly 100 years worth of experience on the Foreign Relations Committee, compared to Obama's three.
Notice that Obama didn't say "I'm a quick study" or "I have real world foreign policy experience," or any of the hundreds of other things he might have said to impart to Andreessen that he was a smart, capable guy when it came to foreign affairs while still maintaining some humility.
The second half of Obama's response to Andreessen was equally telling:He said -- and I'm going to paraphrase a little here: think about who I am -- my father was Kenyan; I have close relatives in a small rural village in Kenya to this day; and I spent several years of my childhood living in Jakarta, Indonesia. Think about what it's going to mean in many parts of the world -- parts of the world that we really care about -- when I show up as the President of the United States. I'll be fundamentally changing the world's perception of what the United States is all about.Put another way,
Obama responded to a question about concerns over his lack of foreign policy experience by saying, "it's not what I've done but who I am that matters."
Taken together, this response smacks of an unusually high self regard. As Charles Krauthammer wrote on Friday, "For the first few months of the campaign, the question about Obama was: Who is he? The question now is: Who does he think he is?"
Humility is a virtue not always consistent with running for President. It is one thing to be confident in one's abilities, and another thing to be overbearing to the point of arrogance. This is one of the traits that many of George W. Bush's critics find most grating.
But Obama and his campaign appear to be deliberately taking things to a whole new level. Given his defeat of Hillary in the primary and his current small but steady lead over McCain, you have to say it's a strategy that has worked well for them on balance thus far. Whether the same attitude and approach continues to help or begins to hurt between now and November remains to be seen.
Barack's Senate Experience a Little Thin . . .
Obama’s Senate Experience: 143 days
Barack Obama logged exactly 143 days of experience in the U.S. Senate before setting his sights on winning the White House.
Obama was sworn in as a senator on Jan. 4, 2005, and he announced that he was forming a presidential exploratory committee on Jan. 16, 2007. In that interval, the Senate was in session and working for 143 days, according to GOPUSA’s blog The Loft.
That’s the equivalent of less than 21 seven-day weeks.
“After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be commander in chief, leader of the free world, and fill the shoes of Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK and Ronald Reagan,” Cheri Jacobus writes on the blog.
In contrast, presidential rival John McCain’s resume includes 26 years in Congress and 22 years of military service, including his 1,966 days as a POW in Vietnam.
Hard to Be Humble
July 22, 2008
Posted by TOM BEVAN
For a while now, one of the strongest narratives working against Barack Obama has been the notion that he is an elitist and too full of himself. Hillary Clinton exploited this angle to the best of her ability in the primaries, and the narrative has only strengthened in the general election as the Obama campaign has made move after move that display varying degrees of arrogance: the faux seal, the move to Invesco stadium, the aborted attempt to speak at Brandenburg Gate, etc.
Knowing that Americans tend not to like candidates who are too full of themselves, you would think Obama and his surrogates would be focused on trying to muster at least a modicum of humility in their dealings with the public and the press. But apparently not.
Jim Geraghty highlights another small but telling example of the Obama campaign's self regard, this time by foreign policy advisor Susan Rice in an interview with Der Spiegel:
SPIEGEL: "Critics say the trip is nothing but a PR stunt to strengthen his foreign-policy credentials and that he has only rarely been to Europe before.
Rice: Senator Obama has travelled to Europe, Africa, the Middle East and South Asia many times before. He lived in Asia. He bows to nobody in his understanding of this world."
Intentional or not, the phrase "he bows to nobody" is the kind of tone deaf rhetoric that reinforces the narrative about Obama's arrogance.Far more telling than what a surrogate says publicly, however, is what the candidate himself says privately. And the Der Spiegel item reminded me of this post by Netscape founder and internet wunderkind Marc Andreessen. The post is dated March 3, 2008, but in it Andreessen recounts a conversation he had with Senator Obama in early 2007 as he was gearing up to run for President.
Near the end, Andreessen asked Obama directly about his lack of foreign policy experience, and this is how Obama responded:We then asked, well, what about foreign policy -- should we be concerned that you just don't have much experience there?
He said, directly, two things.First, he said, I'm on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where I serve with a number of Senators who are widely regarded as leading experts on foreign policy -- and I can tell you that I know as much about foreign policy at this point as most of them.
Just who is Obama comparing himself to with this remark? Senators on the Foreign Relations Committee who would fit the description of "widely regarded as leading experts on foreign policy" include Joe Biden (34 years on the Committee), Dick Lugar (28 years), Chris Dodd (26 years), and Chuck Hagel (10 years). Together those gentlemen have nearly 100 years worth of experience on the Foreign Relations Committee, compared to Obama's three.
Notice that Obama didn't say "I'm a quick study" or "I have real world foreign policy experience," or any of the hundreds of other things he might have said to impart to Andreessen that he was a smart, capable guy when it came to foreign affairs while still maintaining some humility.
The second half of Obama's response to Andreessen was equally telling:He said -- and I'm going to paraphrase a little here: think about who I am -- my father was Kenyan; I have close relatives in a small rural village in Kenya to this day; and I spent several years of my childhood living in Jakarta, Indonesia. Think about what it's going to mean in many parts of the world -- parts of the world that we really care about -- when I show up as the President of the United States. I'll be fundamentally changing the world's perception of what the United States is all about.Put another way,
Obama responded to a question about concerns over his lack of foreign policy experience by saying, "it's not what I've done but who I am that matters."
Taken together, this response smacks of an unusually high self regard. As Charles Krauthammer wrote on Friday, "For the first few months of the campaign, the question about Obama was: Who is he? The question now is: Who does he think he is?"
Humility is a virtue not always consistent with running for President. It is one thing to be confident in one's abilities, and another thing to be overbearing to the point of arrogance. This is one of the traits that many of George W. Bush's critics find most grating.
But Obama and his campaign appear to be deliberately taking things to a whole new level. Given his defeat of Hillary in the primary and his current small but steady lead over McCain, you have to say it's a strategy that has worked well for them on balance thus far. Whether the same attitude and approach continues to help or begins to hurt between now and November remains to be seen.
Barack's Senate Experience a Little Thin . . .
Obama’s Senate Experience: 143 days
Barack Obama logged exactly 143 days of experience in the U.S. Senate before setting his sights on winning the White House.
Obama was sworn in as a senator on Jan. 4, 2005, and he announced that he was forming a presidential exploratory committee on Jan. 16, 2007. In that interval, the Senate was in session and working for 143 days, according to GOPUSA’s blog The Loft.
That’s the equivalent of less than 21 seven-day weeks.
“After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be commander in chief, leader of the free world, and fill the shoes of Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK and Ronald Reagan,” Cheri Jacobus writes on the blog.
In contrast, presidential rival John McCain’s resume includes 26 years in Congress and 22 years of military service, including his 1,966 days as a POW in Vietnam.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
