Here’s more from “Barack X,” as someone called him today in response to the must-see, goin’-viral “Bambloozing” video.
And check out the Black Agenda Report, Obama’s privatizin’ Social Security adviser, and Hillary Clinton’s endorsement by Sen. John Glenn for her progressive space exploration policy:
- “blackagendareport.com – Holding Barack Obama Accountable“: “The presidential campaign of Barack Obama has become a media parade on its way to a coronation.” (BlackAgendaReport, another truthteller group, has been trying to hold Obama’s “feet to the fire” since 2003. The image alone is worth a click.)
- “Audiology of Hope 360: Special Topics in Health Care Reform,” by RonK Seattle: “[Obama's] Social Security wingman is an avid privatizer” — Harvard’s Jeffrey Liebman. “Liebman’s reputation: centrist alarmist and moderate privatizer.” (Yup, that’ll “unite the country” alright.)
- “HOUSTON WE HAVE A PROBLEM“: The diarist discusses Clinton’s detailed space policy plan, and Sen. John Glenn explains why he’s for Hillary Clinton: “Hillary released a science policy a month ago that includes a section on space policy. She is the first major presidential candidate that I am aware of to articulate in any detail what the government’s role in space should be…”
You know things are getting weird when you read Karl Rove’s op-ed in today’s WSJ and find your head nodding affirmatively! (I know that Rove is a rat, but he’s not stupid, and he’s a longtime observer of the political scene.) Rove believes that Obama “pivoted” on Tuesday night because he’s facing more effective accusations from both John McCain and Hillary Clinton on his readiness and his experience. Rove adds:
Mr. McCain can now question Mr. Obama’s promise to change Washington by working across party lines. Mr. Obama hasn’t worked across party lines since coming to town. Was he a member of the “Gang of 14″ that tried to find common ground between the parties on judicial nominations? Was Mr. Obama part of the bipartisan leadership that tackled other thorny issues like energy, immigration or terrorist surveillance legislation? No. Mr. Obama has been one of the most dependably partisan votes in the Senate.
Mrs. Clinton can do much more to draw attention to Mr. Obama’s lack of achievements. She can agree with Mr. Obama’s statement Tuesday night that change is difficult to achieve on health care, energy, poverty, schools and immigration — and then question his failure to provide any leadership on these or other major issues since his arrival in the Senate. His failure to act, advocate or lead on what he now claims are his priorities may be her last chance to make a winning argument.
Mr. McCain gets a chance to question Mr. Obama’s declaration he won’t be beholden to lobbyists and special interests. After Mr. Obama’s laundry list of agenda items on Tuesday night, Mr. McCain can ask why, if Mr. Obama rejects the influence of lobbyists, has he not broken with any lobbyists from the left fringe of the Democratic Party? Why is he doing their bidding on a range of issues? Perhaps because he occupies the same liberal territory as they do.
The truth is that Mr. Obama is unwilling to challenge special interests if they represent the financial and political muscle of the Democratic left. He says yes to the lobbyists of the AFL-CIO when they demand card-check legislation to take away the right of workers to have a secret ballot in unionization efforts, or when they oppose trade deals. …
These stands represent not just policy vulnerabilities, but also a real danger to Mr. Obama’s credibility and authenticity. He cannot proclaim his goal is the end of influence for lobbies if the only influences he seeks to end are lobbies of the center and the right.
Unlike Bill Clinton in 1992, Mr. Obama is completely unwilling to confront the left wing of the Democratic Party, no matter how outrageous its demands, no matter how out of touch it might be with the American people.
In recent days, courtesy of Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, Mr. Obama has invoked the Declaration of Independence, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Franklin Roosevelt to show the power of words. But there is a critical difference between Mr. Obama’s rhetoric and that of Jefferson, King and FDR. In each instance, their words were used to advance large, specific purposes — establishing a new nation based on inalienable rights; achieving equal rights and a color-blind society; giving people confidence to endure a Great Depression. For Mr. Obama, words are merely a means to hide a left-leaning agenda behind the cloak of centrist rhetoric. That garment has now been torn. As voters see what his agenda is, his opponents can now far more effectively question his authenticity, credibility, record and fitness to be leader of the free world. …