He panders to what he perceives as their self-righteous elite-ism, by telling them in so many words, ‘the poor wretches cling to their sub-class ideals, they can’t help it, don’t you feel sorry for them; and BTW I need your money to campaign there, because they themselves don’t have the enlightened wisdom of y’all’.

Trouble is, he often ignores who else is listening. In this case, within ear-shot across the bay, are the urban working class in urban Alameda County/Oakland; and just down the 101 freeway, are the rural conservatives.

This is another example of a disturbing trend with Obama, his habit to create his own necessity to back-track on his own statements, resulting from his ignorance that his pandering statements to one audience, are often heard by others, whom he panders to with a different slant.

Judging people to be righteous and good when there are no facts to support that judgement.

Judging a crime to not be a crime because of who committed it.

Judging people to be wrong or flawed without any facts or with imaginary ones.

Judging behaviour to be a crime when there is no crime.

That’s also the definition of bad judgement.

It also almost always leads to injustice.

Obama is prejudiced. As leader of the free world, the outcome is predictable.

Obama attacked older women because Wolf Blitzer and others said that older women voted for Hillary. One of Obama’s surrogates even went so far as to claim that no one should listen to Ferraro because she was an “old woman”.

Then he attacks white people as racist, like the grandmother who raised him, another old woman.

Now he’s attacking small town people because they won’t vote for him.

It’s a pattern. He accuses everybody who won’t vote for him as racist and prejudiced when he is the one who is.

He claims he is a uniter, but he does it with insults and bullying and accusations of ignorance. He has turned blacks against white and vice versa, women against men, old against young. Why is anyone surprised he would turn small town against big city, the religious against those who aren’t?

There was a saying in WWII… First the Germans went after the sick, the elderly, then the homosexuals, then the Poles, then the Jews, and at each stage no one did anything because it was someone else. The day arrived when Hitler came after the last ones and there was no one left to protect them, just as there’d been none to protect those he attacked in the beginning.

It’s no coincidence that David Axelrod looks like Adolph Hitler.

If Obama can identify a “group” of people who won’t vote for him as a “group”, he will throw the race and prejudice and ignorance accusations at them. That’s what cult leaders do to anyone who doesn’t follow them.

Obama does not believe in free choice - people aren’t allowed to vote for who they want to follow, they have to vote for him or otherwise they “prove” that they’re racist.

The Obama followers have made excuse after excuse for the contemptuous and demeaning comments he has made over and over again. Roland Martin on CNN claimed “He’s telling the truth” about small town America. If Obama had made the comment that “big city people clung to guns and immorality”, I wonder how that would have gone over since the majority of people in many large US cities are black, commit most of the 18,000 murders per year in the US and most of the crime. That would have been telling the truth, but it also would not be fair to those who don’t fit that category. Would that not have been labelled a racist and divisive statement.

Obama can criticize Bill Clinton’s record as being non-existant, but it’s a lie. Bill accomplished great things. Obama, despite being almost the same age as Bill, has accomplished nothing in either senate but make the same repeated, boring, contemptuous, sarcastic, mean-spirited speeches and been paid a quarter of a billion dollars to do so.

I am simply furious that Obama continues to disparage the economic performance of the Clinton years. Comments I wrote on this on over the Confluence:

http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/04/14/what-obama-said-was-a-lie-there-were-more-jobs-during-the-clinton-years/

Obama cannot rewrite history, but that is exactly what he has been trying to do since he started running… Let’s face it, he has to try to make people believe lies about how “terrible” the Clinton years were, or what would be the point of voting for him? Hillary is clearly the best choice when a true account of the 90’s is given. Obama doesn’t stand a chance against that record. So he has to lie like crazy and tell us a fairytale about what a horror the 90’s was. LOL Too bad for Obama, people who aren’t drunk on the kool-aid remember. The 90’s were great!

After all, he thinks he had the best foreign policy. And for Reagan in the eighties?

Or will vote for Hillary.

What is that about, that revised version? Did that come from Obama campaign? From Repubs because of Bush? That was the most important, worst line. How could they just take it out? And who and why?

Great post, Larry. The Clinton bashing and lying about his presidency are a betrayal of the whole Democratic party and expose Obama for who he is - an ambitious, self-centered man who will do anything to win, including destroy his party, distort truth, and who cares only for himself, not the party. He has trashed the Dem Party in other ways, too, by praising Reagan and Repubs, by considering Bloomberg as VP (Bloomberg? A Repub VP? Outrageous), and his talk of bipartisanship.

A multi-party system is essential for democracy. It gives people a means for knowing who they are voting for, what the candidate stands for. When she chooses her party she is telling voters this is what I believe, these are my positions. Without this every candidate would be a totally unknown quantity, we would not know what we were getting until too late (which still happens but would be worse), which is what we do have with Obama. Who the hell is he?

Those talking bipartisanship are calling for centrism, for blurring differences between both parties, and it almost always comes from supposed Dems, who seem to want to move right to Repubs.

I’d be for Repubs moving left, but that is not happening. After eight years of Bush Dems should not be moving to Repubs.

I would also like to see the Clintons talk more about the prosperity in the nineties, and show how change should be from the Bushes, not Clintons, that they are not at all the same, as Obama is continually saying.

It gets hard out here for bitter garlic noses with no delusion or kool-aid opiate of the masses without sites like this for reality checks.

hmmmm, I wonder if Obama endorsed Bill in 92 and 96?

You’re saying that both Bill and Obama are incorrect in their similar assessments?

ROFLMAO

spin baby, spin.

Annie Oakley ‘08!

(Annie must be proud)